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

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???

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.

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.

08/10/2010

What skeletons will be found in the closets when the cities amalgamate?

Filed under: Neil Wells,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 9:54 am

Bob Harvey  has  said his farewells   and acknowledges those special helpers    in a list which includes  his colleague  Neil Wells  who he shares history with right back  to advertising days.see  mayoral acknowledgement to neil wells and welcome to wells

The meeting was also attended by  a colleague of mine   who has reported  the  massive film industry losses  on his blog    http://accountabilitynz.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/film-studios-%E2%80%93-further-losses/

What will come out of the wood work when the cities close their doors?

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.

07/05/2010

Using the court to conceal corruption

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

02/05/2010

Select committee and press appear to be in the dark about the reality of animal welfare

Filed under: corruption,Neil Wells,SPCA / RNZSPCA,transparency,waitakere city council — anticorruptionnz @ 3:37 am

The first indication I had that the select committee had finished its report was the article in the Sunday star times by Sarah Harvey

Alarm bells rang when I noted the bit  where it said  “there are currently just five fulltime Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) inspectors.” this may be so  but  there are a lot more than 5 inspectors .

The act specifically  refers to inspectors as being  appointed under section 124(1) or section 124(2); and includes every constable

Section 122 (2) provides for approved organisations  and as  such the RNZSPCA  and AWINZ are approved Organisations  and can,  and do recommend  persons for appointment as inspectors.

The RNZSPCA  has under its umbrella , its  various branches  and  the SPCA and it appears  anything  which has the letters SPCA in the name  can  have inspectors  approved  through  the RNZSPCA .

AWINZ  itself has  about 10 inspectors   but the catch there is  that AWINZ does not legally exist –  it is but a name  which an ever changing  combination  of persons  have used, some have had a trust deed  others have not,  but it has never stopped any one from claiming to be AWINZ- or pretending that it is  a legal person in its own right !.. I advise you not to ask about it –  I asked   in 2006   why AWINZ didn’t exist and they  have  sued   me  ever since   using over $100,000    charitable  funds.. so  don’t tell me there is no money for  animal prosecutions..   They could sue me ,financially cripple me ,destroyed my family   for  a simple question of accountability… so much for  concern about animals  they have no concern about humans- they have treated me most inhumanely .

The Police too  are inspectors under the act  but I was with a friend a week or so ago  when   the police were  still investigating a brutal sexual assault on  children then aged 14 and 15-years-old   by a known offender- their father . We were advised that the matter would be   another 6 months away before charges were laid  and court  in the event of a Not guilty  would be  a further three years.  the 15 year old  will be 21  then   lets  keep the wound raw!!! –Animals can be put down.. these kids  have to live with their abuse and justice for them is not swift either .. they are walking away from it as it is simply not right to  have this linger for that obscene period of time.

And while I sympathise with  the  costs of prosecutions little has been said  about the ability   for the prosecuting  “ approved organisation”  to recover  costs   section 171  of the act  allows  for this. I  know that is done because I have details of an AWINZ prosecution    incredibly  it received  reparation for vet services  which  Waitakere city  council paid out for. .. yes I have the evidence.

Neither is the RNZSPCA  short of funds ,I have  taken time to see  what assets   the RNZSPCA, its branches and its member societies hold , it is substantial , there is no reason that   some of  the “ investments ‘ can’t be used as  a  prosecution pool  which is repaid and replenished  after prosecutions.

But  there are stranger things afoot  as in the  in the  case of  the Waikato branch of the RNZSPCA   where some $400,000 have been  siphoned off  through use of trusts , name changes  and transferred to another entity   which is now going to use it  for a building project using another bullshit name for another  secret trust –   again the same of the  players of AWINZ are involved.

In looking  closer at the submissions which  had been placed before the select committee and the advice which it was given   ( these can be  located  on this page  at the parliament web site follow the links ·  View all advice ·  View all evidence (including submissions) to  obtain the individual  documents.) I   feel that the  committee  considering the legislation  appears to kept in the dark  and  I can see why  my  submission had to be  removed.

My  submission would have brought too many questions out    and  issues which have now conveniently been   circumvented. E.g.  Questions raised are answered but  not  completely. ( I have had 4 years of this  from MAF  and Waitakere city )  There is no indication given at all that   AWINZ and the RNZSPCA  have undertaken prosecutions and the number of inspectors that each  have, these I believe are material  facts .

I wonder too if  the select committee had the advantage of an  independent advisor  like they had last time? See article How to write legislation for your own business plan

Mr Anderton is  aware of AWINZ ,  he was minister  when I questioned their  existence  and the lack of  accountability , he appears to have  condoned it , even after  I pointed out that   MAF  did not have a trust deed on file  and there was no evidence  of any one other than Mr Wells ( the witer of the  original legislation ) having consented to becoming an “ approved Organisation”

Of further concern is the structure of the RNZSPCA and SPCA.  While it is true that the RNZSPCA  has a MOU with MAF ( as did AWINZ )  the RNZSPCA  has a number of  branches and  member societies  , the  agreements  between these  bodies are not of public record  and it appears  from the recent example that the back door to appointment of  Inspectors is wide open.

Bearing in mind that these people   enforce the law and have powers of search and seizure   the  chain of  command  is very loose indeed.

I still maintain  that before  we look at   greater  penalties  we have to look at  our ability and quality of  enforcement  while keeping it consistent  with the  penalties  , rights and abilities to have  matters pertaining to cruelty to Humans   dealt with , we cannot even contemplate doing that  when the wheels within the  animal welfare are so buckled.

25/04/2010

Animal Welfare Prosecutions – all $$$ no accountability

There are moves afoot to Privatise Dog and stock control which has been the role of  councils.

Auckland city already  contracts dog control  out to animal control services and many dog owners  have experienced the diligence  with which this private enterprise enforces the  legislation.. there Is no secret in this as to   why.. it is because it is lucrative.

Imagine then  if  this service is extended to  give the dog control officer  powers  such as  the SPCA inspectors have, the dog control officer is suddenly not limited

  • To Dogs
  • Public places
  • Offences relating to   dog control

The extension of their powers would mean that

  • There is enforcement of strict liability offences.. You own the cat they claim it is suffering.. Therefore you are guilty.
    • Yes   you can try to defend it  but the  $150  fine will need to be weighed up against the $350 per hour which you’re your lawyer will cost you .
  • Any prosecution undertaken  will result in the  fines  returned to  the complaint  “approved organisation  “Section 171 Animal welfare act- this has to be easier than competing with other charities.

So who are the approved Organisations.

The RNZSPCA by virtue of section  189   is an approved organisation , under its umbrella  come the various branches of the RNZSPCA and the  various SPCA societies which are members.

When an  SPCA member society  or RNZSPCA Branch  recommends a person to the  RNZSPCA be appointed as an Inspector  and that person is appointed  then that  member society  or  branch also becomes an approved Organisation   section 190 .

There is one other approved organisation   this  is  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand  (AWINZ)  It resulted  from a Pilot programme  which a previous RNZSPCA director set up  in Waitakere city,  AWINZ   unlike the RNZSPCA  societies and trusts  is not a legal  person  and is nothing but a trading name to facilitate a concept  which    was documented in 1996  territorial animal welfare authority , effectively  it is a fiction to  which the central and local government have contracted without  checking to see if  it did exist.

At that time of writing the above document  Mr Wells   was located  at No 1 Rankin avenue, the same building as the RNZSPCA.

Mr Coutts   a recruitment manager was also in the same building , he was later to become a “trustee” of AWINZ    and when the RNZSPCA shifted  he also relocated   and  remains today in adjoining offices in Great north road

AWINZ “ contracted” to  Waitakere city  through the manager of animal welfare   Tom Didovich , who  collected  and witnessed the signatures on the trust deed  for AWINZ

Mr Didovich is now national education and branch support manager for the RNZSPCA .

Only one other  organisation  has  ever applied to become an “ approved “ organisation   this was the INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR THE PROTECTION OF HORSES (NEW ZEALAND) INCORPORATED . It applied  to become an approved organisation through MAF and failed     but  has over come the issue  by  changing its name to SPCA AUCKLAND HORSE WELFARE AUXILIARY INCORPORATED    , it is now  under the umbrella of the RNZSPCA    and has   an inspector making it an approved organisation by virtue of section 190  of the act.

And so it appears that  there will be  limitless  possibilities  for   non existent organisations  “ such as AWINZ”   and  for  any organisation   who will change its name and ( possibly for a fee or return on earnings ) to come under the umbrella  of the RNZSPCA   and start enforcing animal welfare.

I suspect that It will not be the serious  stuff which will be enforced , but they will  approach the broken windows  concept  with the pretence that   making people aware of the rights of animals .. its been done before.. speed cameras traffic wardens , swimming pool charges.

It is already happening over seas  http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/Pensioner-banned-from-keeping-pets.6187161.jp

It will  not about  helping animals  it will be about $$$$$$

But worst of all   there is no accountability for animal welfare Inspectors, there is no register , they are not accountable to a tribunal  and there is no  clear cut   complaints  procedure which holds them accountable.

So the scenario will be  that the more they  bring in by way of prosecution  the more the society they represent will earn, the higher their wages will be..

Mr Wells    promoted the AWINZ concept using a  flyer http://www.verisure.co.nz/profit%20in%20animals.pdf there is profit in animals… He wrote the animal welfare act  , to facilitate this concept  he was  independent legal adviser to the select committee  and  adviser to MAF  during the time the  legislation was being considered.

To privatise Dog and stock control  without reviewing the animal welfare act would be extremely dangerous.

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.