Anticorruptionnz's Blog

17/02/2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

and  if it is Ok then it is not corruption

hence we have  no corruption

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisements

23/03/2010

Truth can not harm a persons character – why is select committee defensive

Filed under: corruption,religion and truth,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 9:43 am

Here with  the latest exchange from the select committee.   I have not  made any comments  I have merely supplied   evidence of   real events . If we do not wish to accept  that such things can occur   how can we  legislate to prevent  it from occurring? or do we as a nation through those who make  our laws   condone corrupt practices

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

14 Freedom of expression
  • Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.

We should not live in fear  of speaking  the truth , if New Zealand had  ratified the  united nations convention  against corruption false claims of defamation  could not be brought  least of all succeed without any proof.

I would like you  to look  at this clip , I wonder if our “ watchdogs will get such a reprimand one day.  Why  is one persons reputation   so valuable  when  hos own actions have tarnished  it.

I have a  simple  philosophy   if you don’t like people speaking the truth about your actions  then perhaps you need to look at your actions.  Don’t do that which  you feel is a blot on your   good name..   Those who act  corruptly   need to be exposed  not protected.

From: Andy Gardner [mailto:Andy.Gardner@parliament.govt.nz]
Sent: Tuesday, 23 March 2010 1:15 p.m.
To: ‘Grace Haden’
Subject: RE: submission re higher penalties in animal welfare act rejected.. is it because I question the corrupt practices in animal welfare?

Ms Hadden,

The committee’s decision to return your submission was due to its determination that the issues you raise are not relevant to the bill, and that the risk of harm to an identified person’s reputation exceeds the benefit of the committee hearing your evidence.

In returning your submission, it is not possible for you to make an appearance before the committee during its consideration of this bill.

I also note in your email below that you say that you have posted your submission on your blogsite. To do so is entirely your decision, but you should be aware that the submission is not protected by Parliamentary privilege and that you are liable for any statements contained within it.

Yours sincerely,

Andy Gardner

Thank You Andy

I have trouble comprehending that  my submissions are not relevant to the bill and it would appear to me that 232   does not  give the  ability  for  my  submission to be thrown out .

The    Bill calls for higher penalties for animal welfare offences.  Is it  then not appropriate  to look at who enforces the legislation     and who profits  by it.  There are dangers  associated with increasing penalties  if the issues I have raised are not considered.

You cannot mitigate the unforeseeable  but when   something is known to have occurred and makes an impact on the legislation you are looking at changing  , then the good and  the bad need to be considered.

My  life has been devastated by the fact that I sought accountability of  an “organisation” which  enforced animal welfare  legislation.  There was no transparency or accountability   But the select committee are prepared to go ahead and consider this penalty change without looking at the dangers of doing so.

I have brought  factual matters to the attention of the select committee , without comment,  All I have done is brought  the physical evidence   yet that  is not enough. We would rather pretend  that    this does not occur  and allow it to  continue  than to  take notice of it and consider the  loop holes and legislate to ensure  that there is transparency and accountability .

Those who enforce  a law should be accountable to the law  and there should not be an ability for a private prosecuting authority  to have such wide sweeping powers   and have no accountability.

New Zealand wishes to ratify the  united nations convention against corruption  and to do so they have to consider issues such as those which I have raised , It appears that the select committee are prepared to turn a blind  eye to the fact that they have employed a person  to advise them in an “ independent “ capacity   who then  put the legislation  he advised on for his own  use. I realise that  it has to be an embarrassment to admit that this has  happened  and that is why it  is easier to stand by an  see my  life devastated than to act responsibly.

It is not as if Mr Wells   set up   his approved organisation  was an after thought , the evidence shows that  the idea  came first and  that he wrote the legislation to accommodate it  , what was done   was premeditated  and planned.

The  “organisation”   which was set up as an approved body   uses council employees  , paid for  through the public purse to  Volunteer their paid time   to enforce the law   which you are seeking to increase the penalties for .penalties which ultimately  could   be awarded   back to the  “ organisation” which took the  prosecution.

The animal welfare  Inspectors  have wide sweeping  powers but  have no transparency and accountability and I have illustrated this  by  using the example of my own profession which has no powers   yet has extreme accountability. Their accountability should be  at least the same as  we are subjected to  ensure that they are  properly accountable to the law they enforce, laws which call for significant periods of  imprisonment.

I would have thought that it would  be negligent of all those considering   this legislative change   to cast aside  submissions  which   suggest that the increase of penalties may  be unsafe to the  public.

The select committee has to be aware that the  legislation was written by some one  who   had a vested interest in  seeing the  legislation pass with as little accountability as possible and that that person was an advisor who  as it turned out was not independent at all.

I request under the urgency provisions  of the Official information act to   be advised of the names of those who were present  when the decision was made to    throw my submission out without  giving me an opportunity to  rewrite the submission.  I hope  that they appreciate  the fact that had I written the submission without  any evidence  they would probably not have believed me  , I  would be happy for them to consider my submission  but not put the matter on the public file  , truth  is  truth, I cannot change it  and when people cannot  bring truth to a select committee it is time for us to  take a long  hard look at ourselves.

I would also lie to know  what  legal advise was provided by crown  law  with regards to this  submission , please provide a copy of that advice.

I believe that this is  required in the interest of openness and transparency.

Regards
Grace Haden

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

23/01/2010

Transparency International New Zealand

Filed under: corruption,religion and truth,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 12:57 am

To the executive

I am now in possession of  my privacy act request   and wish to raise   some further issues.

From your web site I note that     you define transparency  as  follows   “Transparency” can be defined as a principle that allows those affected by administrative decisions, business transactions or charitable work to know not only the basic facts and figures but also the mechanisms and processes. It is the duty of civil servants, managers and trustees to act visibly, predictably and understandably.

This I believe  sums up exactly  what I wish to know . It is  obvious those  who made decision in the email poll must have  known more about me  than   what was on my application . I would  have hoped that if  nothing had been supplied to  the members  of the board that they would have responded that they did not know enough to make a decision and asked for more information and not provided a declinature.

When I was declined I   asked   if I could present my self at the AGM  so that the members could meet me and make an informed decision  I was advised    “The Board has also considered your request to attend the 2009 AGM of Transparency International (New Zealand) Inc and your request has been declined”  that request  was made after the declinature  for membership  yet you have not included    those emails   in the   privacy request reply.

I also note  by the times and dates on the emails that  that  I was declined   before all responses were  received  , is that  ethical?

  1. The  email    dated 24 November The author has  written “ Ok I vote  yes for every one except   XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and the third person  who is associated with them. My reason  for this is that they all have very questionable tactics for achieving their political purposes which includes making slanderous statements. “ please advise
  1. How this person  obtained the information to make this  statement, was it based on anything he has been told or  heard in the society , or was it information  obtained else where, if so which  agency did it come from
  1. i.      I would  like that member to  provide me with the information which  he  had available to him   on which he made that statements. I believe that this is information which   needs correcting as I have been unfairly judged.
  1. In view of that statement I  also wish to know if  that  sentiment  has been  expressed   verbally at  any  time to   influence the other   board members , and why is there a reference to three people   when  only Vince Siemer  and I were declined   (  yes we do compare notes )
  1. I was also with Penny Bright  yesterday and saw her   information  request , I wonder why  she did not  get a copy of that email  which  obviously bore her name . ( you may also want to tell her   why  hr application was considered and  declined   by a  member when it  had not been tabled. )

Further  In the interest of transparency  , I would  like to know

  1. Why you are withholding information ? and not being transparent
  1. What information the members had in front of them  when they made the decisions about  membership , did they  just have names   or  did the email sent to the board members  have  the application forms attached and a synopsis on each person? If  so what did they have  about me?
  1. I have been on a number of societies  and have always been aware that   the only rules  which are current  are those which are filed with the registrar and sealed by him.  I note that unlike other societies , your rules are not   visible   on the  Societies web site  . I note that you do  have   rules filed with the charities commission   there is nothing in these  guide lines which  state what the criteria  for membership is  and I therefore request  a copy of the criteria  which  I was judged against.  Why can some people  join and why can’t others .

My  work, my background and my  aims and  objectives are in line  with those stated in your objectives.  I do much to   expose corruption and   was heartened  by your  flyer which  states  corruption ruins  lives  Fight  back.

My  family has been devastated   because I questioned corruption.  I fought back   and the  very organisation  which encourages fighting back    will not let me  join  therefore   I cannot  I can pass on   what I have  learnt and observed in the practical sense of  fighting corruption.. its  like   sending the troops  into battle and then abandoning them.

I  did not wish to join  to push my own  barrow-  but for the good of the public , so that the work  that I am  doing has wider implications. I don’t have a political agenda  other than  having  stood for the Kiwi party in Epsom, I did not  join as a  Kiwi party member  and I am entitled to my own political affiliations as much as I  am assured  freedom of association ( bill of  rights )

I work at the coal face I work with the people to whom your principals  apply.

I am extremely disappointed in the manner in which  Transparency International  has not lived up to its own objectives, what is ethical about the manner in which I have been judged? Where is the transparency   ?

I can only speculate that you do not wish a person such as myself  to be  a member because I expose corruption and this  is not  in  line with the perspective  which you have  cast  on New Zealand internationally. The reality is that we are as corrupt as the next place   only we pretend  that we are not  corrupt   we    beat up any one  who pokes their head up and says “excuse me  but isn’t that wrong?”

I see peoples lives destroyed by corruption and firmly believe  that  if people stopped seeing  New Zealand as a  corruption free zone, they may actually start asking questions , questions which would reveal the truth  and   then they  would not be ripped off and their lives would not be destroyed.

Aside from my professional  life, I am a mother and a housewife  , I used to be a wife  but corruption  saw the end of my marriage when a lawyer  decided to re write my marriage  vows  because I was sued  for  speaking the truth  .( connection 2 )

I believe that if you sweep dirt under a rug  sooner or later  you  will trip over it  and it will come out. To get  stains out   there is  nothing like  sun  light . Perhaps those who criticise my methods  do not realise that the mechanisms  that we pretend  exist to deal with those issues  don’t  work  and when people are  being beaten up through the court and financially  crippled  because they questioned , have no alternative  but to use alternative methods  because no one else cares, the only ones that do  have   suffered the same and then we  get criticised  for associating with them –  no  doubt in an attempt to isolate the victims  so that no  one know  how many of  us there truly are.

For  Four Years I have been questioning

  • why   we allow people in New Zealand to write legislation  which will further their own business interests( and provide potentially  vast pecuniary income ) ,
  • why people in council can contract to themselves in a trading name
  • why it is Ok to make a  false statement to the minister to set up a law enforcement agency .
  • Why  they can  solicit  public donations  claiming to be a charity and deposit money in a bank account   only they can access
  • Why they can prosecute people   and offer diversion  for a donation to   their trading name  and their bank account .
  • Why they can use   council staff , facilities and resources  and claim to  be  charity  and compete with a charity
  • Why  the court can be used   to  buy silence .. I was also sued  for  attempting to locate a director and liquidator – the business partner  of David Nathan  ( chamber of commerce )  had a finger in the pie and funded the lawyers , he is now  a fugitive from our laws    but still used the court  to  beat me up  . see news item

I have  all the proof in the world  obtained  from the  government  departments and councils   involved, yet I am the one    who  was taken to court for defamation for  speaking the truth  and denied a  defence . When the judge could not   find enough evidence  he had to resort to Google .

Yes I can see why   you don’t want me   because   I believe that   what I have touched on is but the tip of a very big ice berg.see https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/the-unitec-connection/

It is good for business that people  believe New Zealand is not corrupt.. it bankrupts many  and  writes off debts.  I just wonder how many lives have been lost because of our corruption  and the  justice system  which  appears to support it.

I  guess your reply  will  show   prove if your  organisation is farcical or not .

In the interest of transparency   I have put this on my blog  to keep the readers informed. https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/

17/12/2009

Open letter to the Baptist Church

Filed under: corruption,Laingholm Baptist Church,religion and truth,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 10:44 pm

I am addressing this to the head office of the Baptist church   and passing  it to  other  branches for transparency.

It  is timely  that I make this request of the  church as this is   Christmas time  the season of  joy  and good will to all men.( and  hopefully Women )  Luke 11:9

My Christmas  is some what different  this year , my life , my family has been torn apart  by a elder  of the  Laingholm Baptist church, a barrister   who through false evidence sworn on the bible in court  has  discredited me  , it appears nothing has changed since the time of Jesus.      Luke 11: 37-53

His false evidence has provided him with potentially vast financial rewards and the opportunity to cover up the corruption.  I questioned his conflicts of interests and the false evidence he gave to  the Minister of Agriculture with local and central government. Proverbs 14:25, Proverbs 19:9,

His action against me  was  funded with charitable funds and the  pecuniary gain to him is personal.

The background story is on my Blog https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com you can navigate that blog thought the tabs both at the top and the sides to get the full story. Proverbs 19:5 .

My Crime   which has cost so much ,( financially   and personally ) was to question the activities of this  elder of the Laingholm Baptist church a man who according to  the   constitution of the church should portray the qualities displayed in 1 timothy 3: 1 -7.

I turned to the pastor of the church for assistance to help to mediate  to intervene in this hypocritical action  but I was told by him  not to contact him again. Proverbs 21:28

This is  to me  the most unchristian thing to do  and here a man of the cloth has become   living proof that the parable of the good Samaritan   is still true to form.  Mathew 23:28

My issue is that I am still on the road side bleeding; I am still being beaten up by a member of your church community.   My question is how many of you will pass me by   and is there a Good Samaritan amongst you who will assist or are you all going to cross over to the other side of the road.

I make this plea to you first   because   out there in the Christian community there must be some one who believes that this is not right.

We cannot pretend to be one thing and act as another to do so would not be Christian and  when  by silence others condone these false hoods in character, then we truly are on the path to a Godless society and a Godless society is GOOD  LESS . Exodus 23:1 ,

Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy Kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

For thine is the kingdom,

the power and the glory,

for ever and ever.

Amen

Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it

I hope to hear from  your church  so that this  matter can be resolved for  all parties and the common good  of New Zealanders.

07/12/2009

LGOIMA requests

last Month I  made a LGOIMA  request  to Waitakere  city , this is a request for information under  the local government  official information and meetings act .

I had received information from MAF that the trustees of AWINZ were no longer wishing to be an approved organization under the animal welfare act.  This was expressed in JULY     It is now DECEMBER  and Waitakere City  have just responded that the animal welfare officers   who are employed by them    are still accountable to AWINZ

This is the OIA  I sent on Tue, 10 Nov 2009  edited  so that I don’t defame Neil Wells. ( Truth is never defamation  but  truth has cost me  $200,000)

Official information act request for Waitakere  City and the minister  of agriculture and minister of local government

In 2006, I  questioned the  legitimacy of the approved organisation AWINZ  ( animal welfare institute of New Zealand)

I had discovered that the statements made to the minister in 1999  by the Baptist elder ( who  also co wrote the act) were PORKIES and made with intent of setting up his own business venture being to utilise  territorial agency employees for a private SPCA  type organisation.

The only place in new Zealand that this existed was in Waitakere  where Neil Wells  as  trustee of the  trust   AWINZ -contract to himself as manager animal welfare  so that staff could be trained by him for extra remuneration and he could collect  donations for the AWINZ  account  which only he had control over.  ( it’s a fact I can prove it – I don’t believe  that   that is defamatory)

I have recently been  advised  by Maf  that  the trustees of AWINZ ( trust deed dated 2006 )  have decided to relinquish the approved status. ( in this case the trustees  are not those on the trust deed but are   different ones,, not to be confused with the ones who sued me  they didn’t have a trust deed )

I am now informed  that the former AWINZ officers have become  warranted through the RNZSPCA.I  believe this was facilitated through Tom Didovich a trustee of AWINZ and also National Education & Branch Support Manager of the RNZSPCA.

By virtue of  the OIA  could you please advise

1.       The mechanism by which the council employees have now become Spca officers,

2.       please provide all documents  discussions, minutes of council meetings ,  correspondence  with relation to this  .

3.       Please also  provide a  copy of the contract between council and the spca  which allows council employees to be  deployed as RNZSPCA officers.

4.       Please also advise if this   role as RNZSPCA officer is  voluntary  and if it is are your employees aware that   it is a voluntary role.

5.       In  1999  local government NZ was  opposed to  council officers being used in a central government role  please advise if  there have been any changes  to this regard.

6.       I would still like to know  why making a false representation to the minister with regards to  claims that  an organisation existed when it did not   is not viewed seriously . why is this acceptable  when it led to  becoming a  law enforcement organisation   based on  the  fraudulent statements. ( as opposed to john davies and Marianne Thompson who were prosecuted for their lies )

For more info see http://www.indymedia.org.nz/article/77852/animal-welfare-institute-new-zealand

The reply  from Waitakere was as follows  nothing has been  heard  from the others.

From: Denis Sheard [mailto:Denis.Sheard@waitakere.govt.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 11 November 2009 10:58 a.m.
To: grace@verisure.co.nz
Cc: david.carter@parliament.govt.nz; Rodney Hide (MIN); Mayor Bob Harvey; Councillor Hulse; ceo@rnzspca.org.nz
Subject: official information act request.. council employees as spca officers.

Your email has been passed to me for response.

Questions 1 – 4

You are misinformed. Council officers have not become “SPCA officers”. Nor is there any proposal under consideration by the Council that this should occur.

The information requested in questions 1 – 4 does not therefore exist.

Those Council officers who hold Animal Welfare Act warrants continue to do so, under appointments made by the Director of Animal Welfare.

Question 5

I have no idea. You will need to address your question to LGNZ.

Question 6

This question is not a request for information but a request for the expression of an opinion.  No response is proposed..

Denis Sheard

General Counsel

DDI phone (09) 836 8004

Mobile phone 021 946 310

Fax (09) 836 8046

Email – denis.sheard@waitakere.govt.nz

tomorrow.. my reply  and  the next  replies from Waitakere .. still waiting on  Minister f or local governemnt and   minister  of agriculture

06/12/2009

The Parable of the good samaritan NOT

Some one kindly posted the parable of the good Samaritan on the Lord of the rings page (https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/lord-of-the-rings/)

It is indeed sad that  people such as Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap , who put their names forward to be on a trust  of such significance as AWINZ and SIGNED the trust deed chose to resign and remain silent  as soon as questions were asked.

They also knowingly stood by  as peoples lives were devastated  and  families ripped apart. at any time they could  have spoken up  at any  time they could have made a difference .

Another such nominee is the pastor of the Laingholm Baptist church  who like Sarah and Nuala, chose to cross over  to the other side of the road and did nothing  while people were unjustly being beaten up  . Intervention by any one of these people least  of all   by a man of the cloth  would have made a difference.

further nominees are MAF and he various government departments  who prefer to turn a blind eye  and while the  larger wrong continues  there are many who are prosecuted for  far smaller transgressions,

Blog at WordPress.com.