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.

Advertisement

RNZSPCA Waikato asks ratepayers to fund their bad bookkeeping.

The headlines read Support swells for stray cats funding

Now there is a call for the residents of Hamilton to all contribute   a few cents a year to   the RNZSPCA, all this because the SPCA cannot   deal with the stray cats.

First of all  Only dog and stock control re the responsibilities of  Council   and unless  there is some  legislation which I am unaware of  it  has actually been ultra vires  ( outside the scope ) for councils to become involved in animal welfare .  Cats   unless  they are a health issue are not  the responsibility of council .

Now I have heard that the SPCA has adopted a no kill policy.. very good humane  wise  but not so good given that some cats  are  not the type of animal you could re home    who would  want a wild cat   ?

So the no kill policy effectively  does  two things..

1.       It fills up the cattery, requires more staff requires more funds, keeps more  friends family and associates employed    ( this used to be done by  volunteers) they spent an extra $100,000   in the past few years

2.       It is a reason to  plead  poverty and ask for more funds

.. Isn’t keeping a cat in a  cage at infinitum would be  cruel  and the animal  is better off being  put down humanely.  Neil Wells    who claims to be AWINZ  has told the charities commission that he has funded studies  on   the stress  suffered by animals  kept in captivity..  Yes he is the same Neil wells  who signed the deed   where the $400,000  was slipped sideways..  do you feel like you are going in circles???

The Waikato SPCA  trust and the Waikato RNZSPCA are two different entities..  One is a trust the other a society.  The trust has the societies fund and appears to act with it as it likes  it was going to be part and parcel of yet another  recently formed trust the Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation   which   was going to build on the  land at wintec  .

The development officer at WINTEC is none other  than the husband of  mayor and chair woman of the RNZSPCA  Julie Hardaker .  Now as a lawyer  you would think that  she would be wanting to look a bit closer at  the $400,000  which has left a visible trail through the  charities commission and   Societies web site.

She wears both the hats which  should be  concerned  about the drain of these resources.   I have covered this story  earlier  in Secrecy breeds corruption

You need only look at the article Update on Waikato shows  who is  who on the   Waikato SPCA  to see who  was on the trust at the time.. How convenient that this proposed  vet school   was going to benefit the vet on the board of the SPCA

It should also be noted by any one looking at the accounts of the Waikato RNZSPCA  that the accounts   several years ago  represented a number of bank accounts, now only the working account is listed.  But it does not hide the fact that there have been significant donations to the  RNZSPCA in the form of bequests over the years.

The ral issue with  bequests is that   those who leave money to the SPCA or RNZSPCA are not specific  as to who should  receive the money  and  there is apparently constant battles   with regards to the terminology  used in the  individual wills as to  where the money should go .. It has the ability to go  anywhere  and  much does not go for the protection of  animals but into investment plans   and side trusts.

There is also no mention in the Waitakere RNZSPCA  accounts of the   money which the government gives to the RNZSPCA  for the  control of animals   . I believe that stays with the   main branch in  Auckland  and    does not   get  distributed to the  smaller societies.. This is so that they  can individually plead poverty  and   tug at the heart strings of the public.

Then there is  section 171  of the  animal welfare act where by the approved organisation , which the  Waikato branch of the RNZSPCA is , is able to  keep  the funds for  prosecutions.. it would appear that  the Waikato  RNZSPCA  dos not prosecute  although it is an approved organisation by virtue of  being a branch under the   RNZSPCA section 190 animal welfare act.

Last but not least  there are the  smaller trusts which  the money is  siphoned off into   in the case of the Waikato RNZSPCA  I have identified the one  above    about which there is more information in  Submission to the select committee where  I  wrote this

Mr Didovich  also plays a key role in the RNZSPCA    and Mr Wells is also a  trustee  of the  Waikato SPCA trust  which  has  taken over  $400,000  charitable funds  from  the Waikato branch of the RNZSPCA , then  dropped the  corporate trustee RNZSPCA off the deed and  then formed an entity in its own right.. Evidence of this is available from public records Societies register and charities commission. I will happily provide more evidence on this if required.

And in More submissions

“Transfers between charities could easily occur and   could be a way for third parties   to circumvent legislation by setting up as a  charity . The definition of  third party needs to be clearly defined.

1. On 15 May  2000 the  Waikato  SPCA trust was established .  This trust had a corporate trustee being the RNZSPCA  Waikato. The other  trustees were Garrick , Dalton Shepherd and Wells .

2. Land  belonging to the RNZSPCA  was  sold  and  as a result $400,000 was transferred  from the  RNZSPCA into the trust. ( this is verifiable through public records )

3. 12 may  2003 the  trust  amends the trust deed  and drops off the corporate trustee .

4. IN 2005   it  applies for  incorporation to  become  an entity in its own right  retaining the $400,000  and then becomes a charity .”

Other   blog postings worth visiting they are

Whats happening in the Waikato RNZSPCA – Parallels with AWINZ? this  article deals with $400,000  that was transferred from RNZSPCA Waikato to a trust which later  becomes a legal entity in it is own right  effectively having taken  $400,000 assets from the Waikato RNZSPCA

Waikato SPCA

The lack of verification -opens door to corruption

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

 

 

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.

Update AWINZ SPCA

Some time ago  I made an official information request to MAF see Lack of accountability of the SPCA – RNZSPCA or what ever it wants to be called this week ” these questions were based on  a letter which they sent me whis is  within the post.

MAF have repeatedly stalled    and now wish to charge well over a thousand dollars for the information.

Through my past experience with MAF I have learnt that  they have very slack  checks and balances( if any at all ) .  They  allowed a non existent organisation to become an Approved organisation.. meaning  it has law enforcement abilities  and the ability to  appoint  inspectors and auxiliary inspectors ,  these  come under the under direction of Director-General MAF.

It is therefore  strange that   MAF cannot supply a list of  who these persons are

The inspectors  appointed under  these provisions

1.       Can demand name and address of persons who they believe are offending against the act .

a.       Persons who do not comply can be sentenced to 3 months or to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to both

2.       Have  legislative protection for  their acts

3.       can Apply for search warrants

4.       can Issue infringement notices

5.       can  prosecute people and appear in court themselves and the “ organisation can  keep the  funds .

6.       Sell  animals which have been seized  and apply the proceeds to the cost of prosecution, and   expenses incurred in caring for that animal before the sale;

7.       Have powers with regards to Powers in relation to injured or sick animals

Approved organisations   have obligations set out by statute

The animal welfare institute of New Zealand still is such an approved Organisation .

The man  who  calls himself the CEO   Neil Wells also wrote and advise on  the legislation  which  give the above powers. This was  legislation was written by him  subsequent to   his business plan   for integration of   animal welfare officers with  council  duties of dog and stock  control   see the document and  how to write legislation for your own business plan

At the  end of 2009  those who claim to be the current trustees of AWINZ asked to relinquish their  approved status, despite this  the   dog and stock control officers in Waitakere city have continued to  hold warrants.

The whole AWINZ thing has been a non sense

1.       In November 1999 Neil Wells applied to the minister for approved status stating  that the  organisation existed

2.       He made a number of claims that    documents would be forwarded but never did

3.       In 2006  I questioned why the organisation  did not exist  on any register.. for this I have been sued for the past  four years.

4.       A trust deed was supplied  in 2006  no  further evidence of the trusts existence has  ever been produced. We can only speculate as to the   truthfulness of this document, it certainly  was never seen before 2006  by the official bodies which should have held a copy on file.

5.       If you read the deed  point  7 a term of  office   you will note that it states that the term of appointment is 3 years. This means that by  1.3.2003  there were no trustees.

6.       Maf entered into an agreement with AWINZ  giving no further definition of what AWINZ was on 4 December 2003 .  what is the validity of this agreement   when the” trustee “  Neil Wells  without any further evidence is deemed to have stopped being a trustee   8 months earlier   .

a.       There is also no evidence that   any of the other so called trustees continued  and  if there were others who these persons  are.

b.      For all intents and purposes MAF signed and agreement for law enforcement with one person who   was trading with a name  which sounded impressive.

7.       In 2006  three people  (  note the trust deed states there will be no less than four trustees )  purporting to  be the trustees but  not having any evidence that they were  took me to court –  Wyn Hoadley barrister , Neil Wells  Barrister and Graeme Coutts JP.

8.       In December of that year these three people sign a deed with Tom Didovich the previous manager animal welfare who had made representation on behalf of two councils to MAF.

9.       These are the people  who according to MAF have now asked  for the approved status to be relinquished .. but apart from sharing the same trading name    are they the same as the approved organisation?   And what accountability has there been??

RNZSPCA

Because of  the overlap with the RNZSPCA   and  involvement with Neil Wells   with the Waikato SPCA trust I asked questions  of the RNZSPCA and the SPCA   which  still appear to be  operating under the transitional   part of the act  and   appear to be taking on approved organisations through the back door.

I have also been approached by many of the older inspectors   who are being pushed  out of the job , I have given my time freely and willingly  but it appears that  Maf  sees me as a bit of a villain    mainly because their incompetence has cost me so much.

They now refuse to give me the time of day     so that they can cover up their  incompetence.

I am certain that the docuemtns I have asked for a refused because they simply don’t exist. Maf does not   do its work  and is thereby allowing corruption in the  animal welfare sector to flourish.

Openness and transparency is  supposed to be  part of our democratic system   what is transparent about a system where by  people are charged  huge sums of money  for information  relating to accountability issues in the private law  enforcement sector.

Animal Welfare Prosecutions – all $$$ no accountability

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

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

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

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

The extension of their powers would mean that

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

So who are the approved Organisations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to write legislation for your own business plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See diagram of the  interactions

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

Breaking news Privatisation of dog and stock control

This week I  was told by Rodney Hides office that  he could not meet with me due to a conflict of interest  due  to a public discussion paper which is going to be released  next February… all I knew  was that it has not yet been written   .

I have been questioning  why a local  government  contracts  animal welfare services to a trading name for an undisclosed  trust  and there are no documents  which contract council to a  legal person . What complicates this is that the person representing the trust  ,   is also the council manager   and effectively contacts public services  to himself .

Rodney Hide  is the minister of local Government and he is my Local MP and it looks as though   he is planning his next move after  he has the super city  set up .The council manager who   in my opinion has made false statements to the crown   and  has worked with a pretend trust  then set another trust up to  give it some  substance  is also so the man who wrote the legislation which now appears to me to be being used to privatize dog and stock control, legislation which has  wide sweeping powers and little accountability for the  enforcers   and  will be a licence to print money.

We are not supposed to know   what is next on the  menu  but it appears that some already know and are actively planning     and this  is one year  before the  public discussion paper is going to come out .  so why are some already in the know    and How democratic is  al of this?

From information I have received from various sources  I am  of the belief that  Dog and stock control will be taken from councils and the SPCA will take over this role.   The SPCA  and the RNZSPCA  will take on extra inspectors , actually I believe that the RNZSPCA will be   wound up  and new SPCA’s  with new constitutions take over.

Royal New Zealand SPCA’s National Chief Executive, Robyn Kippenberger and Rodney Hide are well connected as Robyn was none other  than Robyn Mc Donald   who  was in parliament with  Rodney  when she was a NZ First list MP.

Despite millions of dollars stashed in  trusts, the RNZSPCA is pleading poverty ,this lack of funds  was brought about by tactical measures which moved  significant sums into  other trusts as with the Waikato branch of the RNZSPCA . A recent  example of   shifting of  funds can be seen at SPCA: benefactor’s cash safely invested | Stuff.co.nz

In the mean time  more branches are popping up  the  International league of  horses , which  tried to become an approved organisation and failed  has now   become a branch of the SPCA

Many RNZSPCA Inspectors volunteer their time and get little support while the Business  of the SPCA grows using the legislation written by a former director  and gives them much power and  little accountability or transparency.

Few see the significance of the  blurring of boundaries   with the SPCA and the RNZSPCA   much confusion is occurring here and  no one seems to  be asking questions.

What is significant is the   select committee is  currently looking at increasing the penalties  for animal welfare offences.  My  submission was rejected and I believe this to be   so that   the conflicts of interests  and the  fact that these penalties  are payable to  the  enforcement authorities can remain out of public view.

While this is going on preparations have already commenced for the training of the extra officers  and I am picking that this is going to be done through  the Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation, which  just like  AWINZ  is just a name and not a  legal person .

See  news items  http://www.infonews.co.nz/news.cfm?l=69&t=72&id=50174

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1003/S00362.htm

http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/3526478/New-home-will-be-animal-haven

Hands up who would  like to write the  legislation for their own business venture, then   with as little accountability as possible   enforce offences  which are strict liability  and  collect the   fines yourself  all set in motion  without  consultation to the  public.

Looks to me  like  an open door to corruption.  So why Won’t Rodney speak to me ?  does he support corruption? or does  he not grasp  that  councils  should not allow managers to contract to themselves and avail themselves  of public money by  using council staff for   their private purposes or fundraise  for services provided  by council staff  and  put money in a private bank account  held in a  trading name  for undisclosed persons.

Perhaps its time Rodney looked up the definition of corruption as provided by the  United Nations convention against corruption  and   if New Zealand is at all  serious about ratifying the convention then  turning a blind eye  takes us further from that objective.

Submission to the select committee

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

Submitted By Grace Haden Licenced Private Investigator

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

1. Mr Wells a former  RNZSPCA director  had a business concept to utilise territorial dog and stock control  officers as SPCA type inspectors ( animal welfare inspectors ) he set up a pilot programme which he initiated in Waitakere city (letter dated 26 August 1994)
2. In  1996 he wrote to the  then manager  Waitakere City Animal Welfare  division Tom Didovich  and expressed intent to take the concept nation wide 1/1/1996
3. Mr Wells volunteered to write the animal welfare bill  and in so doing  wrote  in sections to  facilitate his business venture  and to that end   there was a clause pertaining  to territorial bodies   No 1 bill
4. Whilst Mr Wells was  employed as an independent advisor to the select committee he continued to communicate with Tom Didovich  and  passed on information which was  not in the public realm, to over come the hurdles   which would prevent  territorial bodies  form having an animal welfare role  17 September 1998.
5. 5. The intention of the act was to exclude territorial bodies so Mr Wells came up with a concept of a trust. A good independent summary of what AWINZ and its back ground is  in this letter by MAF 24/12/1999 “To overcome legal and policy issues that  preclude local authorities having an animal Welfare role , Mr Wells has promoted the formation of a charitable trust called AWINZ, the trust deed states that its “principal purpose is to promote animal welfare”

1. In  August 1999 Mr Wells   advises the   director general MAF of  his intention to apply for approved status for the trust which he states has been formed  by way of trust deed 22.8.199
2. On 22 November 1999 Mr Wells makes an application for AWINZ to become an approved organisation again stating that  A charitable trust has been formed by Deed of Trust as the “Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand(AWINZ). It is being registered under Part II of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957”
   1. The significance of    registration under the charitable trust act is that it makes the  trust  which other wise   no more than a group of people with a common purpose  using a trading name , into a  body corporate( legal person )   which has perpetual existence , can sue and be sued .
   2. It should be noted that it takes just a few days to register a trust under the charitable trust act if the application complies with the act.
   3. In the period between August and November the trust   would have been incorporated if the statement in the August notice of intent was true.
   4. Mr Wells on this application makes out that AWINZ is a legal person in its own right (not even a trust deed exists at this time )
   5. In 2006 neither MAF nor Waitakere city council  had  a copy of the trust deed  for AWINZ  and  there as no record of it being incorporated  under any act.
      1. With others I formed a trust  called the animal welfare institute of new Zealand  and we succeeded in  registering it under  the  charitable trust act  there by proving that no other legal  person by that name existed.
      2. When Mr Wells   became aware of our existence a deed was produced it was dated 1/3/2000 which proves that the statements in August and November to the minister were untrue. ( this was the first time MAF had had a copy of  a deed )
      3. We were threatened with legal action   and were told to give up the name and our web site which expressed our concerns about the   unidentifiable   law enforcement agency which had   wide sweeping powers.
      4. We asked if we could meet trust to trust to resolve the issue  but Mr Wells and   two other persons  who were  not the same group as those named on the deed  ,sued me in an  attempt  to silence me and  make us give up the name so that   they could  commence a  cover up .
         1. These three people later combined with Mr Didovich the former manager animal welfare Waitakere City ( who had  witnessed and collected the signatures of the   trustees  for he alleged 2000 deed )  to sign a trust deed and  form a charity in 2007.
         2. Mr Didovich  also plays a key role in the RNZSPCA    and Mr Wells is also a  trustee  of the  Waikato SPCA trust  which  has  taken over  $400,000  charitable funds  from  the Waikato branch of the RNZSPCA , then  dropped the  corporate trustee RNZSPCA off the deed and  then formed an entity in its own right.. Evidence of this is available form public records Societies register and charities commission. I will happily provide more evidence on this if required.
         3. I have been held in the courts for  nearly  four years now  the court has been misled and manipulated and I was denied a defence, no evidence has ever  been presented by Mr Wells  who has used  his  victory in court to  portray me as a person who is obsessed in pursuit of him . My pursuit has been for justice and the fact that I questioned what I saw as a corrupt practice and I have been persecuted for it.
         4. I have  evidence which shows  that
            1. Mr Wells is manager animal welfare Waitakere city  Council
            2. As manager Animal welfare he is  both parties in an MOU with AWINZ .
            3. The dog control officers “volunteer” their services to AWINZ while on full council pay. ( 5 Jan 2000 ) Most are not aware of the significance of their double role.
            4. AWINZ operates  from  council premises  but council deny this   email 8 May 2000 wells claims  he leases the premises for $1 per year but the council letter 11 march 2009  par 13.AWINZ  claims they do not operate from the premises.
            5. AWINZ uses the same logo as displayed on the  council building for   public fundraising sent out with  dog registration except that it has the words institute of New Zealand written below the  animal welfare  sign.
            6. AWINZ undertakes animal welfare prosecutions , I have   documents for two such  matters  the latest one  came to my notice in the past few weeks
            7. Prosecution 1. As relayed to me  by the  person charged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issues relating to both these prosecutions

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

Strict liability

1. Animal welfare legislation is already harsher than anything pertaining to  abuse of children. I use the following example.
   1. A mother who happens to be a  GP  went skiing  her son complained of a swore leg after a fall.  Because he could weigh bear on the leg he could ski on it.  The following week it was discovered that the leg was in fact fractured.
   2. Had this been a dog she would have been banned from owning another animal   and she would not have had any defence open to her. The offence being complete when she failed to recognise that the leg was broken.
   3. Animals   should not have greater protection than children and  there should  be an “intent “ ingredient brought back in the legislation .
   4. Most pet owners who see their animal   hobble in won’t dash off to the vet,  just as parents  whose child complains of an ache  won’t  necessarily dash off to a doctor.
      1. The injury    is often assessed over time and frequently by the next day the animal is fine.
      2. The risk for pet owners is that if an over zealous animal welfare inspector seeking to line the   pockets of their “ charity “ intervenes the owner  is  charged   on the  sole basis that the inspector   thinks the animal is  suffering.
      3. There is also the matter of costs of vet bills. The charity which we had set up, which Mr Wells effectively destroyed through litigation, was set up with intent of helping owners of injured animals  with  financial assistance  which could be repaid  later.
         1. People bond with their animals and just as you would not put your child down if their leg needed amputation or pinning it is often a decision which cash strapped owners face.
         2. There was a time  when  the RNZSPCA used to help with such matters  now     with  the  “ charities”  being run as businesses  it appears to  be  about collecting money and  not about providing service  .
         3. Mr Wells has  probably the best set up of all   unlike SPCA’s  he  has no overheads  , he uses the councils premises, staff ,vehicles ,resources  and even uses  council phones and email addresses and logos.  He Sends out donation form with dog registration and possibly   also prosecutes in council time.  The only administrative task left over is counting money and depositing it in the bank account he in 2006 had sole control of .
         4. Several RNZSPCA   volunteer inspectors have confided in me that they are concerned with the wealth that is being acquired  within the RNZSPCA and the corporate wages being paid at the top.
            1. I believe that  animal welfare has become not a matter of service  but a money making venture and I support this  with a poster which Mr Wells had on file in Waitakere city  .There is profit in animals .
            2. I am a former Police prosecutor and am aware of the economics of prosecutions.  A lawyer charges $350 per hour   so any penalty or diversion of less than three hours lawyers wages is more economical to pay than  to  defend . In our cash strapped society it is money which dictates the  plea.
               1. Middle income New Zealand have no right to justice to defend a simple animal welfare matter would cost several thousand dollars.
               2. Added to this is the fact that there is no   defence is possible any way because it is the opinion of the welfare officer if the animal was suffering.
               3. Suggested   action for the  animal welfare amendment bill
                  1. More transparency and accountability of approved organisations -those who do the enforcing should be squeaky clean.
                     1. i.       This is the only legislation which is enforced by private citizens.
                     2. ii.      There needs to be independent assessment of every animal welfare charge   before it is sent to the court no one   should be able to wear all the hats as in the case of Mr Wells.
                     3. iii.      Authority to prosecute should be obtained through MAF .
                     4. iv.      Auditing and spot checks by independent assessors to evaluate those prosecutions are not being taken unjustly. Heavy penalties for abuse of this process.
                     5. v.      Those who enforce need to be held accountable to truth honesty and transparency.
2. Giving Private trusts the ability to enforce the law is like giving an open cheque book especially when   they cannot be held accountable as in the case of AWINZ where the “approved organisation” effectively does not exist .
3. Penalties for making   false claims as to approve status.
   1. i.            The penalty for making a false statement for the purpose of establishing an approved organisation  should be a prison  term  .
   2. ii.             No organisation should be approved unless a  statutory declaration  has been  filed,( Which would  bring its own legal protection ).And some one has  checked to see if it exists beyond paper.

1. Animal welfare is the only law enforcement   sector where  civilians , non  government employees  are entrusted with   wide powers
   1. It is effectively a private prosecution and law enforcement service but there is  no register of  animal welfare inspectors and who they are responsible to ,
   2. Private investigators and  security Guards do not have powers more than an any civilian  , in fact Private investigators have less rights than the average person  ( we cant take photos or record  voice recordings )   yet we have
      1. to advertise our intention to be Licenced each year,
      2. we have to be re apply and pay a licence fee
      3. we have to be approved by  the registrar
      4. we have to have a security clearance
      5. we are subject to a  hearing if  some one  objects to our renewal
      6. we appear on a publicly available database so our licence can be verified at any time.
2. But   animal welfare inspectors  who have wide powers are not subjected to these controls  and have no real process of individual accountability other than to the approved organisation which recommended them  and the average person would  no know   where to begin to look.
3. There is no independent accountability of  animal welfare officers , no process for  disciplinary hearings  and it would appear that as law enforcers  and being  civilians  they  have all power and very little  accountability.
4. As has been shown in the case of AWINZ , there is no transparency  or accountability to the enforcers and consideration should be given to  a complete review of the  way animal welfare legislation is enforced.
5. I have further concerns with respect to the confusion of the SPCA and he RNZSPCA , those in the RNZSPCA claim that the SPCA is different  and the SPCA claim that they are not the RNZSPCA, so where do they get their   legal powers from, only the RNZSPCA is an approved organisation . Every one of them is chasing the  dollar  if they really cared about  animal they would  provide  treatment  and assistance to those who love their pets but are financially embarrassed.
6. Because these organisations are private enforcement authorities, all with  people at the top  wanting corporate wages ,   it has  become  a nest feathering exercise  for all but the  volunteers , those  who need the money do without  ,  which in this day and age makes them a dying breed,
7. The  current system  is easily be abused  and there is no accountability for the  fines  which  can  very easily disappear into personal accounts and  to that end  all animal welfare fines  should  be paid into a  public purse   so that those who care about animals    act  for their concern   for the animal  and  not act out of pecuniary advantage.

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

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

Thank you

Grace Haden

Licenced Private Investigator