Anticorruptionnz's Blog

08/04/2010

How to write legislation for your own business plan

Filed under: Neil Wells,SPCA / RNZSPCA,Tom Didovich,Waikato RNZSPCA,waitakere city council — anticorruptionnz @ 2:44 am

I have recently become  aware of the word Kaisen  , it means to   bring about change  gradually, a bit  like boiling a frog,  you start heating the water slowly and  he doesn’t realise  he is done for until it is too late.

And so it is with the animal welfare legislation. To illustrate this I will focus on one person Mr Neil Wells .  A short chronology according to his own   CV .

It shows Mr Wells as being a key player in the RNZSPCA joining in 1971  , becoming president of the  Royal Federation of NZRNZSPCA in 1976  .

It is believed by  some that  he became a barrister in animal welfare law because the RNZSPCA paid for his degree, I have not been able to confirm this either  way.

In 1984 he was a founding member   of a “National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee” and “Animal Welfare Advisory Committee”   the status of these bodies   is unknown to me but it would appear that they lobbied   for an animal Welfare advisory Committee to be set up by Government . This occurred in  1989 when Colin Moyle acceded to the submission of lobby groups.

I believe Mr Wells to have been part of the animal advisory committee due to the acknowledgment by Mr Falloon in a discussion paper “A review of the animal protection act 1960” as being a contributor.

Neil Wells had  already  set up a pilot program in Waitakere with his mate  Bob Harvey ( Bob and Neil worked in advertising and  had been responsible for  getting the   Kirk labour  government  into power ) .

Tom Didovich was the manager of the Waitakere  council dog pound  which  during the  early association with Wells changed its name to Waitakere Animal Welfare  .

In 1996 Wells shares his vision for  a territorial animal welfare service with Didovich , there is no doubt  in my mind that this is a business plan for Wells own venture one which needed legislation   to facilitate it.

As luck would have it the Lobby groups ( many of which include Mr Wells in some capacity )  push for a new animal welfare Act and Neil Wells volunteers to write it. This will become the No 1 Bill or the other wise known as the Hodgson bill .

Concurrently Wells  sets up a training program to  train dog and stock control officers, his fees  to train the dog and stock control officers   are $2500 + GST and there are  fees of $1250 + GST p.a. per council .

He takes the training program to Unitec   and  works with them and NZQA  to  facilitate a course  in anticipation of his plan going nation wide.  He was actively   approaching councils for interest at this time.

I firmly believe that  due to this  he had a vested  interest in the legislation he was writing and  consulting on

It was going to provide him with an income stream for   his territorial animal welfare service and the  lecturing at Unitec  and through the prosecution of animal welfare offences.

A significant  change in the new act  is that  offences now became strict liability offences,  that is  no intent needs to be shown , the offence is complete if you are the owner of an animal found to be suffering.

But  most significant  part  is  section 171 of the animal welfare act  is that  the   fines could be paid to the organisation  brining the prosecution.

Every thing   you would ever need for your own business   all in the legislation which you have  helped write.

The legislation  was passed when a second bill was considered with the no 1 bill

But when a second was bill was introduced    and the primary production  committee  took 39 hours and 22  minutes to consider both the bills after  hearing 15 hours and 22 minutes of  submissions.

Fortunately they had assistance and I quote form the animal welfare legislation booklet which Mr. Wells himself wrote   –  the committee recorded  “ we Received advice from the ministry of Agriculture and forestry ( MAF ) we also employed Neil Wells as an Independent specialist adviser who assisted our consideration. Neil Wells , a barrister who specialises in animal welfare legislation , had earlier been involved in the draft Hodgson bill

Of note again was that   Mr Wells was a legal adviser to MAF during this time and it appears to me that he had more than one finger in the pie . I cannot find anything  anywhere where he declared his conflict of interest to the  Primary production committee  although I did  find a reference  that Mr. Wells   told MAF that he had verbally told some one  of the conflict, I have been unable to prove or disprove this.

And so the  act   became law  an act which gave  inspectors wide sweeping powers, , the ability to become a private prosecution  authority with  little or no accountability  and  to keep all funds arising out of their action.

The select committee is currently looking at increasing the penalties for offences under the animal welfare Act .

In an interesting twist  Tom Didovich  who worked with  Mr Wells so closely with in  setting up the integration of dog and stock control with  SPCA  duties, is now well placed in the RNZSPCA  ready to  turn the  RNZSPCA into a  prosecution authority instead of the  helpful   and service it once was.

Didovich is also a “ trustee” of a trust named the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand which bears the  same name as an approved organisation which gained “ approved status from the labour cabinet after  the  president of  the labour party at that time, Bob Harvey  was consulted. The fact that there was no evidence of the  of an organisation by the name of  the animal welfare institute  existing  was  apparently not important … Untill I asked  and then I was sued.

See diagram of the  interactions

Advertisements

06/04/2010

The name game .. Identity fraud , Identity theft or confusion for an ulterior purpose

There appears to be  much confusion as to what exactly identity fraud is , there  appears to be a general expectation that  the identity of one person is used by another  and that there is a theft of  information.

There was a great article published  by Tony Wall which  shows  just how  identities can change   , he showed what confusion went with this, But as Suzanne Paul ( and that is not  her real name either  ) But wait there is more …

I  am of the opinion that when you use  a name which is not your real name  , specifically for a purpose of obtaining an advantage  ( pecuniary or otherwise )  then   that is identity fraud. The are others who use another name   for various innocent  reasons and get to be known  by it Suzanne  being a case in point. (   I bet that if she gets  loan she does so in her real name)

Whilst there  is  no doubt that identity theft  happens  it is  actually a lesser  issue than  being a victim of  Identity fraud   where by  you  trade or inter act with some one  who used a name other than their own  for the purpose of obtaining a benefit.

An identity does not have to be stolen from  some one   in order to be used.  It can simply be created   and  it is often a credible sounding name  which makes  people believe that  such a person or organisation truly exists.

Take AWINZ for example Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand   is but a fictional  name used to portray  the existence   of a united body of persons, but  who or what is the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand ?( sounds  like WINZ   a government department  even uses a logo nearly identical to that  on  the council buildings ) see here and here

  1. It was used to  provide the false end title which was given to the lord of the rings , that no animals were hurt in the making of the movie . See also the letter which the

AHA wrote

  1. to Neil Wells
  2. It was  the name Neil Wells  proposed to council for the provision of SPCA type services to the council at the end of 1998 when a draft deed was drawn up
  3. It was  the name on the notice of intent  in August 1999
  4. It was the name in which an application for  funding in October 1999 and money  was obtained .
  5. It was  the name in which a  formal application to the minster was made in November 1999 by virtue of section 121 Animal welfare Act for  Animal welfare institute of New Zealand to  obtain “ approved status “  which brings with it  wide sweeping law enforcement ability.

It should be noted that the act says that he application has to be  made in the name off the applicant. You just have to wonder how something which does not exist can be an applicant.

In 2006  when   no  identity could be found for  AWINZ  (and therefore  no accountability) we set up   our own AWINZ his one was legal because it was registered  under the charitable trust act  1957  which confers Body corporate status   and make  the name that of a legal person   it was explained to Neil Wells By  The Ministry of economic developments .

It was following  this that a trust deed was provided a deed this showed Nuala Grave , Sarah Giltrap, Graeme Coutts and Neil Wells to be the trustees  calling themselves AWINZ

We were then told we would be sued   but it was not those people who  sued  ,it was Wyn Hoadley  Graeme Coutts and Neil Wells  who now claimed to  AWINZ but had no proof that they were.

Later  Tom Didovich   the man  who had originally  obtained the  witnessed the  signature on the original   deed signed a deed with  Hoadley , Coutts and Wells  in December 2006 , this  trust then  claimed to be the same as the previous trust .

By now  you should   be suitably confused  and hopefully see  that  identity in New Zealand is  a complicated issue.

Banks  are starting to get it   ,but slowly. I actually found a bank account in the name of Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand  at the national bank , it had no trust deed,  was not a trading name    and  held  public funds. Only Neil Wells had access to this account , in my  mind that    proves to me  at least that AWINZ was at all times a trading name for Neil Wells.

Our Identification practices are less than slack , our accountability to the truth is non existent  But New Zealand  is not  corrupt…Perhaps  its because we cannot identify those who are corrupt  because they are hiding behind some name which  can be any one at any time .

You may sa  why blog about it  why not take it to the police  or   some where.. well I have  I have tried for  4 years to get accountability  but  this seems so well entrenched that it is being protected at the highest level .

If I have been sued  for Questioning this  who  else  is  suffering the same? I am sure I m not alone

We need more transparency and accountability .

03/04/2010

Open letter Official information act request and privacy act request Minister of local Government.

Open letter      Official information act request  and privacy act request Minister of local Government.

This week I was told that I could not meet with you with regards to the issues relating Waitakere city council  ,I was told that this would be a conflict of interest with your port folio  and it was suggested to me that I should speak to some  other MP’s out west  even though you are also my   local MP.

The circumstances are that Waitakere city council is allowing their dog and stock control officers  to volunteer their   services  ( council  paid time ) to  an “organisation”  which I believe  does not have any legal standing.

Circumstances

In 1999 , Neil Wells, who is now the manager of the dog pound at WAITAKERE council   , made an application to the minister of agriculture for  a trust (which he claimed existed   , but in reality had no signed deed  )  , to become an approved organisation under the animal welfare act , an act which he himself  had  had significant in put in.  ( he wrote the bill ,  was independent  advisor to  the select committee and legal advisor to MAF )

The “ trust “ for want of a better word was   given approved status, but none of the trustees  had any  legal accountability  because  only one person ( WELLS)  without any verifiable evidence of his ability to act for and on behalf of  the others,  made the application in their names.

And so it was that  the animal welfare Institute, a trading name  purportedly for  Neil Wells, Nuala Grove, Sarah Giltrap and  Graeme Coutts  became an approved organisation  without    checking to see if the  latter three had any idea of the responsibility they were taking on or even consenting to it.

In 2006 I asked who or what AWINZ was, I was promptly sued   to  stop me from asking   revealing  questions.  But it did flush out a trust deed  in fact it  flushed out two  despite   Mr wells claiming in 2000  that here was only one copy and this had been sent to the  registrar for  the purpose of registering the trust  under the charitable trust act  1957  ( this  obviously never happened ) I  do wonder how the original trust deed came to be returned  when the registrar had no record of having received it( only certified copies are sent   usually )

When the   deed surfaced in 2006 Two Trustees allegedly resigned , again this was all hearsay and no  documentary evidence .

A new trustee came on board   again   no  documentation and no signed deed , this alleged trustee was   Wyn Hoadley.

Imagine trying to collect a debt from AWINZ  , who would pay you?  Who would be accountable?

I can assure you that if it was a debt you were collecting  you would  not have  been able to hold any one accountable  except perhaps Mr Wells  who  was the only real person identified in the transaction.

Incredibly then   Three people  who were not the same people as those who were give approved status then sued me ,  to do this  they used the charitable funds  which were raised  amongst other means   by using  council logos and sending solicitation letters  out with dog registration  papers.

Together  with  former manager of animal welfare Waitakere city ( who witnessed the original  trustees signatures)  joined those who were suing me   and  in December 2006 these people formed a trust  which they also named Animal welfare institute of New Zealand.

But these people  using the same trading name  were not the same   “ trust “ as the people  who had  obtained approved status.

Think of it these terms  , if these people had bought a  house ,  the name  which would have been on the  title  would  have been those of the trustees.  Each trustee would have had to have signed the real estate papers and  the transfer papers.

The  trustees who resigned  would have had to have had their names removed from the title  and  any new ones entered onto the title before they could  lay claim to being a trustee holding interesting that property.

I wish to make it clear that we are not talking about a family trust we are dealing with a  law enforcement agency  capable of  seizing peoples pets and prosecuting people   for what in extreme circumstances could  be their inability to afford vet fees.. a law enforcement  agency  which assured the minister that  it  would have accountability to the  public  by virtue  of  its registration  as a legal person by virtue of the charitable trust act.   ( this process takes  a mater of d ay  yet AWINZ claimed to be in the process  from August 1999  to March2000  and by 2006  was still not registered, Mr wells did manage to  register at leats  four other trusts in that same period )

What is more the legislation which was written   by  Mr Wells  was written   with intent to facilitate his  own business venture and   provides  for  “ approved “ organisations  to  receive the   fines  back into their own coffers ( section 171 Animal welfare act).

The inspectors  are not subject to the   vigorous regulations which e.g. private Investigators  who have no  law  enforcement powers at all  are subjected to and  given the fact that the “ organisation “ to which they are accountable  does not  in reality exist  there can  be no accountability at all.

The whole concept of   approved organisations comes from Mr wells a former RNZSCA director, I   have been told that the RNZSPCA paid for his law degree.  He and Mr. Didovich established the  scheme in Waitakere, Mr Didovich is not  well established in the hierarchy  of the RNZSPCA

Official information request  Minister of local Government.

  1. Your office  has advised me that a  public discussion paper is going to be published in February next year. I have been told by SPCA officers that  Dog and stock control is to be privatised ,  Please advise  If this paper  is with regards to the privatisation of  dog and stock control currently undertaken by councils.
  1. As it is obvious that something is contemplated and that  those in the animal  welfare sector are aware of  what  is in the pipe line   could you please advise  if there is a policy which   allows  certain people to become aware of impending  changes  before public consultation has even begun.( and is still so distant )
  1. Please also advise if it is appropriate that some  sectors of the community are for warned about  such policy changes.
  1. The Waikato animal welfare foundation , which  I believe has close connections with  the Waikato SPCA trust  which Mr  Wells  was a foundation  trustee of (  taking  charge of $400,000  of the RNZSPCA’s money)  has  announced  developments  at WINTEC.  Please advise if  you have been communicating with Wintec or any one involved with this foundation  with regards to the facilitation of training for the council  staff   and  others  to  be trained to replace the council  dog  and stock control officers.
  1. I would  like to mention here that UNITEC  tendered for and won the contract  at the time that the animal welfare Act became law, it was no surprise that Mr Wells who had written the act was also lecturing at Unitec and had written the course to   go hand in hand with the act.  Many would say that this is using inside information and it  appears to me that history is about to repeat.
  1. If you believe that it is a conflict of interest to   speak to me  with regards to lack of accountability of the animal welfare  institute of New Zealand   ,its involvement in Waitakere  city and use of the  public funds obtained through council connections, do you then  condone  such practice  or is  it simply that you do  not wish to   be formally aware of the situation  because that would throw a spanner in the works  for privatisation  which I am aware Act supports.
  1. I  wish to draw your attention to  the fact that you were helping me with this mater before  you became  a minister, you disapproved of the  practice then,   has your status as minister made this practice acceptable? Why do you  seemingly condone this action now  when  previously  you were pro active about exposing   this conflict of interest?
  1. Please provide  copies of all documents, correspondence , notes and  jottings  with regards  to and from  any  approved organisation, to and from  Maf , SPCA, RNZSPCA, AWINZ,  training   establishments such as Wintec, Unitec and the Waikato animal welfare foundation   with regards to
    1. Privatising  dog and or stock control
    2. Amalgamating council   dog and stock control with  animal welfare.
    3. Reviewing animal welfare  services
    4. Reviewing dog and stock control services.
  1. What cost benefit analysis  have been undertaken  and what conflict of interest precautions do you  have in mind.

Further   as per the provisions of the Privacy act    I would  like you to supply all correspondence which  the  minister of local government  and  his department  holds which pertains to me personally  and to my company Verisure Investigations Limited.

And I was  also wondering if you could please provide me with some inside information too so that I can set up a business venture based on   information which is not yet in the public realm so that I can be ahead of others   in the tender process.. I do believe that this is an equal opportunity country  if it  good enough for some   to be in the know  then it must be good enough for all .

I will be posting this letter and   the reply on my Blog   at https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/, I hope you can treat this reply with urgency so as not to keep the readers, which will include all SPCA’s and local bodies ,in suspense.

Regards

Grace Haden

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

31/03/2010

official information act request Office of the auditor general

Filed under: corruption,Neil Wells,transparency,waitakere city council — anticorruptionnz @ 3:50 am

Sir

I make this Official information act request   with regards to   those who are involved in   the production of our legislation.  I will illustrate my request with a real example   to substantiate the fact that this is not a hypothetical matter and is very real.

The circumstances

In 1996 a former RNZSPCA director  drew up a concept  to integrate the  statutory provisions of  local bodies, being dog and stock control , with   animal welfare services traditionally provided  by the RNZSPCA. He had already initiated this concept though a pilot programme with Waitakere city council and wished to take the service he called Territorial Authority Animal Welfare Services nation wide.

The document   locatable at the hyperlink above shows that this was clearly a commercial venture.

In the years which followed Neil Wells volunteered to write the no 1 bill for the animal welfare act this was reported in a parliamentary release The next Animal Welfare Act – Pete Hodgson Speech29-06-2001 .

The bill went before the select committee and Neil Wells was employed  as an independent consultant to the select committee.

At this time he was also a  Legal consultant to MAF in relation to the development of the animal welfare act and at the same time was communicating with them with regards to his own personal ambitions .

When the act was finalised and   about to become law Neil Wells applied   for AWINZ ( animal welfare Institute of New Zealand ) to become an approved Organisation under the act he had  been  so heavily involved in.

AWINZ eventually became an approved organisation under the act despite the fact that   it had never been incorporated under  the  charitable trust act  nor  had a trust deed  been sighted  .

In 2006 I had cause to question AWINZ   and it was only then that a trust deed   , which could very easily have been   retrospectively signed, materialised. This was dated 1.3.2000 proving conclusively that the statement in the application to the minister, being that a trust deed existed on 22 11.99 was false.

The reaction for questioning the accountability of the  organisation was over the top  and I was sued by three people who claimed to  be  AWINZ but were not supported by a trust deed and were not the same group of persons who had signed the deed.

This group of persons  then represented themselves to be the  approved organisation and  later were joined by  another  , they subsequently signed a trust deed  and pretended to be  to be the same trust as the first .

I have recently made submissions to the select committee   with regards to   increased penalties  in animal welfare.

In that submission I made reference to the  reality that animal welfare  Inspectors

  1. Do not appear on a publicly available register
  2. Unlike   many other professional persons who  do not have  law enforcement  ability  they  do not have to  apply for a licence annually
  3. are not subjected  to accountability  to a tribunal
  4. Have very little accountability  cf  private investigators, mortgage brokers, real estate agents.

I suggested to the   select committee that this lack of accountability my be due to the fact that the person  who had such a high degree of input  had a vested interest in the act, in that he was  going to use this act as  the foundation of his own  business venture.

My official information act request is

  1. What policy provisions are there to safe guard against the conflict of interest where by a person can be involved in writing legislation which he proposes to use himself.
  1. Has Mr Wells at any time  thought  his involvement of  writing the act, employed as a independent advisor to the select committee ,and as  legal consultant  to MAF declared a conflict of interest, if so please provide copies of these documents if you have access to them  and where would these documents  be   found if they existed.
  1. The animal welfare act has very little accountability for inspectors  who are private individuals  and  have wide sweeping  legislative powers .
  1. Do animal welfare  inspectors have any accountability to the   auditor general because of their delegated authority ?
  1. Where do we find a register of  those warranted as animal welfare inspectors.
  1. Do  council staff  volunteering their paid time   as inspectors  have accountability to the auditor general  through  their  council positions?
  1. i.      If so   and given the fact that   it was considered Ultra Vires for  council to  enforce animal welfare  legislation   what has the  auditor general done   with regards to this conflict in duties.
  1. With regards to government  departments  and local authorities contracting to an unincorporated   Trust  ie a trust  which itself is not  a legal person   but can be a legal person if  it  is  registered  by an enactment which confers  body corporate status.
    1. Please provide all policies that the government has for contracting or entering into agreements with unincorporated trusts.( non body corporates or non legal persons)
  1. When entering into an agreement with unincorporated trust what provisions do policies provide  for one person to sign  on behalf of  others .
  1. What policy is there that enable local or central government to enter into an agreement with a trading name?
  1. What are the expected steps of verification which are laid down for   councils and  government departments to verify that they are entering into an agreement   with a legal  body, i.e.  one capable of suing or being sued.
  1. What policy exists that would allow a person , contracting to   central or local government , to represent themselves as being a trustee if their name does not appear on a deed.
  1. i.      What legal authority does such a person have in terms of  government contracts.
  1. What investigations have been carried out by your department into the legitimacy of
    1. i.      the   MOU of AWINZ to MAF,
    2. ii.      AWINZ to Waitakere city
    3. iii.      And the   legitimacy of AWINZ as a law enforcement  authority for enforcing of animal welfare  legislation.
  1. Please provide copies  of  all reports , research , notes references  and policies  which  have investigated or examined.
    1. The  use of private individuals for law enforcement
    2. The ability of private organisations to  use  law enforcement as a means obtaining funds for charities
    3. The  issues arising  out of organisations  enforcing the  law for their own pecuniary  advantage.
    4. The issues and consequence of accountability of contracting law enforcement to  a  trading name .
    5. Accountability issues of private law enforcement bodies.
    6. Cost benefits analysis of use of private law enforcement bodies.
  1. Further the collection of charitable funds   By a council employee
    1. What policies are in place for a  managers of a city division to use the  logo which is on their building   to collect revenue   by way of   donations from the public they serve  the example I use is the document located at this link which  shows the city  logo  and  the  logo which Waitakere City  animal welfare uses  and is  shown on their building.
  1. Funds which have been raised from the public  have been used for  prosecuting me  in order to silence me  to  prevent me from asking the  questions  which I continue to ask.   Please advise if there is a policy  which deals with the use of public funds by a manager of a city  council  in this  way.
    1. i.       The documents are located at http://www.charities.govt.nz/  search animal welfare institute of New Zealand    the  annual reports show that over the past three years $105,366 of charitable funds  have been used on litigation . The only person  who stands to gain from  this personally is the manager of animal welfare  Waitakere city  who  contracts to himself as a trustee of AWINZ – Please advise of any policies  which facilitate and condone this.
  1. Prosecutions   – Animal welfare prosecutions are carried out  By   Barrister Mr Wells  for  the CEO of AWINZ Mr Wells  who has matters reported to him by the manager of  Waitakere city council  animal welfare  through a  MOU this person is also Mr Wells .  Please advise of any policies  which facilitate this and advise why this is possible .
  1. The  web site of animal welfare Waitakere  City council  has a page for animal welfare http://www.waitakere.govt.nz/cnlser/aw/index.asp#services it states

What we do at Animal Welfare Waitakere?

Animal Welfare Waitakere provides a range of services, all directed at improving welfare standards of the animals in our community, educating the public in a better understanding of animal welfare and of-course finding good suitable homes for those animals less fortunate, abandoned, neglected and unwanted.

We also provide other services such as:

  • Adoptions of dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, birds and sometimes even stock
  • Impounding and reuniting lost pets with their owners
  • Dog registration
  • Microchipping for just $20 per dog
  • Enforcement of local and national dog control and animal welfare laws
  • Animal Welfare Officers who are also Inspectors under the Animal Welfare Act
  • A holistic approach to animal welfare at the Animal Welfare Waitakere
  1. Please advise  the policy  and the   process   through  which  this territorial body can undertake    the  duties  described  with regards to  duties other than  the statutory duties of  council being dog and stock control.
  1. Since when have council officers been able to be involved with animal welfare work .
  1. Which other councils  have   dog and stock control officers  who are also animal welfare   inspectors under the  animal welfare Act.
  1. Finally please advise why it is not seen as a conflict of interest for  one person to  wear the  hat of manager, contractor  barrister and banker of   funds  for  the work which council paid staff carry out.  Why does the United nations Convention against corruption define this as a corrupt practice and why is it condoned in New Zealand.

This request  will be posted on https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/

20/03/2010

Will the politicians continue to turn a blind eye ? lets see who cares!

Filed under: corruption,Neil Wells,religion and truth — anticorruptionnz @ 3:31 am

Sent: Saturday, 20 March 2010 4:26 p.m.
To: ‘ashraf.choudhary@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘colin.kingmp@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘sandra.goudie@national.org.nz’; ‘carol.beaumont@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘cam.calder@national.org.nz’; ‘nathan.guy@national.org.nz’
Cc: ‘john.key@national.org.nz’; ‘david.carter@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘Tony.Illot@ombudsmen.parliament.nz’; ‘Ian Wishart’; ‘lockwood.smith@national.org.nz’; ‘R Hide (MIN)’

Subject: animal welfare act

I am approaching  each of you because of the concerns  which I have with the  animal welfare act and the increase in penalties proposed with the new bill

I have also copied this to others  who should  be interested and this will also be posted on my anti corruption  blog https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/

I made my submissions  to the select  committee which I believe are  very valid  , only to see them  rejected out right.

My submissions are viewable  at https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/submission-to-the-select-committee/, I have  not posted the prosecution documents  on the  site and should you wish them  I can make them available to you

Issues I raised were

  1. The enforcement of the act by   approved organisations  –  In  once case this was  a non existent “ organisation” run by one person   piggy backing off a city councils  facilities , staff and  resources  which left nothing to be done but  collect ( into an account  on he managed )  the   donations and the court  fines which he himself prosecuted  as barrister  for animal welfare offences arising out of  the city  employees  duties which he as a city manager supervised .
  1. This man is also the person who wrote the No 1 bill   which  introduced the concept of approved  organisations into the act ,
  1. he was also employed as an independent advisor to the select committee for  legislation which was  later to be proved to be self serving and the intent of which I can prove was established  long before the bill was drafted.
  1. This activity is   considered  by  the untied nations to be a corrupt practice and  is cover dint eh  united nations convention against corruption  which NZ has signed but not ratified ( I guess I can see why..  apparently we condone  this type of action  only those who question corruption get  dealt to . )
  1. There is no requirement of a register for  people who enforce  the legislation  with wide sweeping powers  who can penalise people  and prosecute  in exchanged for  funds  being put into their “ charities” accounts. Unlike a register and strict conditions for  Private Investigators  who have no powers at all.
  2. the lack of accountability to the public  for the  funds which are  received through   these prosecutions ,  there is no other  agency  which  can prosecute people and keep the money for themselves.    It is a licence to print money  and while the cost of  lawyers are so high the economics of law enforcement encourages people to  take the economic route and enter a plea of  guilty  to something which they cannot afford to defend.

It is  also of concern that he select committee  apparently  feels that they  can dispose of submissions which   they do not  wish to consider , therefore they  can select the submissions before them , removing those  which should rightfully  be considered .

If New Zealand wants to move closer to ratifying the  united nations commission against corruption  then  people such as myself  should not   have to go through what  I have had to endure  in order to question  corrupt practices, neither  should my submission be struck out  when there is no lawful reason for doing   so.

The  select committee has options available to it  and   removing my submissions point blank is not one of them.

In the interest of a better New Zealand  and in  the interest of transparency and the fight against corruption I ask for your support.

19/03/2010

Submissions too hot for select committee and rejected unlawfully

Filed under: corruption,Neil Wells,religion and truth,SPCA / RNZSPCA,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 6:26 am

Andy    was my submission to the select committee  on animal welfare  rejected    because of  practices by the ” independent ” adviser  who I believe  gained a  personal advantage of the bill he wrote and advised on ? Because he uses the legislation to  prosecute and  bring in revenue for his  non existent Organisation AWINZ

I refer to standing order 232  Standing Orders of the House of Representatives – 2008

232 Irrelevant or unjustified allegations

When a witness gives evidence that contains an allegation that

may seriously damage the reputation of a person and the select

committee is not satisfied that that evidence is relevant to its

proceedings or is satisfied that the evidence creates a risk of harm

to that person, which risk exceeds the benefit of the evidence, the

committee will give consideration—

(a) to returning any written evidence and requesting that it be

resubmitted without the offending material:

(b) to expunging that evidence from any transcript of evidence:

(c) to seeking an order of the House preventing the disclosure

of that evidence.

I note that on the parliamentary web site it appears to be the current rules of the house

I have  gone to great  detail to prove   everything that  I have put  before the select committee  with  documents  which substantiate every claim  I have  made in my  submission , the comments are valid to the legislation  being considered My  submission is posted at https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/submission-to-the-select-committee/ yet the committee  claims that my  submission will be rejected By stating   The committee will therefore not be accepting your submission, and it will be deleting your submission from its permanent record in accordance with Standing Order 232.”

In reading 232   it appears that there is no power for the select committee to  reject my submission .  I note that the provisions of section 233  and 234   give the select committee scope to deal with the matter

I note that  I  could have been asked to resubmit   my submission  but chose instead to avail themselves of something which was  not  written in the rules.

It is in the  publics interest  that the matters raised in the submission are considered  because the  public  need to have  the events which I described mitigated.

I believe this is a serious matter of pubic concern  as Mr Wells   was an independent advisor to the select committee in  when this act was considered , he  had also written the   first bill for the act  and   subsequently  used the provisions for the act  for  his own business venture

It  is  apparent   with hindsight that  Wells had self serving interest  at the time  that he was  an “ independent “ advisor  and  therefore was not  Independent.    I have no doubt that Mr Wells would have lobbied for  these Higher penalties  which are now being considered.

I believe that I make  very valid points with regards to the lack of transparency of the enforcement of   Animal welfare  law and it has to be of note that  Mr Wells contributed significantly to the   Mens Rae component   being removed form  the  legislation making animal welfare  offences strict liability  .. you own the animal , it suffered  you are guilty.. no defence .  Now we follow that with lets increase the penalties.

Since posting my submission on my blog  I have been approached  by  persons internationally who have concerns about the wide sweeping powers of  animal welfare inspectors   and the high penalties which are applied to  persons  who love their animals  and  are deemed because of the  lack of the intent  provisions to be allowing their animals to suffer. It appears that  those  with money are being targeted to supplement the income of   animal welfare charities  world  wide.   It is not  about   animal welfare it  is about  revenue collecting.   The evidence I provide is relevant.

I would  like my submission to be dealt with in accordance with the rules ,I cannot help that my submission contains serious  allegations  they are the truth  ,they are factual  matters  and  matters   which  should be taken into consideration   by a country which   is perceived as  the least corrupt.

It is even more serious that I have  paid such a high price for  questioning these facts  and that  no one seems to care a dam

this is the   content of the letter  fromt he seelct committee

PRIMARY PRODUCTION COMMITTEE
18 March 2010
Grace Haden
Grace@verisure.co.nz
Dear Ms Haden
Animal Welfare Amendment Bill
The Primary Production Committee has considered your submission relating to the
above bill and notes that it raises issues of natural justice by making serious
allegations against an individual you identify as the Manager of Animal Welfare in
Waitakere City.
The conunittee is not satisfied that the issues raised in your submission are relevant to
the bill, and believes that the risk of serious harm to that person’s reputation exceeds
the benefit to the committee of hearing such evidence.
The committee will therefore not be accepting your submission, and it will be deleting
your submission from its permanent record in accordance with Standing Order 232.
Should you have any concerns about the process the committee has followed please
contact the Clerk of Committee, Andy Gardner, on 04 817 9522, or at
andy.gardner@parliament.govt.nz.
Yours sincerely
Shane Ardern
Chairperson
Primary Production Committee

11/03/2010

Submission to the select committee

Animal Welfare Act. A private prosecution service with a licence to print money. Increase accountability of approved organisation  before  increasing penalties to  the public

Submitted By Grace Haden Licenced Private Investigator

Four years ago I asked questions about an approved organisation Animal welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ)as a result  I have  been hauled through the court  it has  potential of costing over $250,000  and it has  destroyed my family. In the words of transparency international.. corruption ruins lives  fight back .. I have   but corruption in animal welfare   funded by the  public purse  and private prosecutions  has  been a task too big for me.

Background

In 1999 Mr Neil Edward Wells  Barrister who wrote the first bill for animal welfare Act 1999 and had seen its passage into law   through his employment as independent advisor to the select committee , applied to the minister of Agriculture for   the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand  (AWINZ ) to become  an approved organisation by virtue of section 121 Animal welfare act 1999.

Mr Wells applied on behalf of  AWINZ ( the  trading name for a group of people ) but there was never  any evidence  that these people  were  aware of their responsibilities, the legislative implications  ,that they consented to this application for approved status or that they even existed as  an “ organisation “

When I questioned the existence of AWINZ  ( following  the  euthanasia of a cat named Chloe and an inspector voicing her concerns ) I was promptly sued to keep me quite, Funds were raised from the  public  purse  in the guise of a charity  and used to pursue me through the court  ( this  is proved by invoices I have and  the financial statements  on the charities web site for a trust which  did not exist when litigation commenced )

I am a former Police Sergeant and am now a Private Investigator and member of the  Certified Fraud examiners association.

In obtaining evidence for my defence   I have obtained documentation which proves the following documents are attached as they appear below.

  1. Mr Wells a former  RNZSPCA director  had a business concept to utilise territorial dog and stock control  officers as SPCA type inspectors ( animal welfare inspectors ) he set up a pilot programme which he initiated in Waitakere city (letter dated 26 August 1994)
  2. In  1996 he wrote to the  then manager  Waitakere City Animal Welfare  division Tom Didovich  and expressed intent to take the concept nation wide 1/1/1996
  3. Mr Wells volunteered to write the animal welfare bill  and in so doing  wrote  in sections to  facilitate his business venture  and to that end   there was a clause pertaining  to territorial bodies   No 1 bill
  4. Whilst Mr Wells was  employed as an independent advisor to the select committee he continued to communicate with Tom Didovich  and  passed on information which was  not in the public realm, to over come the hurdles   which would prevent  territorial bodies  form having an animal welfare role  17 September 1998.
  5. 5. The intention of the act was to exclude territorial bodies so Mr Wells came up with a concept of a trust. A good independent summary of what AWINZ and its back ground is  in this letter by MAF 24/12/1999 “To overcome legal and policy issues that  preclude local authorities having an animal Welfare role , Mr Wells has promoted the formation of a charitable trust called AWINZ, the trust deed states that its “principal purpose is to promote animal welfare”
  1. In  August 1999 Mr Wells   advises the   director general MAF of  his intention to apply for approved status for the trust which he states has been formed  by way of trust deed 22.8.199
  2. On 22 November 1999 Mr Wells makes an application for AWINZ to become an approved organisation again stating that  A charitable trust has been formed by Deed of Trust as the “Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand(AWINZ). It is being registered under Part II of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957”
    1. The significance of    registration under the charitable trust act is that it makes the  trust  which other wise   no more than a group of people with a common purpose  using a trading name , into a  body corporate( legal person )   which has perpetual existence , can sue and be sued .
    2. It should be noted that it takes just a few days to register a trust under the charitable trust act if the application complies with the act.
    3. In the period between August and November the trust   would have been incorporated if the statement in the August notice of intent was true.
    4. Mr Wells on this application makes out that AWINZ is a legal person in its own right (not even a trust deed exists at this time )
    5. In 2006 neither MAF nor Waitakere city council  had  a copy of the trust deed  for AWINZ  and  there as no record of it being incorporated  under any act.
      1. With others I formed a trust  called the animal welfare institute of new Zealand  and we succeeded in  registering it under  the  charitable trust act  there by proving that no other legal  person by that name existed.
      2. When Mr Wells   became aware of our existence a deed was produced it was dated 1/3/2000 which proves that the statements in August and November to the minister were untrue. ( this was the first time MAF had had a copy of  a deed )
      3. We were threatened with legal action   and were told to give up the name and our web site which expressed our concerns about the   unidentifiable   law enforcement agency which had   wide sweeping powers.
      4. We asked if we could meet trust to trust to resolve the issue  but Mr Wells and   two other persons  who were  not the same group as those named on the deed  ,sued me in an  attempt  to silence me and  make us give up the name so that   they could  commence a  cover up .
        1. These three people later combined with Mr Didovich the former manager animal welfare Waitakere City ( who had  witnessed and collected the signatures of the   trustees  for he alleged 2000 deed )  to sign a trust deed and  form a charity in 2007.
        2. 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 form public records Societies register and charities commission. I will happily provide more evidence on this if required.
        3. I have been held in the courts for  nearly  four years now  the court has been misled and manipulated and I was denied a defence, no evidence has ever  been presented by Mr Wells  who has used  his  victory in court to  portray me as a person who is obsessed in pursuit of him . My pursuit has been for justice and the fact that I questioned what I saw as a corrupt practice and I have been persecuted for it.
        4. I have  evidence which shows  that
          1. Mr Wells is manager animal welfare Waitakere city  Council
          2. As manager Animal welfare he is  both parties in an MOU with AWINZ .
          3. The dog control officers “volunteer” their services to AWINZ while on full council pay. ( 5 Jan 2000 ) Most are not aware of the significance of their double role.
          4. AWINZ operates  from  council premises  but council deny this   email 8 May 2000 wells claims  he leases the premises for $1 per year but the council letter 11 march 2009  par 13.AWINZ  claims they do not operate from the premises.
          5. AWINZ uses the same logo as displayed on the  council building for   public fundraising sent out with  dog registration except that it has the words institute of New Zealand written below the  animal welfare  sign.
          6. AWINZ undertakes animal welfare prosecutions , I have   documents for two such  matters  the latest one  came to my notice in the past few weeks
          7. Prosecution 1. As relayed to me  by the  person charged

This lady inherited her mothers elderly dog it had arthritis. Her mother had passed away tragically one month before Waitakere dog control officers picked it up from her back yard.

Without being contacted the dog was Euthanized because it was deemed to be suffering  due  to  arthritis

She phoned dog control in an attempt  to recover the dogs body so that she could  have   it cremated  and  interred with her  mother.

  1. The matter was reported to AWINZ Mr Wells who approved the matter for prosecution.
  2. Mr Wells passed it  on to AWINZ barrister   Mr Wells
  3. Mr Wells Barrister sought diversion   for a donation to a trust which neither existed nor was charitable   and money  was paid into a bank account in the name of Animal welfare institute of New Zealand, which was  under the sole control of Mr Wells.
  4. Prosecution 2    As relayed to me  by the  person charged

This young man     had a dog with Mange. He went to the vet and got medication. The dog had a relapse and he went back to the vet who would not give more medication due to the boy’s lack of funds.

When he arrived back  home the dog jumped  out of the car  and  sought refuge under a nearby house.  When the boy could not get the dog out Waitakere dog control were called .

  1. The matter was reported to the manager Animal welfare Waitakere city Mr Wells
  2. Mr Wells  council officer  passed it To Mr Wells CEO of the  now  newly  covered up AWINZ trust ( But not  being the  same  persons who were supposedly  the approved organisation )
  3. Mr Wells of AWINZ passes it to their barrister Mr Wells who prosecuted the matter before the court and   had $398 reparation ordered.

Issues relating to both these prosecutions

  1. I have  good reason to believe that these are not the only prosecutions  however these are two  which I can conclusively prove , it should be noted that in both cases   the time of the offending is over allegedly a two month period and  prosecutions were commenced 6 months after the  last date of the alleged offence.
  2. The offences under the animal welfare act are strict liability  ,  so even if the persons had a good defence   it is hard to produce evidence  after 8 months after the first date I, it is ironic  that   in  two prosecutions so far apart the  pattern is so similar.
  3. There is  no knowing  how many prosecutions actually occur and how many “ diversions” for donation are given , nor is there any ability to see where the money goes.

Strict liability

  1. Animal welfare legislation is already harsher than anything pertaining to  abuse of children. I use the following example.
    1. A mother who happens to be a  GP  went skiing  her son complained of a swore leg after a fall.  Because he could weigh bear on the leg he could ski on it.  The following week it was discovered that the leg was in fact fractured.
    2. Had this been a dog she would have been banned from owning another animal   and she would not have had any defence open to her. The offence being complete when she failed to recognise that the leg was broken.
    3. Animals   should not have greater protection than children and  there should  be an “intent “ ingredient brought back in the legislation .
    4. Most pet owners who see their animal   hobble in won’t dash off to the vet,  just as parents  whose child complains of an ache  won’t  necessarily dash off to a doctor.
      1. The injury    is often assessed over time and frequently by the next day the animal is fine.
      2. The risk for pet owners is that if an over zealous animal welfare inspector seeking to line the   pockets of their “ charity “ intervenes the owner  is  charged   on the  sole basis that the inspector   thinks the animal is  suffering.
      3. There is also the matter of costs of vet bills. The charity which we had set up, which Mr Wells effectively destroyed through litigation, was set up with intent of helping owners of injured animals  with  financial assistance  which could be repaid  later.
        1. People bond with their animals and just as you would not put your child down if their leg needed amputation or pinning it is often a decision which cash strapped owners face.
        2. There was a time  when  the RNZSPCA used to help with such matters  now     with  the  “ charities”  being run as businesses  it appears to  be  about collecting money and  not about providing service  .
        3. Mr Wells has  probably the best set up of all   unlike SPCA’s  he  has no overheads  , he uses the councils premises, staff ,vehicles ,resources  and even uses  council phones and email addresses and logos.  He Sends out donation form with dog registration and possibly   also prosecutes in council time.  The only administrative task left over is counting money and depositing it in the bank account he in 2006 had sole control of .
        4. Several RNZSPCA   volunteer inspectors have confided in me that they are concerned with the wealth that is being acquired  within the RNZSPCA and the corporate wages being paid at the top.
          1. I believe that  animal welfare has become not a matter of service  but a money making venture and I support this  with a poster which Mr Wells had on file in Waitakere city  .There is profit in animals .
          2. I am a former Police prosecutor and am aware of the economics of prosecutions.  A lawyer charges $350 per hour   so any penalty or diversion of less than three hours lawyers wages is more economical to pay than  to  defend . In our cash strapped society it is money which dictates the  plea.
            1. Middle income New Zealand have no right to justice to defend a simple animal welfare matter would cost several thousand dollars.
            2. Added to this is the fact that there is no   defence is possible any way because it is the opinion of the welfare officer if the animal was suffering.
            3. Suggested   action for the  animal welfare amendment bill
              1. More transparency and accountability of approved organisations -those who do the enforcing should be squeaky clean.
                1. i.       This is the only legislation which is enforced by private citizens.
                2. ii.      There needs to be independent assessment of every animal welfare charge   before it is sent to the court no one   should be able to wear all the hats as in the case of Mr Wells.
                3. iii.      Authority to prosecute should be obtained through MAF .
                4. iv.      Auditing and spot checks by independent assessors to evaluate those prosecutions are not being taken unjustly. Heavy penalties for abuse of this process.
                5. v.      Those who enforce need to be held accountable to truth honesty and transparency.
  2. Giving Private trusts the ability to enforce the law is like giving an open cheque book especially when   they cannot be held accountable as in the case of AWINZ where the “approved organisation” effectively does not exist .
  3. Penalties for making   false claims as to approve status.
    1. i.            The penalty for making a false statement for the purpose of establishing an approved organisation  should be a prison  term  .
    2. ii.             No organisation should be approved unless a  statutory declaration  has been  filed,( Which would  bring its own legal protection ).And some one has  checked to see if it exists beyond paper.
  1. Animal welfare is the only law enforcement   sector where  civilians , non  government employees  are entrusted with   wide powers
    1. It is effectively a private prosecution and law enforcement service but there is  no register of  animal welfare inspectors and who they are responsible to ,
    2. Private investigators and  security Guards do not have powers more than an any civilian  , in fact Private investigators have less rights than the average person  ( we cant take photos or record  voice recordings )   yet we have
      1. to advertise our intention to be Licenced each year,
      2. we have to be re apply and pay a licence fee
      3. we have to be approved by  the registrar
      4. we have to have a security clearance
      5. we are subject to a  hearing if  some one  objects to our renewal
      6. we appear on a publicly available database so our licence can be verified at any time.
  2. But   animal welfare inspectors  who have wide powers are not subjected to these controls  and have no real process of individual accountability other than to the approved organisation which recommended them  and the average person would  no know   where to begin to look.
  3. There is no independent accountability of  animal welfare officers , no process for  disciplinary hearings  and it would appear that as law enforcers  and being  civilians  they  have all power and very little  accountability.
  4. As has been shown in the case of AWINZ , there is no transparency  or accountability to the enforcers and consideration should be given to  a complete review of the  way animal welfare legislation is enforced.
  5. I have further concerns with respect to the confusion of the SPCA and he RNZSPCA , those in the RNZSPCA claim that the SPCA is different  and the SPCA claim that they are not the RNZSPCA, so where do they get their   legal powers from, only the RNZSPCA is an approved organisation . Every one of them is chasing the  dollar  if they really cared about  animal they would  provide  treatment  and assistance to those who love their pets but are financially embarrassed.
  6. Because these organisations are private enforcement authorities, all with  people at the top  wanting corporate wages ,   it has  become  a nest feathering exercise  for all but the  volunteers , those  who need the money do without  ,  which in this day and age makes them a dying breed,
  7. The  current system  is easily be abused  and there is no accountability for the  fines  which  can  very easily disappear into personal accounts and  to that end  all animal welfare fines  should  be paid into a  public purse   so that those who care about animals    act  for their concern   for the animal  and  not act out of pecuniary advantage.

I am happy to make personal submissions on this matter and assist you  with  information for any investigations  you  deem necessary.

I am a verification specialist  and will be happy to assist in  setting up  a system which will make the enforcement of animal welfare   more transparent accountable and just.

Thank you

Grace Haden

Licenced Private Investigator

08/03/2010

What is New Zealand doing about corruption – why is it better to be a fraudster than Question corruption ?

Filed under: corruption,Neil Wells,transparency,waitakere city council — anticorruptionnz @ 8:11 am

Official information request   Simon Power

(the hyperlinks will open the  referenced documents)

Sir

Your ministry of  justice web site http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy-and-consultation/crime/bribery-and-corruption/legal-framework/the-united-nations-convention-against-corruption relates to the United Nations Convention against Corruption  it   states in its opening line

“In December 2003, New Zealand signed the UN Convention Against Corruption, which requires countries to take action in both the public and private sector to prevent corruption.”

The link provided  opens on the united nations page which contains a copy of the Text, I downloaded the English version .

I note that the  issues raised in the convention are right on track to  give me the support that I  would have expected   when I  boldly stuck my neck out in 2006 and  asked  questions about   the existence of a law enforcement  agency  which  had no apparent  visibility ,accountability  and operated in circumstances of  what I saw was  conflict of interest in a public private relationship. I have since proved that that    “organisation”   did not exist  and since then  a lot of covering up has occurred to   retrospectively cover up.

In brief the “organisation ‘is the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ ) , it is an ‘approved ‘ organisation   by virtue of section 121 of the anima welfare Ac 1999 .

AWINZ grew out of a concept which Neil Wells  an animal welfare Barrister and  former RNZSPCA  director saw   animal welfare as something  which could be privatised and drew up a  concept in   1996  for  the   territorial animal welfare authority .

This concept intended that for remuneration he would train, supervise control and audit the   council dog and stock control officers to become   animal welfare inspectors nation wide.

To facilitate his venture he wrote the first bill for what was to become  the  animal welfare act 1999 but through the select committee stages   where he was employed as  an “ independent “  advisor , the involvement of territorial authorities   was ruled out .

“ to over come  the legal and policy issues that precluded  local authorities  having an animal welfare  enforcement role Mr Wells has promoted the formation of a charitable trust called AWINZ. The trust deed states that its “principal purpose is to promote animal welfare  ”Paragraph 9 letter from MAF. obtained by official information act

This letter also descries the legal implication and public role of the   “ trust”  and   MAF object to it being  given the approved status.

A year later   AWINZ was given approved status under the act , despite the fact that no trust deed or proof of  existence  had been provided.

MAF and Treasury  had both objected to the application  , but Mr Wells  who had a longstanding political  association the labour party  consulted his  colleague  Mayor bob Harvey( page 8) who at the time was the president of the labour party. Following that the application which the minister had the  ability to approve or decline was placed before the   labour Government cabinet   and approved.

I have proved  that

Mr Wells  manager of Waitakere  city council animal welfare  division  ( where Bob Harvey is Mayor )  contracts to the CEO of AWINZ  – Mr Wells.

AWINZ uses the councils paid staff voluntarily for animal welfare work   and although  the council lawyer claims  that AWINZ does not operate from its facilities Mr Wells claims that it leased for $1 per year.

Awinz also  solicits public donations using a new logo which is  very similar to that of the Waitakere City Animal welfare  division (  refer back to the lawyers letter   AWINZ does not operate from those facilities)

In a recent case a Council   dog control officers ,  picks up  a  dog at  what  I believe to have been at the request of the owner, the dog as sick and had sought refuge under a nearby house  and would not come out.

The  dog control officer  reported the  illness to the  council dog control manager Mr Wells who referred the  animal welfare issues on to  the CEO of AWINZ Mr Wells

The CEO of AWINZ approves the matter for prosecution and passes    the matter on to the AWINZ barrister again   Mr Wells .

The matter is then dealt with by diversion  with a donation to  AWINZ or by prosecution and seeking reparation payable to AWINZ. In this  case reparation was awarded .

I have details of another prosecution and it appears from the Waitakere city web site that there are other prosecutions .

In 2006  Mr Wells   was found to be  the only person  in control of a bank account  in the name of a legal person  by the name of Animal welfare institute of New Zealand  , into which the  donations and prosecutions  funds were deposited. ( yes I do have proof )

Neil Wells and his non existent trust took me too court ,  three people  pretending to   be AWINZ but not having any documentation to prove that  they were , sued me .

For seeking transparency and accountability of this non existent law enforcement  authority  ,  I have been hauled through the courts and   sued , It has  cost me  $100,000  and   another $150,000  is being demanded by  Mr Wells and his lawyers  for costs and an award which was made  for  defamation  where I was  prohibited by the court from defending the matter.

Every time  I told the court that this action was to conceal corruption the court would come down harder on me . No evidence was ever called for and I  was found    guilty arbitrarily and  costs were awarded  against me on the uncorroborated evidence of the man who stood to gain.

The judge even  admitted   doing a Google search  during his deliberations.

The stress has killed my marriage and torn my family apart .I am a former police sergeant and currently a Private Investigator   .

I have  done nothing but speak the truth and  the truth of  the  alleged defamatory  statements  have been proved   .  Truth is  never defamatory .

I have covered various aspects of my case including the use of charitable funds to pursue me through court on my blog https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com where this open letter will also be posted

In reading the  document   UN Convention Against Corruption  I note that  in the scenario above   Mr Wells  is a public official   and that these events  would   be exactly what  the convention  intended   to prevent and provide  assistance to people like my self  for  questioning corruption .

Being

Article 33. Protection of reporting persons

Each State Party shall consider incorporating into its domestic legal system appropriate measures to provide protection against any unjustified treatment for any person who reports in good faith and on reasonable grounds to the competent authorities any facts concerning offences established in accordance with this Convention.

Article 34. Consequences of acts of corruption With due regard to the rights of third parties acquired in good faith, each State Party shall take measures, in accordance with the fundamental principles of its domestic law, to address consequences of corruption. In this context, States Parties may consider corruption a relevant factor in legal proceedings to annul or rescind a contract, withdraw a concession or other similar instrument or take any other remedial action.

Article 35. Compensation for damage

Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary, in accordance with principles of its domestic law, to ensure that entities or persons who have suffered damage as a result of an act of corruption have the right to initiate legal proceedings against those responsible for that damage in order to obtain compensation.

Official information act request

  1. Why  is New Zealand  one of  17  of the  163 signatories  who have not ratified the  convention .
  2. What is the government doing to ratify the agreement it signed in 2003 .
  3. If the  Government  was  serious about signing the  convention  would  assisting persons such as myself not take the  country one step  closer to ratification?
  4. Why do people such as my self not   get any protection  , assistance or support from the government or courts  fro  questioning corruption ?
  5. What measures have been incorporated into our legal system, or do you intend to incorporate which will provide protection against any unjustified treatment for any person who reports in good faith and on reasonable grounds to the competent authorities any facts concerning offences established in accordance with this Convention.
  6. Why  is new Zealand the only country ,in the  top 10 least corrupt  countries  to have signed  the  convention , which has not ratified the   convention.
  7. How many more cases like me are out there, does this government    seek to silence us or will people be encouraged to speak out  on matters of public concerns.  If we speak out what protection can you offer us?
  8. I can understand that the last  government    had cause to  conceal corruption  being as that they were in my opinion  the most corrupt government we have ever had   and I can see that they  ran secret trusts and  societies and therefore would   have wanted me to   be silenced , is this also the view of the national  government  and what is being done to ensure that  those  who question corruption are not  going to have their lives destroyed.
  9. Why do fraudsters have more rights to  a fair trial than some one who rightfully questions corruption.
  10. I note  that fraudster Warren Pickett was sentenced to 5 years for  20 million  fraud , he will probably get half remission  which means  he will  do 2 ½  years   which means  he   will be inside for  8 million per year .. I wish I was as lucky  I questioned corruption and it has cost  me 4 years  my family and probably in excess of $250,000 , why don’t I get the protection that the  NZ bill of right  should afford me ? Why  can criminals have their matters proved and I am deal t to arbitrarily? Doesn’t that mean that   criminals   get more protection  from the law than those who question corruption ?   What are you  going to do about it?

I hope that  the government can use my particular case as evidence of  how corruption  occurred in New Zealand  and that even though  the  judiciary  were made aware of   the fact that it was corruption I was exposing  that  they were apparently  powerless with our current legislation to  assist in turning this about.

I am now  appealing to the court of appeal , I believe that all it will do is   make more lawyers  rich  but I am going to  fight this to the  bitter end  even if I have to go to the UN myself and tell  them just how New Zealand attains its least corrupt status  because  we firmly stomp on those who  say “ excuse me  sir  but isn’t that  corrupt!”

I like others who are sick of the fraud and corruption which is  so prevalent  despite  the  least corrupt perception, are looking forward to a better   less corrupt New Zealand .. Being top of the least corrupt perception index is great but we must do it with honest means and the perception must not be a total fiction.

I know that many New Zealanders share my view I hope that you do too.

I look forward to your reply and some assistance from the government if  it really is serious about  curbing corruption .

I have copied this to the executive of  Transparency International.  I am some what  disillusioned with the New Zealand branch  who   cover up corruption and  turn those ( like myself )   who can point out   the holes in the system , away – transparency New Zealand is  keeping the illusion  – the perception  alive..  we need to get real

Regards

Grace Haden

22/02/2010

How to get your litigation funded through the public purse

News Item this morning Pressure on law firms to do free work

Asking  a law firm to do work pro bono  is one thing  but there is another way which  is a win win for  law firms  and the barristers who  are taking legal action through that firm.

It is called funding the litigating through Charitable public funds  – this is how it is done.

You have a dark secret which is about to be exposed so you need to find a way to silence those exposing you .

It is deeply embarrassing because in 1999  you had  told the minister that your trust existed and that  you were in the process of incorporating it but you really got ahead of yourself  so much so that you forgot that the “ trust” which you  were paid to set up with public  funds never actually operated as an “ organisation “

You get  law enforcement  powers though this  “ trust’  but being an independent person you don’t want to trouble the other trustees with   things like meetings.  Some of the trustees are   society ladies and    their names look good being associated with   an animal welfare group but they are really better at bridge, they   don’t understand what a trustee is supposed to do.

So when things  get sticky  7 years later  and after some ones moggy was illegally euthanized   by one of your so called Volunteers  who are really council paid  dog control officers ,some one starts looking for accountability and  finds none.

So when the  questions  get to tricky and the  people are asking  embarrassing questions in parliament , from Waitakere city  council , MAF and the minister  something has to be done to  silence  those who  could  blow your  whole game and heaven forbid  discredit you  for your actions.

The  people doing the questioning in the mean time have  formed a trust in the identical name ( look up  ANIMAL OWNERS SUPPORT TRUST previously Animal welfare institute of New Zealand ) and have legally registered it  on the register of Charitable trusts .     This  now proves  that  you were not being exactly truthful when you told the minister in 1999 that a trust had been formed and  was being  registered , because it only takes a couple of days to register trust  but you know that  because you have registered others previously and since.

The society ladies have decided that the whole thing has become too tacky and they don’t  want to play any more,  there is no record of them   having resigned but some how  they   do  put pen to paper and sign the trust deed. Possibly retrospectively    … but the date is wrong  it is dated   three months after  you told the minister that a deed existed  and 5 months  after you  told  the community wellbeing fund that you had a deed  and  it is in the process of being registered

Now this trust deed is an agreement between those four people and not any one else, Being unincorporated  it has no perpetual existence. Then there is the minor matter that the trust deed says there will be four people   now we suddenly have two .. You need to cover up fast- Confusion is always a good tactic .

So another Barrister is approached one   who is held in  high esteem QSM, former Mayor and  had past involvement with  animal welfare.

She becomes a “trustee” of an alleged trust, there is no trust deed   or proof that   she is part  of any trust    and  it is later revealed that  she  claims to be part of AWINZ   some 2 weeks after   the legal entity AWINZ  was registered.   .( see charities commission  and  click on  Wyn Hoadley at the bottom of the page for date of allegedly becoming a trustee )

Then Wyn is made  chairwoman  and   solicits  donations which are sent out with the dog registration in Waitakere city  using a Logo   which  is not unlike that on the building  where Waitakere city council run their pound from .

We know that   the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand does not operate from  those premises  as the council solicitor has told us at least twice that they don’t.

After  I had received what I considered to be  intimidating  phone calls  by their legal representative* ,( purportedly  a law clerk , according to evidence from the law society at the time ) who they instructed  and made threats against my private investigator’s licence if we did not change the  legal name of our trust  ,Wyn  and  Neil Wells and a JP  called Graeme Coutts  together take  legal action as AWINZ   despite the fact that they have no evidence at all of  having ever  existed  as a trust together or having any legal standing  . Despite this they claim   passing off and breach of fair trading …now hang on didn’t Wyn  start using that name after  the  legal entity  she is attacking was set up?.. *Question  why would two barristers instruct a  Law clerk   and  why is this such a sensitive matter so as to require defamation action  some 8 years later  ? 

They turn  down the offer to  disuses resolution  and see suing  as the only way forward  , so  the other  Barrister   throws in defamation   for  good measure  because he didn’t like the idea of people  pointing out the  untruth of the statement to the minister and  questioning  accountability when it comes to using public funds .

So Nick Wright  gets  Brookfield’s to take on the matter   and David Neutze puts  his name to the statement of claim without checking to see  if AWINZ  really has a claim.

I have copies of a total of $99638.22  in invoices made out to  AWINZ. Now AWINZ is an acronym, it stands for the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand.

If Brookfield’s tried to recover the debt from AWINZ they would fail as at that time  there was no trust deed  and  only those who comprise AWINZ can consent to a  debt being incurred , AWINZ could not enter into an agreement in that name and could not sue or be sued in that name.  Yet this leading law firm writes invoices out to it.

The chronology  goes like this

Date Event
27/04/2006 AWINZ  incorporated by  appellant and fellow trustees Highlighting that there is o other legal entity by that name.
3/05/2006 awinz.co.nz  web site set up by appellants which states  that they are not the same as the Awinz operating in Waitakere
10/05/2006 Wyn Hoadley allegedly becomes a trustee of AWINZ   but has no  trust deed , We are told that Nuala grove and  Sarah Giltrap have resigned.
1/06/2006 To  fund the litigations  there is  a request for public funds by Hoadley  who uses the same  logo as on the council building for  AWINZ
30/06/2006 Brookfields  invoice made out to AWINZ See a sample
18/07/2006 Statement of claim By Hoadley, Graham Coutts  and Neil Wells- Passing off, breach of  fair trade and defamation ( speaking the truth  – truth hurts )
28/07/2006 More Brookfields  invoice made out to AWINZ See a sample
14/08/2006 Didovich, the former manager animal welfare Waitakere  becomes a trustee  there still is no trust deed – He is the man who approved payment  for the trust to be set up using council funds  he  also witnesses and gets signatures for the 2003 deed  he lost his job at council and Wells took his job .
30/11/2006 More Brookfields  invoice made out to AWINZ
5/12/2006 trust deed signed
2006 2007 More Brookfields  invoice made out to AWINZ
March 2007 A receipt is issued with the  now  slightly modified logo after I complained to council   the word “The” is included
1/06/2007 Further public request for  public funds
2007 More Brookfields  invoice made out to AWINZ
28/09/2007 The 2005 AWINZ trust   becomes a  charity
2007  2008 More Brookfield’s  invoice made out to AWINZ
04/06/2008 Email asking for mayors signature on fundraiser
More Brookfield’s  invoice made out to AWINZ
total Invoices 99638.22
Note : all invoices are made out to AWINZ
See a samples here  note the first  invoice  dated 2006   was amended  to read 2007 , is this  what law firms do?

The  financials  posted on the   charities web site show that the charitable funds were used for  litigation but discussion could have resolved everything   why   discuss when  legal action  using public  funds  can be so effective.

Also refer to the Email asking for mayors and see if you can find proof of the assertions made in that  email –  where is the income  where is the expenditure  where is the transparency  the accountability?

Please don’t hesitate to contact me  if you have any observations .

17/02/2010

LGOIMA request Waitakere City

Filed under: corruption,Neil Wells,Tom Didovich,waitakere city council — anticorruptionnz @ 10:46 am

From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 17 February 2010 11:42 p.m.
To: ‘Denis.Sheard@waitakere.govt.nz’; ‘david.carter@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘priscilla@epsom.org.nz’
Cc: ‘Penny.Hulse@waitakere.govt.nz’; ‘Bob.Harvey@waitakere.govt.nz’; ‘Councillors@waitakere.govt.nz’; ‘Tony.Illot@ombudsmen.parliament.nz’
Subject: LGOIMA request

Good morning Denis        and  for the information ministers  of agriculture  and local Government

I have  a few more questions  by way of LGOIMA

Neil Wells had been employed by the  city to set  up a trust  ( as per attached invoices ) invoice re trustees.pdf invoice trust 97.pdf The  document  waitakere re trust  dec 1998.pdf claims that an interim trust had been set up .

Attached is a  report from Mr Wells   to  Mr Didovich    dated  1996( Teritorial authority Animal welfare services.) where by   Mr Wells shares his  views of setting up an organisation which  he was to head   and  provide animal welfare services   to councils , by using the  dog and stock control officers. Mr Wells subsequently wrote  the   first bill for the new animal welfare act to  facilitate this concept   but  this was amended  through the no 2  bill  and animal welfare  was deemed to be ultra vires to  council  activities.

The manager animal welfare worked actively   with Mr Wells to  overcome this hurdle  and a trust was proposed  apparently while  Mr. Wells was still  on the pay roll of the select committee where he was an independent advisor

Mr Wells  purportedly  proposed the concept of  trust  which was to  have the  city  as  trustee , the city paid Mr Wells to set up the trust and even recruit the trustees. ( odd that  for a voluntary organisation )

I now find that  I have conflicting   documents  which   show that   the city decided not to go ahead with the trust  (19 jan 1999.pdf)and then  documents from Didovich 14 june 1999. stating that “There is a very real need to establish the Animal Welfare Trust so that preparation for MAF auditing and subsequent  audit and acceptance of the TRUST/IWCC link is achieved in a timely fashion”

I also have a  memorandum  21 march 2000. shows Didovich writing to Wells  about contracting to the trust . Correspondence which I have  obtained form your files would indicate that Mr Wels and Mr Didovich were   in close contact with each other over that period of time  and it would  appear unlikely that Mr Didovich  did  not know of the  intended structure of the trust .

These documents  give rise to a number of questions which I request answers to  pursuant to LGOIMA

  1. In the  email  “waitakere re trust  dec 1998.pdfit states  “An interim trust has been established by Council, with Neil Wells as acting CEO. Please provide the copy of the signed trust deed  .
  1. In the letter 19 January 1999 Mr Wells refers to the discussions  with  of  the city secretary , please advise
    1. who   this was at this time
    2. please provide  the notes  jottings , correspondence or   computer entries  generated  as a result of that discussion including the date when it  took place
    3. under whose    authority the secretary was acting in making this decision .
    4. Please provide all copies of  documents   notes and  outcomes  from the  meeting referred to   on 26 January at 3pm or the one which was rescheduled in  its place also if this meeting  overturned the secretaries  decision  not  to include council
    5. Please  advise  why  a trust had purportedly been formed on 23  December  and  had been over ruled by the city secretary  by the 19th January  and why Mr. Didovich  needed it  to  be set up urgently in  June  and why  it subsequently became a  private trust which needed your manager to  drive about Auckland collecting the  signatures.
    6. Please advise   the dates on which the   council secretary  worked in the period between 23  December  1998 and 19 January 1999
    7. Who authorised the statement  that the  council will continue to fund the institute .
    8. Please advise what the status  of the institute was at that time ,( this is quite confusing  we  seem to have a   trust then we don’t, if there is no trust   please advise who or what  the institute   that Waitakere  supplied funds to  was.
    9. Please explain how  Waitakere could  fund something which did not appear to exist , who was the money  paid to ? and in what name were payments for the “ institute” made out to .
  1. Please advise  what the  councils criteria are for  accepting a trust  involving the city as  formed.
    1. It is some ones idea
    2. We have talked  about it
    3. We have put it to councillors
    4. We have seen a copy of a draft deed
    5. Trustees have met and  signed the trust deed  and we have a copy of the signed deed.
  1. In terms of funding n institute  when does an institute exist
    1. It is some ones idea
    2. We have talked  about it
    3. We believe it  exists
    4. We have seen a copy of a draft deed
    5. We have a copy  of a  signed deed  and we know the organisation  exists in reality .
  1. With regards to the   letter  21 March  Mr Didovich states “On behalf of Waitakere City Council and as the contractor for North Shore City Council (North Shore Animal Care and Control) I am able to provide an assurance that Council is satisfied for staff to enter into an arrangement with AWINZ and that no problems are fore seen and that benefits are expected. Waitakere City Council is aware of any liabilities  involved and accepts that responsibility. The intention is that each individual Officer will enter into a “memorandum of under standing” with AWINZ. All fourteen potential Officers have already signed a letter of assurance of which the Minister of Agriculture has received the originals. A copy of the standard letter is attached(attachment 2).
  1. By what authority could  the then manager animal welfare provide an assurance on behalf of  Council with regards to
    1. i.      the use of its staff by an outside organisation  for no  remuneration
    2. ii.      give assurances with regards to liabilities  and responsibilities
    3. iii.      As the staff to enter into contracts with a third party  as part of heir  employment
  1. With regards to the statement (“letter  21 March  )Waitakere City Council possesses a strong intent to hold a “memorandum of understanding” with  AWINZ
    1. How could the city   form an intent to   have a mou with an organisation which did not exist
    2. Who authorised this statement, did it pass through council ?
    3. Why were councillors not involved
    4. What policy does the council have  which enables  head of a department to give assurances for and  on behalf of  their city
    5. Why did the city not sign the MOU  (as attached  ) and  what authority did the city give Mr Didovich to sign it.
  1. With regards to the mou waitakere. does the city have any concerns that Mr Wells  was through his employment as manager  animal welfare  contracting to itself.  As attached .  What is council policy on this ? the OECD  find it unacceptable  why does Waitakere city condone it?
  1. In the letter  21 march 2000 Kensington swan is reported as providing a legal opinion  with regards to the funding of  animal welfare from  general revenue, please advise  when this proposal passed through council and   provide  the  minutes of  that council meeting.
  1. Please advise who authorised the expenses  involved in this legal opinion  and
  2. provide the  costs of  this advice.
  1. In the email 14 June 1999 Didovich to Neil Wells , Didovich  copies Wells in  on correspondence with the  city lawyers  other correspondence indicates that  Mr Didovich and Mr. Wells   were working together .On 28 June  Mr Didovich follows up with 2 emails    in the first he volunteers the services of Neil Wells  as Solicitor to  do some tweaking and in the second he  reiterates   “it is becoming a huge issue for the Animal Welfare Services Business Unit to establish the “Trust”. Please advise
  1. what discussions occurred between December 1998  and 28 June 1999 with regards to  establishing a trust  and
  2. why  would  Waitakere city need to tweak the deed  when   it was  not  going to be a party  to the deed.
  1. Could you please provide any  documentation or information which would explain why   Mr Didovich states “Our last meaningful meeting was early in January and at that stage the deed was on the verge of completion Nothing has changed in almost six months,’  when the current manager of animal welfare   at that same time   advised MAF that the city would not be involved. “
  1. Please provide the  criteria  the council has   for the ability of   heads of department
  1. to contract to themselves.
  2. To sign  agreements on  behalf of council
  1. Please provide the councils views as to whether Mr Wells appointment  as manager  Animal welfare was not  seen as  a conflict of interest   when he was  representing himself to be  the CEO of an organisation which that department  contracted  to and  assigned staff to.
  1. Please advise what council did to ensure that AWINZ was bona fides  and actually existed , i.e. obtained trust deeds , verified that it was actually an organisation not  just a tradename for person or persons un known.
  1. And lastly What  concerns the city  now has   in view of  Mr. Didovich used council money and facilities to set up a trust  which   had  no legal existence on its own ( independent of trustees ) and ability to use council staff to  perform  work for  the “trust” which had no deed,  trustees did not meet and   he is now  claims to be a trustee of a similarly named trust which uses a logo  confusingly close to that of Waitakere animal welfare.

I look  forward to having the   reply   urgently as I  am preparing   documents  for an appeal to the  court of appeal.

I have posted this  request  on my blog https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com in the interest of transparency

« Previous PageNext Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.