Anticorruptionnz's Blog

16/02/2010

Tom Didovich – the insider ?

Filed under: corruption,Neil Wells,Tom Didovich,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 12:34 am

I am presently working on documents for my appeal  and am in the process of putting my chronology together.

It is funny how  every time you look at something   you see things which were not relevant before  but  in the light of new  information are like  seeing that piece of the jigsaw  which you  couldn’t see  for looking before.

What is happening in Waikato has parallels with Waitakere city.

The Question which has to be asked  is  What is the role of Tom Didovich and   why as  a manager of Animal welfare Waitakere  city  was he so heavily involved in the setting up of a trust  which he later became trustee of.

Tom Didovich had a conflict of interest in the setting up of AWINZ  and  that he in fact was the  person in council who facilitated  the “contracting to AWINZ ‘

He was aware of what was going on and in my observance and my opinion , if he  had been an astute impartial manager    he should have seen what was going on , but  the documents would indicate  that he was either    part of it or brain dead.

How many managers would allow  the staff under  their direct  supervision to be used    by an outside organisation without seeking approval  from the  top

How the concept  worked in  Waitakere is explained in this email” Inspectors will not be employed directly by AWINZ but will remain employed by their principal employer. When an Inspector is performing a function under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 he or she will be doing so on a voluntary basis. That is to say that the inspector will not be paid by  AWINZ for performing that function.”

Didovich in an affidavit to the court even admitted to  driving about  Auckland   and collecting he signatures of the trustees ( who didn’t meet  apart form maybe once  in 1998 )

Didovich was the interface with council ,the trusted  employee   who  worked with Neil Wells  on a project which  intended to set up  a national  animal welfare body which  interlaced with councils and was  eventually hopeful of taking over  the  assets  of the cities assets as  expressed  in  the application to the minister at point 7.

Change is brought about one step at a time  and it involves  suggesting things to parties  as if the idea  was fresh   new idea  when  in reality   it is a step in a  larger  well orchestrated plan

  • 14.4.98  Didovich is  advised of  a letter to MAF – in the letter a  supposed  statement is made “What if Waitakere City put its animal welfare and control services out for tender and a national charitable trust succeeded” The What if  being  a suggestion  when all along  the “what if “ is being planned for
  • But   the chronology and the invoice which  Didovich   approves for  public funds to be paid to NE Wells associates  for setting up a trust  shows that this concept had already been put to  council some four months earlier .
  • There was the discussion between Wells and Didovich   in an email dated 3 march 98 about the involvement of council officers in trust.  Which leaves you to  wonder why the council continued to pay for   matters relating to the trust and Why Tom Didovich continued to have a role  and even   applied for  funds for  AWINZ   from the  community well being fund

Catherine Smith ex president NZ Vet Association

Michael Scott Director of Operations Telecom

Neil Wells LLB Animal Welfare legal specialist

  • What is interesting here is   that  Michael Scott  went  on to  form two trust  with Neil Wells , ironically the name of one of those trusts was the national animal welfare trust which is   also  the name proposed  in this document which  was put to council  by its author Neil Wells “It is proposed that the “National Animal Welfare Trust of New Zealand” (which is referred to later in this document) is established under the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957.”

On that note I would love to hear from  Michael Scott or any one who knows him

  • Then there is the confidential  document 17 September 1998 from Didovich ,  passing on  the information  that Territorial authorities  will not be recognised in the Bill and the information is provided that there will be  “ approved organisations.
  • Why the confidentiality.. Neil Wells was employed at the time  as  an independent advisor of the select committee  and  Didovich had to steer the   concept through council to  circumvent the   issues  which got in the way.

Further points as raised before are that Tom Didovich wrote the minister  for and on behalf of North Shore. and Waitakere city.   Yet   the issue had never been put before  either council  and  the agreements  which  MAF believed would involve the cities  only went so far as to involve the manager of Animal welfare. – Again   we don’t verify- left hand does not  know what the  right hand is doing  thereby  opening the doors to    corrupt practices.

And  did the council care  well apparently not     their lawyer Denis Sheard  said I was sparring with shadows, Mayor Bob dismissed me as a fruitcake  and all the other councillors are silent on the issue.

Advertisements

15/02/2010

Blurred boundaries RNZSPCA and AWINZ

Filed under: Lord of the rings,Neil Wells,SPCA / RNZSPCA,Tom Didovich,Waikato RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 1:44 am
  1. Have a look at this  document  click here you will see who the author is and the references made to the RNZSPCA.
  2. Then there was also an issue when it came to AWINZ giving the Lord of the rings  a false end title than no animas were hurt in the production of the movie see AHA report.
    1. MAF wrote  a report  and expressed its views  see the report
    2. It confirmed that  SPCA  staff  and  resources  were used   on  an AWINZ enterprise.
  3. Now we have the link  Between Neil Wells and the Waikato RNZSPCA
  4. The  connection of Tom Didovich  a Trustee Of AWINZ,  also being in a position of authority in  the RNZSPCA  and employed by the RNZSPCA
  5. Sarah Elliot   who was a lecturer with Wells at Unitec and worked for AWINZ on the Lord of the rings, ( now Sarah Elliot-Warren) is now the RNZSPC inspector at Waihi .
  6. Neil Wells was  a formerly  RNZSPCA December 2         1978 see news clippings    most of the page right side page       bottom      & page 13

We have to ask the question   Are the RNZSPCA aware   of all of this ?

11/02/2010

The lack of verification -opens door to corruption

I have been working with members of the RNZSPCA Waikato branch, where things are not at all well and  an overwhelming  similarity  exists between  its branch and what has happened in Waitakere city with AWINZ.

I have been supplied with a list of members   who  were voted on to the executive of the  incorporated society   and have compared that to those listed on the charities web site  – you would  expect the two to  co relate   but   they don’t

So what is going on   and why can’t elected members   be on the executive  and  why  do the executive have to sign a confidentiality agreement.. These are public funds which they hold

I have also noticed that the lawyer  who  processes the trust deeds Brian Adams   shows  a conflict of interest in that   he is also a trustee.

I also hear that the   officer listed as  Keith Houston    is the vet to which the society contracts

I am disappointed that the charities commission  does not require  certified copies of the  minutes of the AGM  to validate the names of the people put on the Charities  web site.

It appears  that if you make it up  its fine  there is no verification no cross referencing  and this  firmly closes the door on transparency and opens the door to corruption.

This ties in  with the larger picture  of AWINZand has surprising parallels

In 1999 Neil Wells  who had previously  expressed his intent of setting up a territorial animal welfare service  and had written  the  first bill for what was to  become animal welfare act 1999 to facilitate it , applied to the minister for  AWINZ  which did not exist at  the time to become an approved  organisation  to facilitate council  employees to be used as SPCA type officers.

In Hamilton  at this time the RNZSPCA Waikato branch was told that the land would be rezoned and that they needed to sell  so their property   at Higgins road  sold to  Mr & Mrs Kettle and  the  Hamilton City council  facilitated   the RNZSPCA in the same building as their dog  and stock control officers.

Back in Waitakere city  the pilot  programme  which Neil Wells had set up  in 1995 was still ongoing  despite the fact that  MAF had revoked the licences of the inspectors ( this information passed to me by a former inspector  who I have no reason to doubt.)

Waitakere take on   the dog control for North shore  and  call the contract Animal care and control.

Hamilton city   also uses the name animal care and control , I have as yet not identified any other  cities  who  use that name .. most call it dog control or the pound.

In 2000 Nearly $400,000  is GIFTED  from the RNZSPCA Waikato  to a newly set up trust  of which Neil Wells is a trustee . ( he does not live in the Waikato  he  lives in Waitakere city )

By 2003 the deed is amended and  the RNZSPCA which was a trustee  is dropped off.

No wonder I was  sued.. for speaking  the truth  this iceberg keeps getting bigger. I will not  stop chipping away at it  until I get it down to an ice cube.

History  does repeat  you only need to  read  the Star Weekender  December 2 1978    most of the page right side page  bottom    &

page 13

09/02/2010

Whats happening in the Waikato RNZSPCA – Parallels with AWINZ?

Filed under: corruption,Neil Wells,SPCA / RNZSPCA,Tom Didovich,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 9:14 am

To get a perspective  on what is happening in Hamilton you need to  understand the structure of the RNZSPCA and SPCA

New Zealand structure RNZSPCA and SPCA  explained ( cut and  paste from the RNZSPCA web site )

The national governing body of the organisation is the National Council, elected at the AGM by representatives from the districts. Each of the 54 local SPCAs incorporates in its title the name of the district in which it operates. For example – the Waikato Branch RNZSPCA; Canterbury Branch RNZSPCA; and so on. Not all local SPCAs are “branches”. A small number are member societies, some the original ones from last century. These member societies do not use “RNZ” in their name (eg Wellington SPCA, Otago SPCA).
Each of the 54 local SPCAs runs its own affairs and handles its own finances. A voluntary committee controls the activities. The larger SPCAs have some paid staff, but most rely on unpaid personnel. Each has one or more warranted inspectors, paid or unpaid, to investigate complaints of cruelty and to enforce the Animal Welfare Act 1999.

So the structure for  Waikato  is

RNZSPCA-  national body   incorporated society

Waikato RNZSPCA  incorporated society

The Waikato SPCA  trust Charity Rules.pdf but these were amended  to this

So why has the Waikato RNZSPCA set up a  trust which represents the name of the older   societies  and why was  this  trust not incorporated for 5 years  after being set up  .

I have done some home work and found some more parallels with the Waikato RNZSPCA and AWINZ

In about 2000 The Waikato branch of the RNZSPCA was apparently told that the land they were on was to be rezoned and it would not be suitable to remain on the Higgins road property.

The property was  sold   and the proceeds of the sale and some extra  were given to a newly formed unincorporated trust  ( the deed of which  is similar to that  of AWINZ  in style )  .

The council  provided facilities for  the SPCA   to operate along  side their  dog and  stock control officers .

The RNZSPCA  Waikato  gifted in $397,547.00  to the  unincorporated trust   in 2000 which was composed of   trust  deed

  • The Waikato branch RNZSPCA Settlor
  • Derek Clive Dalton  agricultural scientist
  • Gavin James Shepherd  ( who I  believe is the vet who contracts to the SPCA.)
  • Neil Edward Wells- The man who set up AWINZ and wanted to integrate SPCA with councils
  • Gwendolen Garrick  ( now deceased )

A updated  deed was filed Amendment Of Trust Deed which included the newly appointed trustees  and two more to  replace  the councillor who  left council and  the  deceased  trustee

It now appears that  the incorporated society  is no longer a trustee  and so with a stroke of  the pen   some $400,000  has been moved from the   societies reach  and   into a trust which calls itself the SPCA. … dangerous  stuff I can see why the natives  are getting  restless.

But it appears that when any one opens their mouths  they too are dealt to like I was    on the Auckland Air cadet trust when Neil Wells    got rid of  me  by bad mouthing me and amending the trust deed  because I sought  accountability.

The Waikato SPCA  has been in the news of late.. more people need to speak up   there  is  strength in numbers

12/10/2009   SPCA concerns

22/10/2009 SPCA: benefactor’s cash safely invested

29/10/2009 AGM sideshow

18/11/2009 Money wasted

18/11/2009   SPCA bias

1/12/2009 Quick to blame

Keep those cards and letters  — and emails rolling folks  ,  information collated is a powerful tool

Grace Haden  Licenced Private investigator , member Certified Fraud Examiners Association   former Police Sergeant

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

02/02/2010

Where MAF missed the point

They could not have opened an account  or obtained a loan  but  MAF and the minister gave them law enforcement abilities. .. A secret well worth  protecting.

While it appears that MAF went through the motions of due diligence in approving AWINZ as an approved organisation under the act , they never checked out the  most vital details –

DOES AWINZ EXIST IN A LEGAL FORM? – no it does not   the trust is set up in the  structure which is normally  used for  family trusts , the structure  it has is not suitable for a trading  entity let alone one which has  law enforcement capabilities.

Incorporation makes the trust  a “ legal person’  capable of acting  like a natural person.

Without incorporation only the natural people can act- this is well set out   in various official documents and acknowledged by any one who would expect accountability .

1. characteristics of different legal structures Ministry of Social Development; Department of Internal Affairs sets out the various structures

2. Companies office because the trust does not have its own legal personality the trust’s details are not presented in its own right. Where an unincorporated trust is either a General Partner or a Limited Partner of the Limited Partnership the details of the trustees must be recorded A Limited Partner can not be an unincorporated body hence the reason for providing details of the trustees.Only the Trustees of unincorporated trusts  can hold shares.

3. Trademarks Section 183 of the Trade Marks Act 2002 provides that:  No notice of any trust may be entered in the register, and the Commissioner is not affected by any such notice. Pursuant to this section, an application may only be made in the name of a trust where the trust is incorporated (for example under the Charitable Trust Act 1957).Where an application is filed in the name of an unincorporated trust, IPONZ will require the applicant to amend the name to that of the individual  trustee(s) of the trust as it is the trustee(s) who legally own the property, not the trust itself.

4. Societies A society that is not incorporated cannot sue or be sued in Court.  Any Court action would either be taken by, or against, the members individually.   An unincorporated society cannot own property or enter into contracts.

5. Land transfer the names of the trustees   not the trust appear on the  title. Each trustee has to sign to make any transfer valid.

6. unincorporated groups- How-to Guides – Community Resource Kit The rules of an unincorporated group will derive from an agreement between the members or an implied agreement based on past practice, or both. But as an organisation, it will have no particular legal status.

7. Unincorporated charitable trustcommunity resource kit–  this may be used where someone sets up a trust to provide funds for a particular cause. They have the limitation of any unincorporated group and are not recommended for an ongoing community group.

8. Resource consent Waikato –partnerships and unincorporated entities (such as private or family trusts or unincorporated societies) we must have the details of all authorised partners, trustees, members or officers. We may also request a copy of your society’s rules to verify your status as a formal body or society.

It should be noted  that The charities commission however is not a register for entities  and  is only a register for charitable purpose  it states

Can an unincorporated collective be registered as a “Charitable Entity” under the Charities Act 2005?Yes.  An organisation does not have to be a legal entity to register with the Commission.  The Commission expects most organisations that meet the charitable purposes test will be either:
1, a trust, or
2, a society or institution
but not necessarily an incorporated trust, society or institution

DOES AWINZ EXIST AS  LEGAL PERSON AS  IMPLIED   IN THE APPLICATION  AND SINCE.– no it does not  much has been made of the requirement to be incorporated  and  by being incorporated the  trust  would have had perpetual existence and would have been a legal person in its own right. The manner in which  AWINZ has been represented both to MAF and to the court is as though it is incorporated.( which it is not )

It takes a very short time  to incorporate a trust Mr Wells incorporated two other trusts  only one month before he claimed  to MAF that he was in the process of incorporating  AWINZ.

National animal welfare trust board application 17 June 1999 registered  28 July 1999

Ark angel trust board application 17 June 1999 registered  28 July 1999

So why did he  claim to    MAF  22nd august 1999 the  minister22 November 1999 , and  in the application for funding 28 October 1999 that   it was being incorporated  when he knew that he needed a trust deed and quite obviously  there was not one? (Please note a copy of  the  notice of intent docs are attached to the  funding application)

What would happen if such a declaration was made for the DPB?  Why is this statement acceptable from Mr Wells and being defended in courts and by Government department as  being an acceptable   statement to make   with regards to setting up a law enforcement agency?

DOES AWINZ HAVE A TRUST DEEDthere are two trust deeds   for two groups  of people using the name AWINZ  one dated 1st march 2000 some  7 months after the  first claim that   such a deed existed. ( this is based on the assumption that the deed was not retrospectively signed in 2006  when MAf  first realised because of my actions  that there was no deed on file and had never been sighted. ) and a second on 5 December 2006, this  second trust has a different purpose  from the first  and  added the word the to the name.

ARE BOTH THE AWINZ TRUSTS WITH A TRUST DEED  THE SAME No  only the first trust  was the one  which  MAF and the minister considered when “ approved” status was   given.  The trustees of the second trust have no formal obligations or agreement   to  the  legislative powers of the   first group, and have adopted this role only by implication and assumption.  There is nothing in writing in which  Hoadley, Didovich  or Coutts   have agreed to  the  legislative responsibilities. Only Wells has   signed the MOU with MAF with no evidence that he  had the consent of any other person to sign for and on behalf of them.

It has to be debatable therefore that  the second group of people can ask the minister to relinquish their approved status, for they do not have one.

CAN ONE PERSON REPRESENT  THE OTHERS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY  EVIDENCE AT ALL– No  for a person to be legally responsible   for  something  there has to be  an agreement from that person . It is usual to ensure that

1. That person exists.

2.They are who they claim to be ( usually with some sort of ID )

3. They  are aware of their responsibilities

4. They  consent to it their involvement

Did MAf  check this  out.. apparently not !

DOES AWINZ HAVE  PERPETUAL EXISTENCE IN ITS OWN RIGHT TO ALLOW  TRUSTEES TO COME ON BOARD AND GO . No  AWINZ is but a trading name   it is  not a name which has been registered any where  as  an entity in its own right ( legal person )

WHAT IS UNTRUE IN THE APPLICATION There were many  false claims in the   application form for approved status  as follows

1. Name of applicant: Animal welfare institute of New Zealand – there was no legal person or natural person by that name therefore a non person cannot be an applicant.

2. Registered Office: 1156 Huia Road-  this is Neil Wells residential address the  address was not  that of a registered office for AWINZ because  AWINZ was not registered  it was  but a name.

3. Relevant information – contained specifically in paragraph 10 – Paragraph 10

a. 10.3. Has any one seen accounts back to the date of this application, Wells maintained in court that the institute had no accounts and Waitakere claimed that no start up funds had been provided.

b. Because the institute will be registered under the charitable trust act 1957-this never occurred even though he had maintained since  August that  this was  happening.( he had incorporated two  trusts  by this method  just one month  earlier)

c. 10.8 the Waitakere city animal refuge  will be the deemed place of custody- Waitakere City  denied that  AWINZ operated from  their  facilities , Wells in correspondence to MAF claimed it was  leased for $1 per  year.

4. Application made by : Neil Wells Trustee- no trust deed existed

5. 2. Function of the Institute-It did not exist   it had not functioned, there was no trust deed and it was not   and never was in the process of being registered under the charitable trust act.

6. The principal purpose of the institute is to promote the welfare of animals– how can something which does not exist have a purpose?

7. 5. Management systems -The integrity of the system will be maintained by

· Memorandum of understanding MAF and AWINZ –this is not worth the paper its written on as AWINZ does not exist and cannot enter into contracts.

· Performance contract between AWINZ–this is not worth the paper its written on as AWINZ does not exist and cannot enter into contracts.

· Memorandum of understanding between inspectors employers and AWINZ-The inspectors employer is Waitakere city council , no one  in authority  from the council, i.e. the executive signed such an agreement. Tom Didovich the then manager Animal welfare division signed for and on behalf of North shore city and Waitakere city.

8. 7. Linked organisations – there is no evidence of the claim that the public assets of Animal welfare services Waitakere will be vested with AWINZ, and there is no evidence that this was ever put   into an annual plan.

a. Waitakere city  animal welfare service, contracted and won the dog control  contract for North shore, it is misleading to say that it took on  animal care and control.  This was the name which Didovich and Wells gave to the dog control service.

b. “Longer term the institute will compete for territorial animal control services “- this is inline with the original concept which Wells had in 1996- being the Territorial animal welfare services, which was also to be a trading name for himself.

9. 9.Legislative  Requirements – the  criteria  are set out in statute section 121 animal welfare act  and require the full name of  the applicant – a name  which has no  legal standing on its own cannot be  an applicant.   It therefore also follows that if it does not exist and as I am told ,the trustees did not meet.. Then it cannot have a purpose and cannot meet the criteria of the act. – I  personally believe that at all times AWINZ was  a trading name for Neil Wells

a. See also the correspondence with regards to the Lord of the rings, the American Humane association again only dealt with Neil Wells.

b. Until I questioned the existence of AWINZ in 2006 no other person was visible. We incorporated a trust with the identical name to prove that  AWINZ did not exist. Wyn Hoadley  claimed to be a trustee  commencing  two weeks after we had been registered  and then claimed that we were using the trading name with which she was associated.

c. Wyn Hoadley was pushed to  the fore as” chair person “ she  was not a  trustee by any other  means than by inference and  had not signed a deed. Wyn and Didovich are both part of the cover up , Coutts I believe is   dangerously ignorant  and the man is a JP .

WHAT PROOF IS THERE  THAT THIS IS NOT JUST A MISTAKE AN OVER SIGHT ON THE PART OF MR WELLS?

1. The court on the basis of Mr Wells  evidence  claimed  that “ he got ahead of himself “ Had the court seen   the full evidence I doubt if this conclusion  would have been reached.

2. Mr Wells in correspondence to the council pointed out the requirements of the trust being incorporated  these documents are

a. It is proposed that the “National Animal Welfare Trust of New Zealand” (which is referred to later in this document) is established under the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957.

b. The name of the trust needs to be approved by the Registrar of Charitable Trusts in the Ministry of Commerce.

3. It takes a very short time  to incorporate a trust Mr Wells incorporated two other trusts  only one  month  before  advising MAF 22 /8/199  that  the trust was in the process of being incorporated

· Ark angel trust board application 17 June 1999 registered  28 July 1999

· National animal welfare trust board application 17 June 1999 registered  28 July 1999     Please also note that  national animal welfare trust  was the name of a proposed name for  the trust  he was  trying to initiate with Waitakere city council in 1998   National animal welfare trust  board

WHAT FURTHER FALSE REPRESENTATIONS WERE MADE

Assertions made in applications  and correspondence as to incorporation “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. The founding trustees are:

• Nuala Grove

• Sarah Giltrap

• Graeme Coutts

• Neil Wells

1. 22nd august 1999  notice of intent to MAf ( copy of proposal below at point 2)

2. Application to community well being fund page 2  of the attached proposal   and in writing on point 1.8   document date 28 October 1999

3. Application to minister for approved status

In correspondence to MAF assertions were made with regards to the progress of  incorporation , see the full version

It is interesting to note that when the full version  was obtained  there was an item  which read

MAF would appreciate a written assurance from the Waitakere and North Shore City

Councils that they have the legal power to spend money derived from rating on animal

welfare (by paying inspectors when they undertake animal welfare work). This considered

necessary as the evidence you have provided suggests that the Council’s staff will be

delivering animal welfare services at the Council’s cost, with the Councils also providing

facilities to meet the requirements of section 141 and 142 of the Act.

This  was apparently satisfied By Tom Didovich the manager of the animal welfare division  when he wrote these two letters on behalf of  the councils Waitakere letter North shore  letter

29/01/2010

About AWINZ – Animal welfare institute of New Zealand

What is  AWINZ

AWINZ is a private SPCA type organisation which has its roots in a concept established by Mr Wells in 1994  when the concept of a public private partnerships first emerged.

It currently operates in Waitakere city claiming to be a charity , It is a name  which has  had a number of people associated  with it but in reality is no more than a trading name for person or persons  unknown.

Neil Wells the manager of  Animal welfare Waitakere city, a public service role contracts  effectively to himself  for the services of AWINZ  . the  council  staff at animal welfare give their    paid time” voluntarily” for animal welfare work which is performed using council cars, from the council  facilities and using council resources. All AWINZ does  is collect the  donations from the public  for this  service which is effectively being paid for by the  rate payers.

Origins of AWINZ

Neil Wells   has a background in animal welfare , he is also a barrister , he used to head the RNZSPCA  but  decided to set up a SPCA type concept  which was a private enterprise which he headed.

His original  concept was a  nation wide territorial authority animal welfare  service as set out  in this document . It sets out his business venture which he was in control of.- it is a nationwide concept where by Dog control and stock control officers who perform the legislative  duties for territorial bodies( councils )  are  trained, supervised, controlled by Mr Wells for a fee,   to  become animal welfare inspectors. At point 7  he sets out the  costing  which in 1996 was $2500  and $1250 per annum there after  per inspector .

After lobbying  for a new animal welfare act , Mr Wells  offered to write it and introduced into the no 1 bill the  concept of using Territorial bodies . Had this  been successful this  would have facilitate  his  business enterprise as  above.

There were objections to local government being involved in what was seen to be a central government role  and a second Bill was introduced, the two bills were read together and during the process that the bills were passed into legislation Mr. Wells was employed as an independent advisor to the select committee.

A pilot programme had already been introduced  at Waitakere city in 1994  which was to run for a short period  but  continued on into an “interregnum” phase ( it has never been established if this  was done with the sanctions of government or  simply overlooked.)

Who is AWINZ

To overcome the hurdles, introduced by the objections  of local government being  involved in what was seen to be a central government role  , the concept of a trust was introduced by Mr Wells and had various  suggested  names ,  trustees and  concepts .

11/01/1996         Territorial authority Animal welfare services a trading name for a division of the trading name which Mr Wells was using at the time.

Jan-98                   National animal welfare trust  board Proposed  Trustees  Neil Wells ,Waitakere  city council        and  councillors

early 1998           Waitakere Animal Welfare Trust

Late 1998             AWINZ Waitakere  city council     and un named trustees

Late 1998 Neil Wells  recruits   Nuala Grove   , Sarah Giltrap    & Graeme Coutts to be trustees and is paid for it  by the city through tom Didovich  see copy  of the invoice

In  1999        AWINZ  which is later ( in court)  alleged to be an “oral “trust  makes an application for  funds an application to the minister of Agriculture . In each of these documents a claim is made that the trust exists by way of  trust deed  when   the reality is that no trust deed existed at that time. A statement is made in both and confirmed in the first document in Hand writing that the trust is being incorporated.

In 2006  we questioned the existence of AWINZ  when no trust deed could be found or evidence of incorporation . We incorporated a trust with the identical name  which  brough  attention to the falsehoods in the application    and after  nearly 7 years of not incorporating the trust or  having a visible trust deed it was now so urgent  that  they could not meet with us to resolve the issue  and needed to sue us to  force us to relinquish the  name.

A trust deed materialised in 2006  and later a second deed appeared  which  was in contradiction to  correspondence which I had received from Maf.  The trustees  allegedly  signed the deed 1/3/2000 when Tom Didovich the manager animal welfare Waitakere drive to   them and  collected the signatures.  I have long wondered why this was not done at a meeting of the trust board.

Trustees were   Neil Wells ,Graeme Coutts,  Sarah Giltrap and Nuala Grove, the deed required no less than 4 trustees.

2006   On discovering the identities of the trustees I phoned them  and asked them  about their  trust, Graeme Coutts  said that  they had never met because they were not that type of trust, he then said he  had to  check with Neil before he could speak to me further . I never got any more from him and  Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap  through Neil wells claimed that I had harassed them, when all I had done was phone them and asked them if they were trustees.

Nick Wright and  ex wife 

I felt intimidated  by Nick Wright’ s former wife , who initiated contact in what I consider to be the most unprofessional way  , Nick wright was later the solicitor who  took the matter to court as a solicitor for Brookfields.   His former wife allegedly did the work pro bono  according to an email sent  by Wright  but despite this the  costs in court were crippling .

*I was phoned late at night  she claimed she was a lawyer  and said that if I did not  change the name of our trust  then she would  go after my private investigators licence, to me that is intimidation , this reference has been changed one year into defamation proceedings  (2019)because Vivienne doesn’t believe she intimidated me. this statement  was not considered to be defamatory by her in 2014 when she allegedly first  noticed it  but it is defamatory according to her in 2018 . this has been altered at  my initiation to try and  appease the defamation proceedings. 

The statement of claim which  had no supporting evidence was filed  by David Neutze   and the plaintiffs  calling themselves AWINZ were  Neil Wells ,Graeme Coutts and Wyn Hoadley.

These people were less than the  four required by the trust deed  and Wyn  who  with  the others claimed  that the trust we had incorporated in April  2006 was passing itself off a the trust which she had joined in  May 2006 ( but had no trust deed to prove that it was  more than a fiction )

Hoadley , Didovich, Wells and Coutts  sign a trust deed  on  5-Dec-06  and now claim to be the same  trust as the one which was granted the approval as  an approved organisation.

This requires some explaining.

A person or an  incorporated group  can own property. They can also sue and be sued and through the various  legislations  those which are not natural persons are registered  with the ministry of economic developments .

Those bodies  which are registered  can have some one act for and on behalf of the “ organisation.’

Trusts are one of those  weird things  which can be incorporate or unincorporated.  If a trust is unincorporated  they have  existence only through the  trust deed which the trustees have signed  , they  often pick a name  which may or may not  be unique  and the trust is  effectively invisible except for the  deed  which is   some where.

If an unincorporated trust  buys  property the name of the trust does not appear on the title   but the names of the trustees do.  The same occurs  when an unincorporated trust owns a company, only the trustees names appear on the  share holders list.

If an unincorproated trust enters into a contract  it is actually  the trustees  who enter into it  unless they have a document  which authorises  some one to act for them , this was never the case with AWINZ and such a document was never sighted  by  Central government before allowing one person to make an application on behalf of a group of persons.

If an unincorporated trust sues   they can only do so in the names of the trustees.  In this case the alleged  trustees  who    sued me  were Neil Wells, Wyn Hoadley and Graham Coutts  who at the time did not have a trust deed  or any proof of being a trust.

The action  taken against me  has been a legal process taken for  an improper purpose- the lawyers involved had a duty  to ensure that  the proceedings were being taken for a proper purpose  and that the  people making the claim  could  do so .

No evidence has ever been produced  and through manipulation of the court process  Nick Wright  from Brookfields  has obtained a verdict against me  by introducing prejudice  into the court by calling me vindictive  etc  and diverting the court from the lack of facts.

More on  dirty legal tactics later..  this entire scenario is proof of how dangerous it is to question corruption in NZ  the lack of support  and the penalties for speaking   the truth.

07/01/2010

Update on Didovich

Update on Didovich

I have updated the previous post relating to  Tom Didovich to include the   fact that he collected the signatures  for the trust deed  by driving about Auckland  and getting the trustees to sign it. He was the witness to their   signatures.  Further compounding his involvement .

It also needs to be pointed out that Tom Didovich is no longer an employee of Waitakere city . We therefore need to further question his involvement in AWINZ as his continued involvement is  clearly not a responsibility placed on him by the council  .

I would   love to hear from the RNZSPCA as to why  they don’t mind being integrated with AWINZ   they are competing charities  and they  need to carefully read the following documents

26/08/1994 ENHANCING ANIMAL WELFARE SERVICES- a proposal     author Neil Wells

12/12/1994 Waitakere City SPCA  author Neil Wells

3/05/1995 N. E. Wells & Associates acting as a consultant to Waitakere city author Neil Wells

15/01/1996 concept of a nation wide trust “territorial authority animal welfare trust” author Neil Wells

January 1998 strategic options author Neil Wells

Flow of funds author Neil Wells

Trust proposal : includes the statement  -“Care would be needed to ensure that activities are not perceived to be in competition with the SPCA although this might be a challenge.” author Neil Wells

14/04/1998 this document included the statement “While there would be no thrust to promote the new charitable trust as an “alternative SPCA” it would not take long  for the public to gain this perception.” author Neil Wells   It is a document worth considering as to the possibilities  of AWINZ competing with RNZSPCA

23/12/1998 In discussion today with Tom and Neil Wells, it was agreed that from a public relations perspective, their position should be preserved in some way – either as is or by being absorbed in or connected with the new trust. However, a great deal of the current Animal Welfare development proposal is confidential for the meantime and some Friends of the Ark are connected with SPCA (who will not welcome our move into what they perceive as “their” territory). Accordingly we suggest that when the issue becomes public (at about Annual Plan time) the Friends are brought it  and offered a role in the new set-up.  Author Dai Bindoff Waitakere City Council

06/12/2000 SPCA staff and vehicles used on the lord of the rings movie monitoring in the contract which AWINZ held. See AHA letter ( American Humane  association )

02/01/2010

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

How much is AWINZ intertwined with the RNZSPCA?  the role of Tom Didiovich  … Trustee of AWINZ   and RNZSPCA officer ..

You will find Didovich’s  web  site at http://www.lifecoachtom.com/

He is a life coach  known as “life coach Tom”.   His web site says “Be well. Seek and find your own and therefore authentic truth for there you will find contentment and harmony with your self and the universe.”

He claims his credentials through Coach inc  but    he is not  listed on  their web site.

His history can be summed up  from this article from the RNZSPCA Tom Didovich  was recently appointed national education and branch support manager, based at national office . Much of Tom’s 25-year background in animal welfare has been as manager of Animal Welfare Services in Waitakere,west of Auckland”

What is not revealed is Didovich’s connection with AWINZ this can be shown historically as  follows.

Didovich was manager   of animal welfare Services in 1994  when Wells  first put forward the concept of An  spca for Waitakere city A in Waitakere city

In May 1995 Wells acting as a  consultant for waitakere city corresponds with MAF enclosing a proposal  for the animal welfare division of Waitakere city  to commence a pilot programe for the council officers to be trained to a standards equal to or exceeding that of RNZSPCA officers – ( note the charge out rates on page 7  )

In preparation for the transition into a private service the Animal welfare Division which  Didovich heads    has an overnight name change  … nothing more than a stroke of a pen.

An agreement “pilot contract” is forwarded to Didovich from Wells which includes provision for Wells to act as Barrister see clause 4 (e)as part of the “pilot programme”

15 January 1996 Wells writes to Didovich about the plan for a Territorial Authority Animal Welfare Services a division of N.E. Wells & Associates

They later appear to  work on a draft  paper integrating animal welfare with animal control . Note at the bottom of the first  page  the invitation for Didovich to ad Lib a  little bit more.

As the Bill which has been written  by Wells progresses through the select Committee  (where Wells is employed as a independent adviser ) it becomes clear that a formal structure is required to facilitate the concept of  this “ territorial  animal welfare Authority “ and  Wells  proposes a Trust concept   for which he is paid , the invoice is approved by Didovich   and  paid for  by public funds .

In January 1998 a proposal  document “strategic options ” emerges in which  it states “Care would be needed to ensure that activities are not perceived to be in competition with the SPCA although this might be a challenge.

3 march 1998 Wells communicates with Didovich and has commented on Didovich’s Draft .

April 1998  email wells emailConfidentially, as you know there is a thrust to form a new charitable organisation similar in objective to the SPCA but organizationally different in that it would be a charitable trust rather than an incorporated society. But both are not-for-profit organisations.” While delivering animal welfare compliance would be one of the objectives it would not be the only one.

While there would be no thrust to promote the new charitable trust as an “alternative SPCA” it would not take long for the public to gain this perception. This is all part of contestability”.

13 may 1998 Didovich provides comments on why there is a need for a trust

Didovich email august 98 suggests  that the trust  should have sponsors for credibility.

31 aug 1998  It would appear that the pilot programme which was set up for 6 months  continued to operate  without  any  official authority  ( based on the word interregnum) . despite the fact that  the “pilot programme”  appeared to be operating  in anticipation of the new act becoming law .

2 sept 1998 Didovich announces that  Animal welfare Waitakere has  the dog control contract for the North shore and comments that the North shore is a wealthy area into which they can tap for DONATIONS. He also   talks of calling the service provided to North shore as  Animal care and control, this is again but a trading name.

2 sept 1998 there is a letter from Wells  to DIDOVICH clarifying that “The pilot programme has now passed Into an ‘Interregnum’ phase.” There is no evidence  that Didovich ever questioned  what this meant  and if he had authority to continue on with  the programme.

didovich email sept 98Didovich updates his superiors and tells them of a requirement  for a trust and a response is received   from John Rofe principal adviser council owned business .  and a Further   more official response is located which appears to have been prompted by Didovich pressuring the council in that establishing a trust step was Urgent  paragraph 2 .council direction re trust

On 30 November 1999 an invoice is issued by Wells to recruit the trustees  this invoice is authorized for payment by Didovich invoice re trustees this trust was to include Waitakere city  but it never eventuated as such an no deed was ever signed.

23 December 1998 there was communications with  some of the  council staff   with regards to the waitakere  trust  “In discussion today with Tom and Neil Wells, it was agreed that from a public relations perspective, their position should be preserved in some way – either as is or by being absorbed in or connected with the new trust. However, a great deal of the current Animal Welfare development proposal is confidential for the meantime and some Friends of the Ark are connected with SPCA”

19 jan 1999Neil Wells tells MAF that the council have opted for not  being in the trust  but it appears that this is not communicated to Didovich (or the council)  who continues  to push the council to set up a trust many months on. didovich email june 99

14 june 1999 Didovich keeps the pressure on  to the council and cites the reason being that “The alternative is for Animal Welfare Services to lose all the warrants and this will set us back considerably”. Is he  ignorant of Well’s plans  doesn’t he know that wells has already told  MAF that the city is not going to be involved, or is Wells playing one  off against the other?

Two things happen at about this time Neil Wells  and some of the people who Tom Didovich gas  recommended to council in his  email august 98  set up  the trust national animal welfare  trust which is the name of the trust mooted to council for the proposed trust name in  early  1998 .At the same time these same  people set up  ark angels trust  which is not to be confused with the friends of the ark mentioned in the  email 23 December 1998

The second thing  that happen at this time  is that a notice of intent is  sent to the minister before the bill is even completed  and a month later  an application is made for  funds for the non existent organisation AWINZ. Two names appear on the application. Neil Wells and Tom Didovich.

at about the same time  Didovich and Wells let the SPCA know that they have set up a trust , the general impression  is  that a trust exists  but  nothing has ever been done to set one up.

In November Neil Wells  on behalf of AWINZ ( a trading name for person or persons unknown) applies for this to become an approved organization.   The trustees named are the people Wells recruited and invoiced  Council for ( approved by Didovich)

14 December 1999 Didovich is advised by Maf that all warrants expire

Maf require verification from  both Waitakere  city and North shore city as to support  for AWINZ  and Didovich does this   on two separate letter heads  One for  north shore and one for Waitakere

Tom   later  sends through statements from  all fourteen staff   with regards to  their  enforced  willingness to work   for AWINZ, I have attached  those of Lyn McDonald QSM   and  Jane Charles  who  both lost their  jobs later because  they were perceived as a threat to AWINZ. Staff to whom I have spoken  said that they were upset with this move as they were given no opportunity to decline this involvement and  received no extra pay.

AWINZ‘s transition into an approved organisation  is not  smooth  so Didovich writes to  the council lawyers  with the following instructionsNeil has suggested that he draft a contract under section 37(t) which you could then provide a robust opinion on for subsequent presentation to MAF Policy to see if they will accept  such a path forward.” This legal opinion is then forwarded By Wells to  MAF6 august 2000

1 sept 2000 Discussion occurs with MAF  and further legal opinions are sought all for the setting up of a Private enterprise all paid for by the public purse

AWINZ against the recommendations of MAF and treasurybecomes  an approved organisation  just after Bob Harvey   who at the time  was the president of the Labour party and   Mayor of Waitakere was consulted.harvey briefed

In 2004 Didovich  and Wells signed an mou for waitakere  . Didovich signing on behalf of the linked organisation  Waitakere  city   and  also  according to   their  files for  North shore  City.

Didovich  has the honour of being written up in the herald he makes the point of stating “”We enforce both the Dog Control Act 1996 and the Animal Welfare Act 1999, other councils don’t. “

In 2005 Didovich and  a staff member  form a liaison and Didovich  has to move on . Neil Wells takes over as manager animal welfare and remains CEO of the  so called AWINZ effectively contracting to himself. A check of the companies Web site  for  ONLINE GOODS LIMITED shows that  Didovich is in  business with Vicki Whitaker  who   resides at the same address as him  she is an AWINZ   inspector and is employed  by Waitakere city council as a dog control officer

Didovich  on leaving the council  takes up a role with the RNZSPCA  National Education and Branch Support Manager  but later  find his way into being a life coach .

When we raised  Questions with regards to the existence of  AWINZ in 2006   a trust deed emerges dated 1/3/2000 . It has to be noted that  Didovich witnesses the  signatures of Nuala Grove, Sarah Gilltrap and  Graeme Coutts . Didovich in an affidavit claimed that  he drove about Auckland to collect the signatures, it would appear that they could not even meet for  such an important  event as  signing the trust deed and  you can help but wonder   if the date on the trust deed  was accurate.

I am  told that two of the trustees   resigned allegedly because I harassed them (  I  said  excuse me are you a trustee of AWINZ ? )     Wells, Coutts and Hoadley take  legal action against me  ( see Hoadley’s involvement )

Didovich turns up in court regularly and is the only support person for Wells on occasions. In December 2006 a new trust deed  emerges and Didovich is identified as a trustee.

According to  the charities web site Didovich became a trustee ( although not  signing a deed )  on 14/8/06

As can be seen  on the charities register  Wells is a trustee  of The Waikato SPCA Trust ( with Peter Blomkamp chief executive SPCA )    Laingholm Baptist Church and The Animal Welfare Institute Of New Zealand

Didovich on 3 December 2009  placed an advertisement  in the Gisborne Herald

Tom Didovich

SPCA NZ National Branch

Support Manager:

branchsupport@rnzspca.org.nz or

Ph (09) 827 6094 or fax (09) 827 0784

So  what are the parameters between AWINZ and RNZSPCA   are they acting as if they are  one organisation or does it not matter that   those in control of one are also in [psotions of control of the other?

The RNZSPCA are aware of Didovich’s involvement in AWINZ   they obviously don’t take it as seriously as one Government department6 dec 2000 lotr did when they discovered that  AWINZ had been  employing RNZSPCA officers for the  provision of false end titles for the Lord of the rings.aha

23/12/2009

Chair woman WINIFRED ( WYN) Hoadley

Filed under: corruption,Neil Wells,Nuala Grove,Sarah Gilltrap,Tom Didovich,Wyn Hoadley — anticorruptionnz @ 6:18 am

Today I received the much awaited reply from Waitakere city – the   letter where by  AWINZ relinquished its approved status.

the letter signed By Wyn Hoadley as Chair person . It  is interesting  as it  states that the trustees met with senior Maf officials on 11 August and gave notice of their intention to give notice to the minister . cf audit report

Wyn  was appointed to the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC) in August 1999, which was just months   before AWINZ applied  to become an approved organisation.  She was not a trustee of AWINZ according to the original deed which was allegedly signed  some three months after the deed was claimed to be  in existence

The” trust “ never incorporated  and in 2006  Nuala Grove  ( whose husband I believe was a former Judge )   and Sarah Gilltrap   ( whose husband is Richard Giltrap of  Giltrap Toyota) “resigned” this meant that the trust which  requires no less than 4 members (according to its deed ) now had 2  .

We formed our trust on 12 April 2006 and incorporated it on the 27-APR-2006.We called our trust the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand  our successful registration proved  that the statements  made in the  application to the minister and the subsequent correspondence was false as to the claims of incorporation. ( and so was the application for funding )

On checking the charities register the  filed documents as to  who is who on the  unincorporated  AWINZ trust ,shows that Wyn Hoadley became  a trustee on 10/05/06 this was   over two weeks after we had incorporated our trust.( ours being an entity in its own right  through  incorporation )

Despite the requirement of  4 trustees  and the requirement for them to  be at least bound by a deed, there were now three “trustees” on the trust which used the trading name Animal welfare institute of New Zealand   .  Wyn  and Two others  took action against us  for  Breach of fair-trading. And passing off,  even though Wyn  and the other two had never traded as AWINZ and had “formed” their  Trust ( without any documentary proof)  they took action against a legally  constituted entity for the purpose of forcing us to give up the name so that they could legitimise the  shaky ground they were on.

Now  we were legally registered  and had IRD donee status.  They were but a  trading name for three people  who did not have a trust deed. When I started blowing the whistle that they claimed to have donee status and did not  they hurriedly applied to the charities commission and found themselves wanting   for a trust deed.

Tom Didovich  who had  been involved since the  beginning was called in   and a  new deed was drafted ,

Tom Didovich  is the former manger of Waitakere city animal welfare who had commissioned law reports to  facilitate set up  of AWINZ  and   corresponded with MAF  on behalf of both North shore and Waitakere cities  to  pave the way for AWINZ to be approved .This deed was signed on 5 December 2006.

Unincorporated trusts do not enjoy perpetuity, and there are serious legal issues surrounding the claim of one AWINZ claiming to  be another. An unincorporated trust can only sue or be sued through its  individual members  and so you could never sue this AWINZ   as without sighting a deed  there was no accountability.  No trust deed was on record   prior to  June 2006.

In Mid 2006 Wyn put her name to  a fund raising  flyer, I phoned her and  expressed to her my concerns about being sued. I asked if the trustees  form her trust and  the trustees of  ours could meet with view of resolution. Her reply was simple “ I am not the messenger “

Wyn has been fully aware  of the court action against me and has supported it  even turning up at court one day  with  her purchases from Smith and Caughey . She is a barrister  and I am disappointed that she  has  supported this action   and I cannot believe that a barrister would not know of the   finer details of the legalities of trusts or at least if  so closely involved  take the time to  find out.

Barrister Wyn Hoadley is an Auckland Regional Councillor and chair of its finance committee. She is a former North Shore City councillor and was mayor of Takapuna City from 1986 to 1989. She is patron and trustee for various North Shore performing arts, sport and community organisations.

She holds the New Zealand Suffrage Centennial Medal 1993 and the New Zealand 1990 Commemoration Medal and is a Companion of the Queen’s Service Order for Public Services (QSO).

Wyn Hoadley Like Neil Wells  and  Mayor Bob  has labour party roots .

Tom Didovich  had to leave  his Waitakere city  job  because of a personal relationship with  a  staff member. Neil  Wells  took over his role. Tom then obtained work with the RNZSPCA  where he  has  had various roles and is now SPCA NZ National Branch Support Manager

18/12/2009

Reply from Mayor BOB does he condone corruption?

Filed under: corruption,Neil Wells,transparency,waitakere city council — anticorruptionnz @ 9:40 am

From: Mayor Bob Harvey [mailto:Bob.Harvey@waitakere.govt.nz]
Sent: Friday, 18 December 2009 6:35 p.m.
To: Grace Haden; enquiry@oag.govt.nz

Grace you must love this stuff..To be honest I am so over you and your battles… do me a huge favour take me off your list and your private hell…give peace and  honest people a rest.Happy New year Bob Harvey

From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Friday, 18 December 2009 10:36 p.m.
To: ‘Mayor Bob Harvey’

You have previously acknowledged that Wells is a colleague of yours from advertising days, You worked  together on the labour campaign that got the Kirk government into power.

Neil Wells Managed to get approval   for  his non existent   organisation when you were president of the Labour party .

It appears to me that you either trust him so much  you cannot see  the reality  with regard to  AWINZ  which he   controls and contracts to as Animal  welfare manager  or you know more and  just wish this would go away.

The OECD    defines contracting  under these circumstances as Corruption , but  it is good to see that Waitakere City condones  such practices. In any case   making an application to the minister  with false information  is surely not something to be defended? And why was I sued  for questioning  the false application , our courts are full of   lesser people  who have been charged and sentenced  for making  false claims  in applications to the government , why is this  one different?

I wish I had known that you condoned this practice  before  I asked questions about  it.  My Battles began when I was   sued for defamation  and prevented me form  having a defence of truth , my battle was to  prevent the loss of the vast sums  money which I  have had to pay to defend myself  against the action he took against me using charitable funds ( being public donations  from the residents of Waitakere ) This is called Slapp action overseas where there is legislation to protect whistle blowers.

I realise a lot of covering up has occurred and I also realise that to expose the true extent of this corruption will take many others with it   so the old boys have to work together to keep that woman quite.

The fact that  my family has been  torn apart  and I have lost everything I held  dear    only encourages me to speak out about this injustice , I have nothing to fear Bob  you have helped  and supported this process which has  taken everything I valued from me.  I have nothing else to lose  .

I will not  stand by  and see this happen to any one else,  too many people in Waitakere city  council have lost their jobs over this, it is time   that the corruption in your city is exposed. Your HR department has made good use of confidentiality agreements .. I am certain that AWINZ is  but the tip of the iceberg.

What this proves  is that in New Zealand we   keep our  least  Corrupt  status  by   silencing those who question corruption .

Bob – Mayors  should not be seen to condone corruption. Corruption  exists in new Zealand  it will only flourish if it is condoned.   I will post this   and your reply on my blog  https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com

Regards

Grace Haden

Proof that Mayor Bob  has been involved in this from the early days is found in this document  note the cc at the bottom

« Previous PageNext Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.