Anticorruptionnz's Blog

07/01/2011

whistleblowers in the news

Filed under: corruption — anticorruptionnz @ 11:37 am

Susan Watson and Rebecca Hirsch: Whistleblower protection could have helped investors The law has overlooked the needs of companies, write Susan Watson and Rebecca Hirsch.

Wow great that there are others who are echoing what I have been saying..  2011 is going to be a great one watch this space.

Advertisements

15/12/2010

whistleblowers in New Zealand get no protection.

Filed under: corruption — anticorruptionnz @ 10:55 am

To: ‘alex.m.tan@nz.pwc.com’
Cc: ‘s.power@ministers.govt.nz’; ‘j.collins@ministers.govt.nz’; ‘j.key@ministers.govt.nz’; ‘steve@stevehart.co.nz’; ‘cswardt@transparency.org’; ‘amcclellan@transparency.org’; ‘sricciardo@transparency.org’; ‘nmenck@transparency.org’; ‘Catriona.McDougall@ombudsmen.parliament.nz’; ‘Tony.Illot@ombudsmen.parliament.nz’; ‘d.carter@ministers.govt.nz’; ‘phil.goff@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘russel.norman@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘metiria.turei@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘pita.sharples’
Subject: whistleblowers in New Zealand get no protection thereby protecting NZ’s least corrupt status .

 

Open letter to transparency New Zealand  .. What protection do Whistle blowers get ???

Good morning Alex

You may remember me I am  a fellow member of the association   certified Fraud examiners  and  a  corruption whistleblower.

I  am writing to you  in your role of director of Transparency International.

 

I am not wishing any assistance from you with my   personal  case but wish to express to you the issues  which I have faced over the  past 4 ½ years since asking what I thought were some simple  questions of public  accountability of a  private law enforcement “ organisation”. Background to my case is on https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/ see the INDEX for  specific headings

The best form of  defence  is attack  and those seeking to  conceal the corruption attacked me in the civil jurisdiction.  I have been financially drained , they have had me in bankruptcy   my family has been torn  apart.. I am sure that you  will know the symptoms  it is classic  of what Whistle blowers endure.  We need only look at  case studies of high profile fraud cases  which   all start by attacking  and discrediting the whistleblower.

My Issue  is that   I have  over that time been unsuccessful in getting any one   in  government  to act. I have   been everywhere and all I get is  walls to knock my head up against.  I know I am not alone   I know of others who experience the same.

New Zealand cannot  keep on pretending that there is no  corruption  by simply  making it impossible for people to expose it .

By allowing corruption to be concealed we are creating a breeding ground for  corruption which  left unchecked will be uncontrollable.

I have just returned from the ACFE conference in Melbourne   and there whistleblowers were recognised as the No  1 means by which  fraud and corrupt practices were exposed. Yet in New Zealand we have no protection  for  persons  such a as my self  as I am not protected by the   protected  disclosures act.

New Zealand has signed but  not ratified the UN Convention against corruption.   Had we signed it  the convention would  provide  protection.

Could you please advise  what Transparency International ( New Zealand) is doing  in creating corruption awareness  in the government sector  and  providing  protection to persons  such as myself.

Do you have any plans to put  effective systems in place where by those who   wish to question corrupt practices  are not left on their own to be crucified by those  who can attack them using a bottomless pit of  charitable dollars and legal  expertise.

Had I been a criminal   I would have served my time by now  , instead this is my 5th Christmas where I am fighting court decisions which through the  cunning  manipulation of the  court process by those seeking to conceal their  corrupt practice  have sought to  deny me my basic   human rights of a fair hearing and a right to justice .

For your information  My matter is of gross public interest and strikes at the heart of State capture  and  public private  relationships  where by a person in public office was acting in circumstances as  defined by the UN as  using a  public office for private gain.  What makes it worse  is that this man even wrote the legislation to facilitate it.

I have no doubt is the tip of the ice berg

I look forward to your response and a way forward so that others  do not have to endure   what I am going through.

Regards

Grace Haden

13/12/2010

“Seize the state, seize the day”: state capture, corruption, and influence in transition

Filed under: corruption — anticorruptionnz @ 4:01 pm

“Seize the state, seize the day”: state capture, corruption, and influence in transition refer  source

Mr Key

I wrote to you this morning   regarding  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ )   a law enforcement authority which is  fictional in structure and  although it has legal powers  is no more than  a trading name for one man  who wrote the legislation to facilitate it.

 

Because of the lack of substance of AWINZ  there are  no binding contracts  but  despite this  those  using the name in the pretence that it exists  have  the legal ability ( and has done so ) to prosecute  citizens and keep the proceeds   section 171 animal welfare act.

 

AWINZ   came into being  when  a citizen who had drafted a business plan for  his own  business venture  , wrote  the major part of the  animal welfare act, he then  became an employee of the  select committee and  was their independent advisor, he was also advisor to MAF .

 

When the  act he had contributed to and advised on  became law he told  the minister that  an organisation existed   and applied in the name of that organisation for approved status under the act to  give himself the same rights as   the RNZSPCA   of which he had been a former director.

 

The statements in the application was false  and in 2006 there was no evidence of any organisation and an alleged trustee stated that the proposed  trustees had  not met since late 1998 .  The deed  which was supplied  had expired in 2003   and he contracts with local and central government was  signed without  the deed or any evidence of  trustees being provided.

 

Despite claims that AWINZ  no longer exists  it is still a registered charity and   has never been removed from the list of approved organisation.

 

I   have been  informed that this is  a good example of state capture  which is a form of corrupt practice.   The article    whose title  has been used  was published in 2000.

 

I again emphasise that I questioned this corrupt practice some 4 ½   years ago and have been held in the court  without right of trial   having been arbitrarily found  guilty  of defamation on the basis of my own  affidavit which was submitted   in mitigation of damages as the  act allows for.

 

I have been unsuccessful in finding any  government department  which  deals with this  aspect of corruption and therefore seek your assistance.

 

Could you please advise  to whom one makes a complaint with regards to state capture and By way of OIA please supply all documents which consider this form of corruption and methods we  have employed to combat this .

 

More information  with regards to AWINZ  can be found  on my blog site https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/

 

 

Regards

Grace Haden

 

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

From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 13 December 2010 12:42 p.m.
To: ‘j.key@ministers.govt.nz’
Cc: ‘s.power@ministers.govt.nz’; ‘j.collins@ministers.govt.nz’; ‘d.carter@ministers.govt.nz’
Subject: whistleblower protection United nations convention agaisnt corruption

 

Good afternoon  Mr Key

 

 

Some 4 ½  years ago  I asked questions   of a  private law enforcement authority   which contracted to both local and  central government .

 

The so called organisation was  run by the man who wrote  and advised on the legislation to facilitate it  he

 

1.       Applied for approved status under the act which he had written ( animal welfare ) for  an organisation which did not exist to become  an approved organisation  making it similar to the RNZSPCA

2.       Avoided sending a trust deed when Maf requested it

3.       Failed to register the  so called trust under the charitable trust act  as assured in the application and  in correspondence to the then  minster  of agriculture

4.       In 2006  when I questioned the existence of  the trust and the lack of  trust deeds on public  record   I was sued  for defamation  for calling it s sham trust.

a.       In a game of legal manoeuvring  I was prevented  from having a defence  and no  decision has ever been made that I  defamed Mr wells  and that  what I said was not the truth .  the court  has continually been misled  and I have been denied  the right to a fair hearing. ( the only hearing was for Quantum  in which  my affidavit of mitigation of damages  was used against me

5.       The trust documents which first saw light in 2006  claim that the deed was signed 1.3.2000

a.       This is some 4 months after  the  trust was claimed to be in existence ( application  22/1/99 )

b.      The deed  states that the trustees are appointed for  3 years   this means that without further proof the trust ceased to exist after 1/3/2003

i.      The  trustees claim that the trust did not meet  and there is therefore no evidence of re appointment of trustees .No evidence has been provided  or is available to show that the trust   continued to exist

6.        The author of the legislation  acting  as trustee  of the trust whose deed had now expired  signed  agreements  with   MAF and to Waitakere city through his  colleague Tom Didovich  the manager of  dog and stock control ,  who’s job he was to acquire  a year  or so later.

a.       This manager had also collected the signatures for  the deed, witnessed them and  then became  a trustee of a similarly named trust which attempted to show continuity.

I have been to every government department  which I can think of   , I have been stone walled all the way .

Had New Zealand ratified the united nations convention against corruption  I would have protection through the court , instead   all these  years of litigation  have  taken their toll on my  family , my financial resources , my health, my business , my friends .

Not only  am I not provided  with any  protection  I have been left entirely in the cold  by all government agencies which have a responsibility to ensure that corrupt practices  do not occur.

This is far worse than  John Davies, Marianne Thompson  and Stephen Wilce,  yet no  one will investigate , I have been left entirely on my own

Could you please advise  why a matter of  government  and local bodies  contracting to  fictional   bodies  through the staff members     is not seen as  fraud and corruption and why  no one investigates.

 

Regards

Grace Haden

 

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

 

 

05/10/2010

Constable Connors of Waikato Fabricates offences,receives counselling- IPCA condones this course of action.

Filed under: corruption,police — anticorruptionnz @ 10:52 am

Recently I wrote about the abuse of the *555 system Police failing to investigate filing court action without evidence.

I have now received replies from the Police and the IPCA .  the police had the good sense to admit that they were wrong  but hen went on to   counsel Constable Connors – an action which is less than a slap with a wet dish rag for  what I believe is  a serious  matter concerning the integrity of the police.

I have written an open letter to the minister of police as follows.   I attached the letters  being ,letter from Police reply from the IPCA

From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 5 October 2010 10:37 a.m.
To: ‘j.collins@ministers.govt.nz’
Cc: ‘john.key@national.org.nz’; ‘clayton.cosgrove@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘keith.locke@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘com@lawcom.govt.nz’; ‘ian@investigatemgazine.com’
Subject: Contable Connors of Waikato Fabricates offences , receives counselling – IPCA condones this course of action.

Open letter to Judith Collins.

Dear Minister

I would  like to   take this opportunity to make you aware that your officers can  tell lies  and  lay false  charges in court against people  without fear of repercussion.

Every day people  are charged and  fined  for things  which they  do unintentionally . The fines  set for these things are  sufficiently high  to  hurt  but sufficiently low to make  challenging the claims uneconomic.

Constables  with Quotas to fill have now taken this concept to a new height  and that is   the total fabrication of offences.

Last January  I received a traffic infringement for an offence which I had not committed  and  the police had no evidence for.

Being a former Police prosecutor ,I brought this  to the attention  of as many supervisors in the police  as possible each time asking for  a review and pointing out  just where their evidence was lacking.

Despite this the police chose to continue the  prosecution,  the fine was $150  and I was tempted to pay it as it was the most economical thing to do, to defend it  I would have had to have  had two trips to  Thames.. One to enter a plea of not  guilty  the other  for a defendant hearing . If it was not  for the fact that I had been a police prosecutor and knew how to  run a defendant hearing  I would have paid it  as the time for putting the case together even without the expense of a lawyer  simply is not worth  it.

I had no fear of losing my licence and  I purely defended it  because  I did not commit the offence.

The initial  not guilty   appearance was generously disposed of    and  when  I appeared in court for the defendant hearing  , I won because there was no evidence of the alleged offence.

The police have now  admitted that  they were wrong , and  say that  not only  should I not have been charged , they should have reviewed the file and withdrawn the charges.

I have taken it to the IPCA   and although this incident has cost me  a lot  there has been little or no  repercussion for the  constable  who  laid a false charge.

When there is no accountability   or repercussions we can only expect  false charges to  continue . Counselling  is hardly  deterrent and the stand taken by  the  district and the IPCA appears to  condone  the action.

The police have a duty to crime prevention   to allow their constables to commit a crime  by  bringing false charges  is in direct conflict with the police  role.

Additionally

The police code of conduct states ( available at the hyperlink)

In the introduction it states

The purpose of this Code is to establish the standards of behaviour expected of all New Zealand Police employees. New Zealand’s police service is often judged by the way its employees represent it. It is therefore necessary to maintain a high standard of personal and professional conduct. The cornerstone of this Code is that all

employees of New Zealand Police will work to the highest ethical standard

the codes include

  • Employees are committed and loyal to the vision, values and goals of New Zealand Police. They inspire trust and behave honestly, ethically  and with integrity.
  • All employees have a responsibility to act with fairness and impartiality in all dealings with their colleagues and the public, and to be seen to do so, avoiding any potential or perceived conflicts of interest.
  • All employees understand that their role is to acknowledge and respond to our diverse society and to treat all people and their property with dignity and respect.

Under the heading Misconduct

  • negligence or carelessness in the performance of duty
  • treating a person harshly

Under the heading Serious  Misconduct

  • knowingly falsifying a document or Police record/s or knowingly making a false declaration or statement, including  an incorrect record of attendance or false explanation of an absence

Why do we than have a code of ethics  which  In my opinion the constable has breached as shown in bold .

I am disappointed that the IPCA  believe that counselling a cop  who deliberately lied  and filed  fabricated  charges, is sufficient  . Laying  a false charge is a criminal offence  one which  done by a police officer is through this action ,  apparently condoned.

The integrity of the police needs to be preserved and those officers  who  mislead and deceive the courts  and the public need to be held accountable.  By allowing  constables to be  counselled for  what I believe is a serious offence  and according to the  code of conduct serious Misconduct ,   undermines the integrity of the police and makes the code of ethics a farce .

I wish to bring this to the attention of the minister, so that  action can be taken which  will enhance the integrity and accountability of the police.

I am a  anti corruption specialist  and believe that  by making people accountable for  their actions  is a step towards a less corrupt  society.

As with other letters I have sent to ministers  I expect that you will just cast this aside and I will never hear again   so I will be posting this on my   blog   https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/

I hope that for  the integrity of the police and the confidence that the  public  that action is taken   with regards to  constables who fabricate charges.  The mere fact that I have gone to the lengths that I have and nothing has been  done  just shows  how  far the police itself condones   this practice as  does the IPCA   which is totally ineffective.

I do hope that you see the seriousness of it

Regards

Grace Haden

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

23/09/2010

Stop the corporate take over – speak out

Filed under: corruption,super city,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 5:20 pm

From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 23 September 2010 12:33 p.m.
To: ‘john.key@national.org.nz’; ‘info@ata.govt.nz’; ‘rodney@epsom.org.nz’
Cc: ‘Bernard.Orsman@nzherald.co.nz’; ‘Jock Anderson’; ‘hunter.wells@tvnz.co.nz’; ‘newstips@stuff.co.nz’; ‘news@star-times.co.nz’; ‘news@newstalkzb.co.nz’; ‘news@dompost.co.nz’; ‘news@tvnz.co.nz’; ‘edward.rooney@theaucklander.co.nz’
Subject: open letter and official information act request

This is an official information act request   for the prime minister, Minister of local Government  and  for the ATA

I have just sent out the email below, it has links to spreadsheets which have been compiled from public records

The spreadsheets show the  overwhelming  conflicts of interests which the  people who have been  given position on the committees have.

By way of OIA  could you please advise

1.        By what process these persons came to hold  the positions..

a.         was it an advertised position  if so when  and where were the positions advertised

b.        Who did the interviewing

c.       Were they checked for conflicts of interest

2.       What policy has been introduced into the   new super city  for the declaration of conflicts of interest and what interests have been disclosed.

3.       What responsibility will these committees have to the elected members.

4.       What were the  criteria in selecting the members for  these committees  and  who was involved in their  selection.

The  background as sent out in an email which I hope will become viral is  below.

Please read this  and forward it to   anyone else who cares about the future of Auckland.

The super city is all about big business  taking over  our   city  and asset stripping them – I will show real evidence  that supports  this statement

What I  did  was simply  to put all the names of  those who have been selected   to go on the committees which rule  Auckland.

I  began with the article published in the Aucklander regarding the so  called the secret seven

I compiled a  list of all the companies which they  are and have been involved in committee business directorships past and present

I then looked at three of the largest   business groups   the  Business round table the executive of the  chamber of commerce ( which has held tight reigns  on their  leadership  )  see story and  those who lobbied for the super city  being the Committee for Auckland.

I   collated all the business relationships in one spread sheet and    looked for connections.

What stood out more than anything  is that   these four groups of people   are not  representative of our population.  They are  rich  influential, white   and male and they have  common memberships to these  power hubs.

In my calculations  they represent the  minority of population  and the majority of   big  business ( if not all )  .

This is the spread sheet which I have compiled from those results   shows significant over lap between people  companies  and   the “ Secret seven “ selected to control our assets.

Most significant of all is the  associations of Keenan of water care to liquor industry

If anyone was  wishing to privatise water   which industry do you think would be  knocking on the door first..  well    the already have their inside man  the evidence speaks  for itself.

These  two men appear to have the most connections  they are

MOGRIDGE, Bryan William

MASFEN, Peter Hanbury

When you click on their names you can see their company connections  click on those and you will see how they are connected  .

I have only  gone to one level of connections in my spreadsheets  but as you can see through the   connections of  GREYMOUTH GAS TARANAKI LIMITED and many other companies  similarly named , Masfen is a co director  with Robert DUNPHY   who is none other than Philippa Dunphy’s  husband    a connection which these spreadsheets  don’t illustrate.     There will no doubt be more connections   but  the  are irrelevant if no one cares.  Philippa is on the transport  committee.. handy for the uses of  gas and petroleum.

There is only one candidate warning  every one that this is about a corporate takeover That  is Penny Bright she  is  the Claytons vote  the vote you give to say  yes we agree this is a corporate takeover and we are opposed to it ……..     I gave  her my  vote

You have two choices  Vote for her    or  if you have received this email and have ignored it  accept that things will never be the same again

We can only do this   if we stand together.

If you are not male, if you are not white  or  if you do not support corporate coups  then  give Penny your vote and send a very  loud message..   we  want   the city  for the people run  by those elected by the people  not  by committees  of pre selected persons  who have conflicts of interests and hidden agendas

Please Treat this as the  vote   for  or against the super city.. if you are for the super city and can’t be bothered reading my material   vote for whoever you like

If you are against the super city and don’t like the undemocratic manner in which it has been done  or  you  have read my material and say Oh my gosh what is happening is so  wrong. Then please vote  Like I did    just the one tick on the form     Vote for Penny Bright .

I am not  part of her campaign, this has not been authorised by her  this is   my recommendation  based on real evidence  .

Please forward this email  to anyone  who is yet to vote  click on the links   have a look at the evidence  this is a  corporate take over the very people I have  mentioned  own the news papers the  only way we are going to get this out  is through  email.

This  email has been posted on  http://transparency.net.nz/2010/09/23/stop-the-corporate-take-over-speak-out/

Regards

Grace Haden

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

18/09/2010

Update AWINZ SPCA

Filed under: corruption,Neil Wells,SPCA / RNZSPCA,Tom Didovich — anticorruptionnz @ 9:54 am

Some time ago  I made an official information request to MAF see Lack of accountability of the SPCA – RNZSPCA or what ever it wants to be called this week ” these questions were based on  a letter which they sent me whis is  within the post.

MAF have repeatedly stalled    and now wish to charge well over a thousand dollars for the information.

Through my past experience with MAF I have learnt that  they have very slack  checks and balances( if any at all ) .  They  allowed a non existent organisation to become an Approved organisation.. meaning  it has law enforcement abilities  and the ability to  appoint  inspectors and auxiliary inspectors ,  these  come under the under direction of Director-General MAF.

It is therefore  strange that   MAF cannot supply a list of  who these persons are

The inspectors  appointed under  these provisions

1.       Can demand name and address of persons who they believe are offending against the act .

a.       Persons who do not comply can be sentenced to 3 months or to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to both

2.       Have  legislative protection for  their acts

3.       can Apply for search warrants

4.       can Issue infringement notices

5.       can  prosecute people and appear in court themselves and the “ organisation can  keep the  funds .

6.       Sell  animals which have been seized  and apply the proceeds to the cost of prosecution, and   expenses incurred in caring for that animal before the sale;

7.       Have powers with regards to Powers in relation to injured or sick animals

Approved organisations   have obligations set out by statute

The animal welfare institute of New Zealand still is such an approved Organisation .

The man  who  calls himself the CEO   Neil Wells also wrote and advise on  the legislation  which  give the above powers. This was  legislation was written by him  subsequent to   his business plan   for integration of   animal welfare officers with  council  duties of dog and stock  control   see the document and  how to write legislation for your own business plan

At the  end of 2009  those who claim to be the current trustees of AWINZ asked to relinquish their  approved status, despite this  the   dog and stock control officers in Waitakere city have continued to  hold warrants.

The whole AWINZ thing has been a non sense

1.       In November 1999 Neil Wells applied to the minister for approved status stating  that the  organisation existed

2.       He made a number of claims that    documents would be forwarded but never did

3.       In 2006  I questioned why the organisation  did not exist  on any register.. for this I have been sued for the past  four years.

4.       A trust deed was supplied  in 2006  no  further evidence of the trusts existence has  ever been produced. We can only speculate as to the   truthfulness of this document, it certainly  was never seen before 2006  by the official bodies which should have held a copy on file.

5.       If you read the deed  point  7 a term of  office   you will note that it states that the term of appointment is 3 years. This means that by  1.3.2003  there were no trustees.

6.       Maf entered into an agreement with AWINZ  giving no further definition of what AWINZ was on 4 December 2003 .  what is the validity of this agreement   when the” trustee “  Neil Wells  without any further evidence is deemed to have stopped being a trustee   8 months earlier   .

a.       There is also no evidence that   any of the other so called trustees continued  and  if there were others who these persons  are.

b.      For all intents and purposes MAF signed and agreement for law enforcement with one person who   was trading with a name  which sounded impressive.

7.       In 2006  three people  (  note the trust deed states there will be no less than four trustees )  purporting to  be the trustees but  not having any evidence that they were  took me to court –  Wyn Hoadley barrister , Neil Wells  Barrister and Graeme Coutts JP.

8.       In December of that year these three people sign a deed with Tom Didovich the previous manager animal welfare who had made representation on behalf of two councils to MAF.

9.       These are the people  who according to MAF have now asked  for the approved status to be relinquished .. but apart from sharing the same trading name    are they the same as the approved organisation?   And what accountability has there been??

RNZSPCA

Because of  the overlap with the RNZSPCA   and  involvement with Neil Wells   with the Waikato SPCA trust I asked questions  of the RNZSPCA and the SPCA   which  still appear to be  operating under the transitional   part of the act  and   appear to be taking on approved organisations through the back door.

I have also been approached by many of the older inspectors   who are being pushed  out of the job , I have given my time freely and willingly  but it appears that  Maf  sees me as a bit of a villain    mainly because their incompetence has cost me so much.

They now refuse to give me the time of day     so that they can cover up their  incompetence.

I am certain that the docuemtns I have asked for a refused because they simply don’t exist. Maf does not   do its work  and is thereby allowing corruption in the  animal welfare sector to flourish.

Openness and transparency is  supposed to be  part of our democratic system   what is transparent about a system where by  people are charged  huge sums of money  for information  relating to accountability issues in the private law  enforcement sector.

08/09/2010

Pacific flight catering blog

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

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

Subject: Pacific flight catering blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The news paper stories   which explain it all  are located here

Charges over alleged fake liquidator
Saturday, July 12, 2008

Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt

Sunday, May 30, 2010

And my other  blog  is Using the court to conceal corruption

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

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

visit the Pacific flight catering blog

Regards

Grace Haden

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

02/09/2010

Can audit NZ turn a blind eye to fraud ? if so are they condoning private use of council facilities?

Filed under: corruption — anticorruptionnz @ 1:11 pm

Mr Key

Four years ago  I  rightfully  questioned a situation in Waitakere city where by a public servant was contracting to himself. As a result I was sued to keep  me  quite .

Just recently I  questioned the  definition of fraud  used by the audit office I was advised that  this definition was Fraud – an intentional act by one or more individuals among management, those charged with governance, employees, or third parties, involving the use of deception to obtain an unjust or illegal advantage.emails audit NZ

I have a situation which involves  exactly that   yet when I raised questions about  this matter with  the local body concerned I was sued by the  council manager   who used the charitable funds of the  no existent entity  which contracted to the local body  to silence me. This appears to have been  a very effective move  because   the office of the auditor General has  told  me they would not  touch it because I have been sued.

It appears to me  that New Zealand is a breeding ground for fraud   because  no one can safely question it and the audit services which should  protect us from this misuse of public funds and  resources  do nothing to stop it.

The ombudsmen are likewise useless and every  so called   public watch dog we have turns a blind eye.

It appears that  audit NZ and the office of the auditor general can be selective about  what they audit  and can turn  a blind eye to what is clearly fraud by their own definition.  When  those charged with public duty fail  to  perform the propensity for   fraud will only increase  please    look at this clip of a congressman   reprimanding  government servants  for their inaptitude.  New Zealand is no different.

I find it ironic  that on the audit  NZ web site it  is stated “It’s our job to help public sector organisations have better financial and non-financial management.” And

Independent audits play an essential role in the stewardship of public resources and corporate governance of public services. I agree so why is there no independent audit of the   contract which Waitakere city  has with AWINZ for the provision of animal welfare services.   This contract  is controlled by the  by the manager animal welfare is to  himself as CEO of an organisation which had no proof of existence beyond a trading name for himself .  mou waitakere.pdf and has never  been sanctioned by full council

On a further page  there is the  claim Our core strengths are in providing assurance over contract management, tendering and procurement processes, project management, and asset management planning. We have a depth of experience and capability in these areas. Why could contracts  with local and central  government   ( MAF)  be granted in  circumstances which lack  transparency and integrity   and why is audit NZ  not  interested in  investigating  even  to ensure that these  tactics are not  used again in   the  future. mou MAF.pdf,

On a further page it states Following good practice will help to ensure that your contracting is successful and that your organisation’s integrity is maintained. I have to question what good practice is  when   there is no verification in a process  to ensure that he contracting party exists and is not a council l officer acting in a different guise.  And   what is good practice when a  manger of a council  division  can write  for an on behalf of two councils  offering the  voluntary use of the staff they supervise  to outside  organisation  during their paid employment. didovich to maf north shore.pdf didovich to maf waitak.pdf 5  jan 2000.pdf

And  an another  web page there is a statement  You want your asset management planning to allow your assets to be managed effectively and efficiently in support of your key services. Audit NZ and the auditor general therefore condone   the  existence and operation  of a third party  organisation on the premises of council   using plant, equipment,  resources and vehicles   to further their  own business goals   .   So where are our standards?     See 8 may 2000  wells.pdf

By turning a blind eye to  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand  fiasco   are we condoning   this type of fraud? And condoning  the use of  public resources for private  pecuniary gain?

Is the office  of   the auditor general  and  audit NZ are proving that they  are negligent and do not  do the work which they are supposed to do. Who will audit the  auditors?

And Why don’t we verify   anything    we are so trusting  or is that ignorant?  New Zealand is  on its way to be the most corrupt country in the world  we have a very good strategy  to keep us  up there in the least corrupt stakes  by  denial   and  the placement of many brick walls  which are intent to make   those who question give up.

A copy of this letter is on https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/

Regards

Grace Haden

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

https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/

27/08/2010

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 http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/fraud_act/#a05

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.

Regards

Grace Haden

Phone (09) 520 1815

mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at  www.verisure.co.nz

08/08/2010

Read the emails that may take down the chief justice

Filed under: corruption,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 5:26 am

The NBR have released the emails which  show  what really goes on in the back ground  of New Zealand’s judiciary .

The NBR article  revealed that top commercial lawyer Jim Farmer QC and retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Ted Thomas were in regular contact during an appeal of a decision Justice Wilson was part of.

I have posted a reply as follows  “For too long NZ had hidden behind the facade of being the  least corrupt    I  Like Vince am a victim of  a justice system which   does not require truth or  evidence   and  happily denies  those  exposing corruption  the right to a defence.

The corrupt with connections to the old boys club  can  mislead the court and no matter  how much evidence you have there will never be enough to prove  perjury  .

You need only look at the data which  I have obtained by OIA and posted on my web site  under the  same title as this NBR  article, to see that we are soft of  truth.

White collar criminals are actively using the court to conceal corruption, last week a woman was convicted  and fined $18,000 for  fraudulently running a business.   Her false claims against me   cost much more to defend . Her associate a business partner of a Director of the chamber  of commerce  financed the proceedings  , he has skipped the county  avoiding 22 charges of  fabricating evidence which have been brought  by the MED.

I found it impossible to complain about the lawyers who   facilitated the court action and who were criticised by  judges on several occasions.  The law society is actively protecting them and refuses to investigate.

For any one  , especially those  well connected to the old boys network  it is  worth  while suing the person who could expose you   and that will give you  many years   to cover up .

When there is no accountability to the truth   there  is no justice

Our Government by refusing to ratify the  UN  convention against corruption is unwittingly condoning corruption  . Hope fully this will become an election issue.

Grace Haden

Transparency New Zealand

https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com”

It will no doubt be removed  which is what  appears to happen to  my posts of late  which can only suggest that the NBR has given little thought to corruption.

The data which I refer to is perjury data

From my calculation   and leaving out the figures on obstructing justice   there is one prosecution  every four days   for telling lies.

According to statistics NZ there are currently 4,371,442 people in New Zealand   which means that  your chance of being prosecuted for  lies  is   only  1 in 17,485,768.

Compare this to  your chance of winning lotto as being 1 in 3,838,380 see source

Hope that puts it into perspective.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.