AWINZ new evidence

Open letter to the minister of Primary Industries and  Minister for Local  Government.

Sir

AWINZ  operated from the premises of Waitakere city council in a manner where it appeared to be a CCO , it used council databases, vehicles , infrastructure, plant and  personnel for private pecuniary gain. It also attained  approved status under the  animal welfare act in a situation which was considered by MAF  at the time to be ultra-virus  and in a manner where council  officers were cut out of the loop.  While council denied that  it existed on its premises MAF were of the belief that the Council premises had been leased for $1 per year.

With the on-going saga of Animal welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ )  I have been  putting together a chronology of documents which I have obtained under LGOIMA and OIA over the years  and in reading each in detail  I  have found  more documents   which shed  light on the issue.

Both MAF and  Council have not acted responsibly in investigating this matter properly .

Since these documents  came from your own  department MAF and from a local body ( Waitakere council ) it will not be difficult to  verify  everything I claim.

First of all it appears that Mr Wells was able to meet with ministers and high ranking MAF officials on a regular and  “ off the record” basis. I on the other hand can’t even get near my local MP and when I do  he  totally ignores the issues I have raised. He also had undue influence within  council and circumvented the  normal processes.

I have had 6 years of being fobbed off  but have a ton of evidence which supports my allegations but no one is prepared to look  at them.

To that end I respectfully request that I could meet with you or an investigator / lawyer appointed   by you  and  detail the  evidence which I have collated which  shows that the Minister  at the time and therefore the crown  was deceived  in the application for approved status for AWINZ.

To  help you make the decision to appoint an investigator / solicitor   it may be  appropriate for you to  look  at the  attached documents.

The document 13 nov 2008.pdf  was  written by MAF solicitor joseph Montgomery  , it is in response to a question raised by Neil wells as to  whether or not Waitakere animal welfare can be an approved organisation. The reply is that Animal  welfare Waitakere  cannot be   an approved organisation as it is not an “ organisation “  as intended by the act.

Since Mr Wells could put such questions to MAFs solicitors for  a legal opinion I request that   I may have the same privilege extended to me.

I f the following could be put to  either crown law or to   the MAF solicitor it may  help you see this matter   clearly.

My question is  In view of the following evidence   is “ could  AWINZ have been an approved organisation? “

On 22 November 1999 an application for approved status  was made   as attached. You will note  that this is the “ application”  which was relied upon by the minister at the time  which subsequently led to  AWINZ becoming an approved organisation under the act. See paragraph 3 18 december 2000.pdf

•  This application  contains a blank trust deed.

• The application is made in the name of an alleged  trust  but  the application itself has not been signed by any person .

• Evidence obtained at a later time  proves that  no trust deed existed on  22.11.1999 and the statements  contained in the application were false  . trust deed.pdf

• The  name of the applicant   could not   have been  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand  as  this name was not defined and no legal person  using the name other than as a trading name existed.  No person using the name as a trading name was identified.

• No subsequent applications were received and Mr  Wells gave a number of assurances  that the trust existed but avoided providing a deed.

• Since the very nature of an  unincorporated trust means that the trust is only represented through its trustees,  there would have had to have been applications made which show that each and every trustee consented to the application for approved status and accepted  responsibility in their personal capacity.

• Mr Wells was the only person involved in the application, He did not even sign the application but signed the  covering letter  claiming that he was a trustee.  Significantly I have located a  business plan which Mr Wells  drafted in  1996 (Territorial authority Animal welfare services.pdf) and shows the format which eventually  became AWINZ  and that this was about personal profit. The business plan  applies to AWINZ if the name  territorial  authority animal welfare services is substituted. And shows mr wells propensity to using trading names

• Individuals could not be an approved organisation , It is therefore a reasonable assumption that  he wished the  minister to  believe that an organisation existed as individuals could not  be an approved organisation.

• No verification of the existence of AWINZ was ever carried out  by MAF or the minister  and in  the audit in 2008 it was noted that AWINZ  operated seamlessly with Waitakere city council ( page 2 )

• A lawyer versed  in company or trust law will be able to advise that  an entity which  has no independent legal existence cannot enter into contracts  , only real or legal persons can enter into contracts  and as such the MOU entered into    between MAF and  AWINZ was not worth the paper it was written on

• Throughout  the application process MAF expressed their concern that the council becoming involved in animal welfare work was  not lawful , I was given documents which were edited BY MAF , I was fortunate enough to   find documents   at Waitakere city  which  had not been edited and from these documents the  edited comments  were  shown to be   as follows.

• Crown Law has advised MAF that the Local Government Act does not allow a territorial authority to fund an animal welfare organisation or employ animal welfare inspectors.

•  A territorial authority may employ staff only to perform its functions as set out in that Act and may only spend money on matters expressly or impliedly authorised by statute.

• Crown Law considers that if Parliament had intended a territorial authority to have an animal welfare role then the power could be expected to be found in the Local Government Act or other legislation.

• I believe that the opinion given by Crown Council is detailed and persuasive and raises an  important matter of public policy.

•  I would need to consider whether I should approve a proposal given that I am advised that to do so would be contrary to the law.

• Whether or not we approve AWINZ should stand on Its own merits ie I am not keen on the Government entering into an agreement under S37T to legitimise something that is not a l ready legit “

• If the  crown were  to enter into an agreement with TA and with AWINZ that  would be recognition  that work was being undertaken on behalf of the crown  should it  come to pass that the TA was held not able to undertake the activity from its funds  the crown would be left with a potential claim against it.

• etc

• The crown law office gave a legal opinion  saying that AWINZ could not have law enforcement authority and Mr Wells obtained an opinion through  the council dog control manager ( who is not a trustee f the cover up trust ) Wells told MAF   at the time  that he felt  that he could have gone to the council lawyers  but  chose to  go to Kensington Swann, this stamen makes me suspect that  the council  lawyers were deliberately  circumvented  . It also appears from the  documents I obtained that  that  Mr Wells   probably influenced  the  Kensington Swan legal opinion  as significant changes were made to the draft sent back to  Tom Didovich   manager Waitakere   dog and stock control  who routinely   consulted Mr Wells.

• Maf  when facing the conflicting  legal opinions stated  “A definitive resolution of these conflicting legal opinions should be decided in court”

The conflicting legal opinions were never tested, Mr wells at this time  met  with the president of the  Labour party  Bob Harvey and from  that point on  the   approval for AWINZ to become a law enforcement authority went before caucus and was approved by the minister  despite opposition by treasury and  MAF  .

AWINZ  was  not an organisation   and never functioned as an organisation . When I  asked questions as to its lack of existence  in 2006 Mr Wells called a meeting  the    meeting  notes  came to light in 2011 , despite an audit report   by MAF in 2009 recording that all governance documents had been destroyed in a computer crash .1.6  page 7  & (4.1.3 Record keeping)

The meeting minutes AWINZ MEETING MINUTES  10-05-06   show  that in 2006  the  deed which MAF had never received a copy of  was again missing.

It a had been  missing  on   25  march 2000.    When Mr Wells reported that he could not send a  copy of it to the minister as it had been sent off  for registration bottom of page 6 ( also note that  the deed  does not have a section 20(a) in it and  originals are never sent. )

However  when the matter came to court in 2008 there were two trust deeds  this happened after a judge had shown disgust in a copy which had been presented to the court but which looked nothing like the  copy  which I had been sent by  the alleged trusts  lawyers  trust deed.pdf   , and indeed there are now two trust deeds  the copy which MAF has  is different to the copy which I was supplied with. trust deed MAF  version

I have been conveniently made out to be the villain in the piece ,  I did not mean to question corruption but  I  asked simple questions as to why council  dog control officers were volunteering their time to  an organisation which was so indistinguishable from council that it looked like it  was one and the same.   I note that MAF made the same observation in the audit in 2008. Had either MAF or council  done the proper thing  and investigated it , this would have been resolved many years ago.

Instead it is apparent that  when I asked OIA questions that MAF consulted none other  than Mr Wells for responses  , thereby  giving him control over the concealment of  facts.

I believe that times have   changed and hope  that   a proper investigation can be conducted into  this matter  and that  a crown  solicitor  can look over this  email and properly advise you to the    legal issues involved.

In short AWINZ with its structure could not have obtained a $5 loan  from a bank but it could obtain law enforcement ability from the  government.

Hot air and bullshit.

It  is official  New Zealand  functions on hot air and bull shit  protected by a very solid  brick wall of denial.

There are some  who belive that this is a veil of  corruption  but I am now firmly  of the belief that it is because it is because  apathy, arrogance, ignorance and incompetence rule.

The Charities commission has  accepted that the trust  which registered  with them  in  may 2007 called the animal welfare institute of New Zealand  has more right to the name  than the company which holds the trade mark.

The fact that the  company took over from a legally registered trust by the same name appears to be  beside the point   and just because four people sign a document claiming that their trust had existed since 2000 then that too must be true.

Have the charity people not heard of verification????  And why shouldnt we all just use trading names  just think of the confusion.. we could all call ourselves John Smith .. we have name registers for a reason.  the reason I questioned  the  name animal welfare institute of New Zealand in the first place was because it was a law enforcement agency and Neil wells on the  application to the minister had stated that the  deed had been singed and that the  registration was in process.

Judge Joyce   decided that Mr Wells got a head of himself.. Try that  one  in court if you ever appear  before his honour..  Well your honour I was doing   100 in a 50 area because there was a 100 kph area up the road  I got ahead of myself.

Or  I wasnt shop lifting  I   simply got ahead of myself I left the shop without paying.

If it works for barristers  then it has to work f or the rest of.

It also worked for Neil wells when  he applied for  funding    from the community board he said there was a trust  but   there wasnt one.. Any one  else would have been  done  like a dog’s dinner    but some how Neil Wells  has immunity.  He can

How to write legislation for his own business plan

Use the court to conceal corruption

Got his  litigation funded through the public purse

Give  false end titles to the lord of the  rings movies

use any name he likes   and   cover up to such an extent  that   he undermines  the entire company  society and trust structures.

It would appear that Barristers  who are  members of the  laingholm Baptist church    can   do anything and be immune to the law  because  they can  spin their  story  and be believed on their word.

Who needs  evidence  when they have Neiil wells.. he will make it up   he is a master of spin.

Proof of this is  his statement to the court where he contradicted the Statement of Claim how can a person have two versions of the same story and have them both believed.

Even though I  told the truth     and had evidence of  the truth I  was accused.. but never  found guilty of  defamation.

The legal process was alos re written By wells and his acomplice  lawyer Nick Wright  who saw to it that I was denied  a formal proof hearing and then convinced the court that I had had one.

Poor Nick was so confused that in one submission  he   got himself all tied up   and  contradicted himself  But that Was Ok   that was acceptable.  para 56 and 62 of these submissions

I am the villian in the peace   I should have known better than to question corruption.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AHA wrote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need more transparency and accountability .

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

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

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

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

Circumstances

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Official information request  Minister of local Government.

1. Your office  has advised me that a  public discussion paper is going to be published in February next year. I have been told by SPCA officers that  Dog and stock control is to be privatised ,  Please advise  If this paper  is with regards to the privatisation of  dog and stock control currently undertaken by councils.

1. As it is obvious that something is contemplated and that  those in the animal  welfare sector are aware of  what  is in the pipe line   could you please advise  if there is a policy which   allows  certain people to become aware of impending  changes  before public consultation has even begun.( and is still so distant )

1. Please also advise if it is appropriate that some  sectors of the community are for warned about  such policy changes.

1. The Waikato animal welfare foundation , which  I believe has close connections with  the Waikato SPCA trust  which Mr  Wells  was a foundation  trustee of (  taking  charge of $400,000  of the RNZSPCA’s money)  has  announced  developments  at WINTEC.  Please advise if  you have been communicating with Wintec or any one involved with this foundation  with regards to the facilitation of training for the council  staff   and  others  to  be trained to replace the council  dog  and stock control officers.

1. I would  like to mention here that UNITEC  tendered for and won the contract  at the time that the animal welfare Act became law, it was no surprise that Mr Wells who had written the act was also lecturing at Unitec and had written the course to   go hand in hand with the act.  Many would say that this is using inside information and it  appears to me that history is about to repeat.

1. If you believe that it is a conflict of interest to   speak to me  with regards to lack of accountability of the animal welfare  institute of New Zealand   ,its involvement in Waitakere  city and use of the  public funds obtained through council connections, do you then  condone  such practice  or is  it simply that you do  not wish to   be formally aware of the situation  because that would throw a spanner in the works  for privatisation  which I am aware Act supports.

1. I  wish to draw your attention to  the fact that you were helping me with this mater before  you became  a minister, you disapproved of the  practice then,   has your status as minister made this practice acceptable? Why do you  seemingly condone this action now  when  previously  you were pro active about exposing   this conflict of interest?

1. Please provide  copies of all documents, correspondence , notes and  jottings  with regards  to and from  any  approved organisation, to and from  Maf , SPCA, RNZSPCA, AWINZ,  training   establishments such as Wintec, Unitec and the Waikato animal welfare foundation   with regards to
   1. Privatising  dog and or stock control
   2. Amalgamating council   dog and stock control with  animal welfare.
   3. Reviewing animal welfare  services
   4. Reviewing dog and stock control services.

1. What cost benefit analysis  have been undertaken  and what conflict of interest precautions do you  have in mind.

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

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

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

Regards

Grace Haden

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

The problem with secret trusts. The irony: Daniel Grove seeks answers of one while concealing another for his mother .

AWINZ was a secret trust in 2006   no one could see who the trustees were and  who operated the trust despite the fact that it played a public role and had public accountability .

In the past week this same issue has been highlighted with   Blue  chip    see herald item in that item  they quote  this conversation  between Bryers and Daniel Grove

Excerpt from Bryers’ interview, May 2008

Grove: “There is a reference in the accounts to a sum being owed by somebody called the Sebastian Trust. Do you know who that is?”

Bryers: “Yes I do.”

Grove: “What is the Sebastian Trust?”

Bryers: “Sebastian Trust is a trust relating to our family interests.”

Grove: “To your family interests?”

Bryers: “Yes.”

Grove: “Who are the trustees of the Sebastian Trust?”

Bryers: “Can’t recall offhand.”

Grove: “Are you a beneficiary of the trust?”

Bryers: “I can’t recall that either.”

Grove: “If we want to write to the Sebastian Trust, who do we write to?”

Bryers: “Well, I am happy to act as an authorised agent to receive information and receive any questions.

What is ironical  is that  Daniel Groves mother  Nuala Grove   was a “trustee” of  a trust which  equally could not be found    and this  Trust   using the trading name Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand   was involved

• in law enforcement,
• Prosecuted people and    deposited the funds into   a bank account    which was in the name  of the Animal welfare institute of New Zealand, when no such  entity existed ,
• This same trust obtained and solicited donations  from other  trusts  and obtained in excess of $100,000 that we know of .
• gave a false end title to the lord of the  rings,

Mrs Grove could   have  spoke up    with her concerns  if the activities of this trust were not comfortable to her, But she remained silent  while I was taken to  court  and   sued.

Mrs Grove told me that  she would only say that the signature on the trust deed was hers , she would  not say if it was put there in 2000  or  at some other time.

In the absence of any other proof  we can therefore only assume that  she signed it on the date stated   and we than  have to wonder why  she did not  attend meetings   and was not  actively  involved with the trust  which she supported by  lending her name and signature to  , a trust which  had significant  public responsibilities as described in this letter from MAF.

“The provision is  significant as, apart from MAF inspectors and police officers  only inspectors  appointed on the recommendation of approved organisations can exercise enforcement   powers under the Act. Some of those powers are significant as they include the ability to inspect premises without a search warrant and to execute search warrants without  the police being present. At  this. stage only the RNZSPCA is an approved organisation (through a transitional provision In the Act).”

This  same document  also describes   the functions  of AWINZ and how it came to be , it is even more significant  that   this trust was set up to  “ over come  the legal and policy issues that precluded  local authorities  having an animal welfare  enforcement role “( paragraph 9)

At the time  this letter was written   concerns were raise with regards  to accountability ( paragraph 10) .

Paragraph 12 makes the public implications clear   …  “A decisions to approve an organisation under the Act has significant public policy implications and. for this reason. It must be very clear whether the organisation has met the criteria. ”   How can something secret and invisible possibly have complied with accountability provisions?

Questions which need answers

1. Why did Waitakere city pay to have the trust set up and why do they deny that operates seamlessly from their own facility?
2. why did the labour party Cabinet  approve the application of a trust which    was invisible and  not incorporated  as it claimed to be
3. Why were the trustees not actively  involved in the running of the trust
4. Why are the trustees named on the  deed remaining  silent?  And assisting in what I believe to be a cover up
5. Why  did Mrs Grove   sign the trust deed and say it is her signature  if she is not  a trustee
6. Why as  trustee was  she not  carrying out her public duty as   to  the responsibility she took on as  being a trustee.
7. Why did the minister of Agriculture  ( Anderton ) not see the   invisibility and lack of accountability a of this trust  as an issue of public concern when I raised it with him.
8. How can Daniel Grove ask questions of Mr Bryers  invisible trust when  he appears to me  to be  assisting  in the  cover up of his mothers Invisible trust  ?

When a trust cannot be found   and the trustees cannot be identified  where is the accountability???

Why has it cost me so much  for asking the  questions   hey Isn’t this corrupt ????

In the end Bryers and Grove have something in common they  both   are keepers of secrets  behind  secret trusts .

The following is the correspondence  which  Daniel and I have exchanged

From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2009 8:55 a.m.
To: Daniel Grove; ‘Denis Sheard’; ‘Mayor Bob Harvey’; ‘Councillor Hulse’; david.bayvel@maf.govt.nz; david.carter@parliament.govt.nz; bellis@ellislaw.co.nz; admin@gct.co.nz; mtwellington@gct.co.nz; graemecoutts@xtra.co.nz; graemecoutts@ix.net.nz
Subject: a blog which exposes corruption

Good morning all   please read this    It is  important to  you  and your client

For the past three years I have been held in court with litigation   taken against me by AWINZ in an attempt to  silence me.

The price I have paid for the injustice I have suffered  and for the crime of speaking the truth and   questioning corruption has been simply too high.

I am now left with  only one option but to take  this to the court of public opinion   in the form of a blog  which   each day exposes the players and their part

This afternoon  I will be adding another chapter.  Since this chapter  mentions you  or  in the case of lawyers    your clients I am advising you  of this fact before I post – the draft is attached

The link to the site is

http://aniticorruptionnz.wordpress.com

Regards

Grace Haden

From: Daniel Grove [mailto:DanielGrove@45chancery.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2009 2:02 p.m.
To: Grace Haden
Subject: RE: a blog which exposes corruption

I refer to the email below.  I write on behalf of Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap.

Your article is defamatory and breaches the Privacy Act.  Your reference to Mrs Grove’s and Mrs Giltrap’s contact details and addresses is both surprising and concerning.  I assume that the reason you have included these private details is to assist third parties to locate my clients.  Your publication or their contact details appears, on its face, to be sinister.

Mr clients have no idea about your dispute with Mr Wells and do not want to be part of it.

I write to ask you to delete forthwith all references to my clients on the website.  If you are not prepared to do so voluntarily my clients will have to consider their positions.

Yours faithfully

Daniel Grove

========================================

Chancery Street Chambers

P O Box 130

Shortland Street

Auckland

T + 64 9 362 0101

F + 64 9 362 0102

From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2009 3:31 p.m.
To: Daniel Grove
Subject: RE: a blog which exposes corruption

Thank you very much for your response

I believe that it is  important to  identify those  involved  with AWINZ . The  details I provided on the blog were obtained  from public sources and  there fore are not in breach of privacy .

People need to be accountable to the truth .  If they do not wish to be found  they should stay out of the phone book  and  off other public records.

Your clients are aware of the circumstances      and   chose to stand by while  I was under attack from those  who  sued me in the name of AWINZ, the trust  which  they are shown to be trustees of(  and  there is  no record of them having resigned from .)

If you could please supply me   with evidence that they were not members of AWINZ at that time and had resigned   and

If you  could please point out   that which you consider to be defamatory   I will happily amend  the blog

For the record  I   had spoken to your mother about her signature on the trust deed , I asked your mother a simple question as to when she had signed the trust deed   she told me  that all she could say was that it was her signature.

I was wanting to find out if the deed  was signed in 2000 or some  later time and retrospectively dated.

Her truth  will make a lot of difference to many people , what has she  got to hide?

I will be posting these  emails on the blog .

Regards

Grace Haden

From: Daniel Grove [mailto:DanielGrove@45chancery.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2009 3:38 p.m.
To: Grace Haden
Subject: RE: a blog which exposes corruption

Neither my mother nor Sarah Giltrap have anything to do with your dispute with Mr Wells. They do not know what it is about and do not want anything to do with it.

I fail to see why you are involving them in this matter.  They have no interest in getting involved in litigation, however, if defamatory comments are published by you, an appropriate application will be made to the Court.

========================================

Chancery Street Chambers

P O Box 130

Shortland Street

Auckland

T + 64 9 362 0101

F + 64 9 362 0102

Daniel Grove   Misses the point, when people sign a trust deed and become trustees  they take on responsibilities  in this case extensive legislative ones.

If they were aware of their responsibilities then they should have acted  responsibly, If they were unaware of the  wide public  implications and were duped then they should speak up .

Both Women Knew  what was  going on, I made certain that they   knew , they   chose  to use  the option of  distancing themselves  from anything smelly, this was never about Neil wells  this was about accountability of AWINZ    soemthing  which they had put their names to  and the only visible person being  Neil Wells

Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap  are both mothers  , presumably they   are humanitarian people  becuase they  joined a ” trust ” which   cared for  animals , but   do they care about other peoples families.   Is it  just part of the elite stiff upper lip   and pretences syndrome?

Well ladies  you got yourselves into something smelly when  you become trustees and allowed people to use your name  to become a public law enforcement  authority, if you did not consent to it  you shoudl have used the  influence of your laweyrs to  have distanced yourselves from it.

There is of course the   possibility that they did not sign the document  in which case  it should  be  fornesically examined.. But Mrs Grove  has already told me  the signature is hers.

If they did sign them then  they could explain

1. why there are now two deeds.
2. why they sign a trust deed  for  an organisation and   then are not actively  involved.
3. If they did sign in 2000  when  did they resign
4. what  did they think   trustees of an approved Organisation did?
5. why they pretend to  be ignorant  of the fact that I was sued in the name of AWINZ and that Brookfield  lawyers  were  invoicing AWINZ for suing me  before   any other trust deed was signed.
6. Are Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap were real  humanitarians
7. would a real humanitarian  the   walk away  and leave some one to be beaten  up  when they  know they can help? ..

Blessed are those who hide  behind lawyers   for they are the ones with something to hide.

How to get your litigation funded through the public purse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The chronology  goes like this

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

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

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

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

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 trust —community 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  22^nd 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 DEED – there are two trust deeds   for two groups  of people using the name AWINZ  one dated 1^st 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. 22^nd 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

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 unincorporated 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.

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 email “Confidentially, 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 instructions “Neil 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

Chair woman WINIFRED ( WYN) Hoadley

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