Anticorruptionnz's Blog

21/10/2012

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.

Advertisements

23/02/2011

Official Information act request Auckland film studios

Filed under: corruption,transparency,waitakere city council — anticorruptionnz @ 7:22 pm

Sent: Wednesday, 23 February 2011 7:17 p.m.
To: ‘Doug.McKay@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘mayor@aucklandcity.govt.nz’
Cc: ‘Michael.Goudie@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Penny.Hulse@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Penny.Webster@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Wayne.Walker@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Cathy.Casey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘jross@jami-leeross.com’; ‘Des.Morrison@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘John.Walker@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Sandra.Coney@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Noelene.Raffills@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Mike.Lee@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘George.Wood@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Arthur.Anae@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘alf.Filipaina@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Ann.Hartley@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Chris.Fletcher@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Richard.Northey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’; ‘Sharon.Stewart@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’
Subject:Official Information act request Auckland film studios

 

Could you please by way of OIA provide   the following documents.

1.       Documents and discussion papers which were the basis of the cost benefit analysis , and  the cost benefit analysis  on which   Waitakere city  based its decision to purchase  the ENZA cool stores for  film studios

2.       The name of the law firm which  provided a legal opinion as to the purchase and  associated involvement  in Film studios   being  an activity in which council could engage  and that this was not  ultra vires and had a mandate for such an activity.

3.       The  constitution of WAITAKERE PROPERTIES LIMITED  at  point 1A.1 states that its activities are restricted to obligations imposed upon Local Authority Trading Enterprises by the Local Government Act 1974 ,

a.       Please provide documentary evidence that these obligations were  considered  when deciding to Purchase the  cool stores  and   in operating  film studios.

4.       In the 2009 Annual report  Waitakere city Holdings Limited as at 30 June 2009     reports    with regards to Prime West Management Ltd  on page 45    “The company is insolvent and the investment has been written down to nil.”  And page 49 this company is now insolvent.

a.       Please supply all documentation with regards of an advancement of   funds of $49,902 from Waitakere properties Limited to prime west management which was insolvent at the time.

b.      The  documentary evidence  detailing the reasoning and consideration  By Waitakere city in   providing  such a sum to a company in which the shareholding was  $400

c.       Please provide all supporting evidence, agreements etc which provided for this advance and required repayment of this sum during the 2010 financial year.

d.      Documentation which considered the amalgamation of an insolvent  company  with a solvent one  .

e.      What  investigations  the council conducted  into    the insolvent companies cause of insolvency  and any documents which show  why it was insolvent.

5.       At the meeting 25 may 2005  from which the public was  excluded  , Mr  Kenneth Michael Williams was permitted to stay  he was allegedly eligible as a trustee of enterprise Waitakere, Please provide any  disclosure made by  him of  his relationship with   the advisers  B & A Management Limited and therefore the potential   conflict of interest ( Mr Williams was appointed  director of Prime west Ltd  on 9 may 2005, who were the successful   party to  enter into a partnership with council )

6.       Please advise the names of the unsuccessful parties who  were contenders for the partnership  and the considerations which were  given to  excluding them .

a.       Please also provide documentation  as to  why these parties had not  been given the same opportunity as the successful company Prime west to have representatives  present at the  confidential council meetings.

7.       The council ultimately entered into  an agreement with  Prime west Limited  a company which had been set up by the  “ advisors “  and  in which the advisors   had significant control , Please  provide any disclosure  documents made to this effect by  Mr Coldicutt , and Maher of B&A Management Limited .

 

8.       In selling the land and buildings to the  company  what consideration was given to  options such as tender, please provide all documents which discuss this option.

9.       On 28 June 2006  Council accepted Tony Tay group And its associated  entities  as shareholders in Prime west.  The reality is that  Tony Tay Trust   which was not owned by the Tony Tay group ( and therefore not associated )   became the investor  and then  on sold to  Tony Tay  Films  in which  there were   shareholdings by 3rd parties.

a.       Please provide  documentation which discusses entering into an agreement with one legal entity and then  proceeding to act with another entirely separate  entity.

b.      Documents  with regard to any   diligence done as to whether Tony Tay trust was owned by Tony Tay and his wife or if they were acting as trustees for  person and persons unknown.

c.       Discussions and documents which  considered the appropriateness of Kieran Boru FITZSIMMONS, the on site manager  also being a part owner of the property through his shareholding through his company REHOBOTH ENTERTAINMENT (NZ) LIMITED  in Tony Tay film Limited.

10.   On 6 March 2007, 60,000 shares were  transferred from Waitakere properties Limited to Waitakere city council, please provide the minutes of the council meetings, or any correspondence  which facilitated and explained  this  transaction .

 

11.   The documentation which backs up any decision from council   or  notification given to council  on  or about 13 April 2008 that  Kensington swan the councils  solicitors to become the  registered office and solicitors for  Prime west Ltd

a.        and   considering that  Kensington Swann were the solicitors for council   was it seen as a conflict of interest that  Kensington swan was also acting   for a company in which council was a minority share holder.

b.      Please provide any lawyers accounts   for Kensington swan  and itemised   charges  associated  with this joint venture which was paid out of public  funds.

12.   Any documentation in which  Mr Graeme  Wakefield   declared  is interest in WAITAKERE CORPORATE LIMITED and states the purpose of this company.

I look forward to  your response  this is a matter of public interest   On the one hand  our water supplies are being considered for  privatisation yet on the other hand the council runs movie studios.

I am particularly  concerned  with the nature  of the trading in this matter as it appears to  reflect the same  ignorance of what constitutes a company and  a trust as which occurred when the council allowed a council  manager Mr wells to contract to himself  for  animal welfare services through the name of a  fictitious trust , which also happened to be involved in monitoring animal action in the film studios  , this action was carried out by Mr Wells Wife.

It appears to me that   Waitakere city was  very loose about  what constituted a legal entity  and who represented it, I   wish therefore  to highlight the past so that the opportunity for third parties  to profit from the public  will not be  something  which is capable in the future.

Please find here with  a full chronology , those mentioned in the chronology have been shown to be connected   and for your interest I have also attached news item Tax loophole no sin, says charity . The recurrence of biblical names, the associations of the same persons  interlink   this with  a group of people who share the same religious  practices    this could be coincidental   or maybe not.

It appears that this is all about using  public funds, public funding and tax avoidance.  The council has to be careful not to be associated with this or be a vehicle for  this due to  many councillors  not being  up to speed  with regards to  company and legal structures  and the principals  of transparency and corruption.

In the interest of transparency I will be posting this on  My blog https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/

Regards

Grace Haden

17/02/2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

and  if it is Ok then it is not corruption

hence we have  no corruption

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

06/12/2010

MAF gives Law enforcement powers to a Mythical creature

Filed under: transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 5:29 pm

For the information  for the ombudsmen’s office and  for the information of the ministers  Please  do something!     ..   also a further OIA for MAF  by way of clarification of the  letter attached.

MAF gives Law enforcement powers to  a Mythical creature .. then runs and hide and allows a woman to be destroyed because she asked  why it wasn’t real?

Why steal and identity  when you can make one up and have it treated as real and given more rights than a real person has?

How can MAF condone this ????  Why do our ministers  not get involved?

In 2000  The  then minister of Agriculture , based on direction from  the labour cabinet , gave law enforcement powers to   a mythical creature called AWINZ. It had  been  created by one of  their party members, an advertising man well versed in spin,  and  supported  by  the labour party  president   at that time ..Bob Harvey a former  associate  in advertising  of  AWINZ creator.

AWINZ, the mythical creature   and sounding  just like a government  department   became a  private law enforcement  authority  with ability to keep all the proceeds of  prosecutions  it under took through the animal welfare act.

It was Given” Life”   through the animal welfare act  which   had been written  with   the creation of AWINZ in mind   by the man  who  advised on the act, wrote the bill and  applied  for AWINZ  to be an approved Organisation.

AWINZ the fiction which has been personified  has been  better than  any Identity fraud I have   ever seen . No one is interested in it because there is no proof of how much money it took from the people , but  I can assure you that the potential  was massive.

Like a great parasite  it leached on to   Waitakere city council functions of dog and stock control, the city in which Bob Harvey was mayor.

It operated from the council  premises, used council Logos, staff, resources  and  vehicles. Like a true  mythical creature  it was there  but not there. AWINZ  creator   became the manager of animal welfare   and although he contracted to himself through this hypothetical trust which no one had  seen a deed for   it was not seen as corruption  as defined by the OECD  or the united nations  .. being public office for private Gain  and was apparently   condoned  by all to who the issue was raised.

When dog registration came up  funds were collected   and banked in to the creatures bank account  which   the manger of animal welfare administered.

When the  staff under his council supervision noticed  some one being naughty with an animal  they would  tell their boss  who would report to the  creator of  the mythical creature  who would then  pass it to the barrister   who would get money from the prosecution   and  would then put it in the bank account.   This system was highly efficient  as   the one man  wore many hats..  we were to find out in court  that this is because NZ is small.

Something  got in the way of the creatures growth   and that was me…  I said one day  excuse me  but isn’t this a  fiction (  I actually used the  words  sham trust )     and  from there on  I have been held in court for  some 4 ½  Yeas , been denied a   defence  had costs trumped up against me, , I have paid out nearly $200,000  to lawyers, it brought about the end of my marriage,  torn may family apart  and destroyed my business  . You see the creature fought back   by misleading he court and using  the public  charitable dollar  which  it had ferreted away.

I am a reasonably astute person  , Former Police Sergeant, Private investigator    and have found it impossible to get MAF  to  investigate AWINZ. I have  found it impossible to get justice .

Wells   the  man  who created AWINZ  is  obviously so trusted by MAF ( advised  both  MAF and   the select committee on the legislation ) that  he has not had to provide  any evidence of the fictional  creature he created.  And with Mr Wells firmly in control of the creatures bank accounts  and  the public paying into this  he has been able to fund the litigation to silence me .

MAF on the other hand  provided me with the brick  wall to hit my head against  while I have been  sued for defamation  where no evidence has ever been produced and I have been denied my statutory right to a defence of  truth and honest opinion.

This has gone on for too  long . MAF   they treat me as if I a   nuisance  yet  their neglect in confirming the organisation    set me up for the fall when I asked  why  there was no evidence of its existence   and therefore questioned the accountability.

There are now so many people involved in the cover up  that I feel it is easier  for me to be sacrificed  than to admit that there was a law enforcement agency which did not exist in reality and no one   did anything when it was brought to their attention.

I  had  hopes  that National would  do something about it   because it is not involved in this cover up    but we are now 2 years into National  governance  and nothing much has changed.    Does National     condone  this   ?  or have they simply been too busy    I ask the ministers  to whom this is addressed  please to  investigate.

OIA MAF

Thank you for the attached response  reply re awinz ceasing to be an  approved organisation it does however raise a few more questions  which  I hope  can be addressed by  virtue of the official information act.

1.       I have ascertained from the new council that there are still a number of warranted officers   at the  Waitakere city  animal welfare facility.  Could you please provide  all correspondence with regards to the warrants for these   inspectors    which shows the   accountability and  lawfulness of their  appointments in terms of the act. IE

a.       who were they accountable to

b.      who did they report to

c.       who supervised them and

d.       since the  existence of  Waitakere city council who in Auckland city approved the continuation of  this arrangement.

2.       Please provide details of any animal welfare  prosecutions which have  occurred in the past year as a result of work done by the   warranted inspectors  in Waitakere.

a.       How many prosecutions were there

b.       Who prosecuted the  cases

c.       Which approved Organisation received the  compensation  form these  prosecutions as provided for by section 171 of the animal welfare act.

3.       Any correspondence to Waitakere animal welfare , Auckland transitional council  and  Auckland city council  regarding the r  continued appointment of the   animal welfare inspectors at Waitakere  and termination  letters if applicable.

Your letter makes it clear that  that the MOU dated  4 December 2003   is the current MOU .

This MOU was signed By Neil Wells as trustee of  AWINZ  could you please provide

1.       all evidence on which you relied  that Mr Wells was Trustee of AWINZ  and  had   authority  to sign for  and on behalf of other trustees.

2.       Provide  the  copy of the trust deed which you relied upon to show that this  Trust was a legal entity

3.       Please advise when you received  copy of this trust deed.

4.       Please provide all documents  that show the   resignations and appointments of all trustees to the trust

5.       Copies of all trust deeds which you have on  file .

Your letter also states that AWINZ has ceased to be an approved organisation.   Please provide  all correspondence gazette notes  letters from ministers  etc which indicate that   it  now  has no  further legal   powers.

I also have  to raise an issue with  the use of the  word AWINZ   .   AWINZ the acronym  for  Animal welfare institute of New Zealand  is  no more than a trading  name  of a group of  people , various  people at various times    Please advise  which group of people, or which person  had accountability , and please provide evidence of their support  and agreement to  being accountable  at the  various times

1.        When the application was made  in the name of  the unincorporated trust  in the application which  was unsupported  by a trust deed.

2.       Approved status was given to AWINZ, which was done at a time when MAF neither had a trust deed on file or  had seen a trust deed.

3.       When the MOU was signed  .. which was signed on 4 December 2003   which  according to the trust deed which you were supplied   with By Mr. Wells in 2006  had expired  8 months earlier   .. see page 4  term of office and vacancy  .

4.       When  AWINZ requested   the revocation of its approved status   (some 6 years after the  deed had expired and  some three years after this  obsolete  trust deed with no legal standing had been supplied.

08/10/2010

What skeletons will be found in the closets when the cities amalgamate?

Filed under: Neil Wells,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 9:54 am

Bob Harvey  has  said his farewells   and acknowledges those special helpers    in a list which includes  his colleague  Neil Wells  who he shares history with right back  to advertising days.see  mayoral acknowledgement to neil wells and welcome to wells

The meeting was also attended by  a colleague of mine   who has reported  the  massive film industry losses  on his blog    http://accountabilitynz.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/film-studios-%E2%80%93-further-losses/

What will come out of the wood work when the cities close their doors?

23/09/2010

Stop the corporate take over – speak out

Filed under: corruption,super city,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 5:20 pm

From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 23 September 2010 12:33 p.m.
To: ‘john.key@national.org.nz’; ‘info@ata.govt.nz’; ‘rodney@epsom.org.nz’
Cc: ‘Bernard.Orsman@nzherald.co.nz’; ‘Jock Anderson’; ‘hunter.wells@tvnz.co.nz’; ‘newstips@stuff.co.nz’; ‘news@star-times.co.nz’; ‘news@newstalkzb.co.nz’; ‘news@dompost.co.nz’; ‘news@tvnz.co.nz’; ‘edward.rooney@theaucklander.co.nz’
Subject: open letter and official information act request

This is an official information act request   for the prime minister, Minister of local Government  and  for the ATA

I have just sent out the email below, it has links to spreadsheets which have been compiled from public records

The spreadsheets show the  overwhelming  conflicts of interests which the  people who have been  given position on the committees have.

By way of OIA  could you please advise

1.        By what process these persons came to hold  the positions..

a.         was it an advertised position  if so when  and where were the positions advertised

b.        Who did the interviewing

c.       Were they checked for conflicts of interest

2.       What policy has been introduced into the   new super city  for the declaration of conflicts of interest and what interests have been disclosed.

3.       What responsibility will these committees have to the elected members.

4.       What were the  criteria in selecting the members for  these committees  and  who was involved in their  selection.

The  background as sent out in an email which I hope will become viral is  below.

Please read this  and forward it to   anyone else who cares about the future of Auckland.

The super city is all about big business  taking over  our   city  and asset stripping them – I will show real evidence  that supports  this statement

What I  did  was simply  to put all the names of  those who have been selected   to go on the committees which rule  Auckland.

I  began with the article published in the Aucklander regarding the so  called the secret seven

I compiled a  list of all the companies which they  are and have been involved in committee business directorships past and present

I then looked at three of the largest   business groups   the  Business round table the executive of the  chamber of commerce ( which has held tight reigns  on their  leadership  )  see story and  those who lobbied for the super city  being the Committee for Auckland.

I   collated all the business relationships in one spread sheet and    looked for connections.

What stood out more than anything  is that   these four groups of people   are not  representative of our population.  They are  rich  influential, white   and male and they have  common memberships to these  power hubs.

In my calculations  they represent the  minority of population  and the majority of   big  business ( if not all )  .

This is the spread sheet which I have compiled from those results   shows significant over lap between people  companies  and   the “ Secret seven “ selected to control our assets.

Most significant of all is the  associations of Keenan of water care to liquor industry

If anyone was  wishing to privatise water   which industry do you think would be  knocking on the door first..  well    the already have their inside man  the evidence speaks  for itself.

These  two men appear to have the most connections  they are

MOGRIDGE, Bryan William

MASFEN, Peter Hanbury

When you click on their names you can see their company connections  click on those and you will see how they are connected  .

I have only  gone to one level of connections in my spreadsheets  but as you can see through the   connections of  GREYMOUTH GAS TARANAKI LIMITED and many other companies  similarly named , Masfen is a co director  with Robert DUNPHY   who is none other than Philippa Dunphy’s  husband    a connection which these spreadsheets  don’t illustrate.     There will no doubt be more connections   but  the  are irrelevant if no one cares.  Philippa is on the transport  committee.. handy for the uses of  gas and petroleum.

There is only one candidate warning  every one that this is about a corporate takeover That  is Penny Bright she  is  the Claytons vote  the vote you give to say  yes we agree this is a corporate takeover and we are opposed to it ……..     I gave  her my  vote

You have two choices  Vote for her    or  if you have received this email and have ignored it  accept that things will never be the same again

We can only do this   if we stand together.

If you are not male, if you are not white  or  if you do not support corporate coups  then  give Penny your vote and send a very  loud message..   we  want   the city  for the people run  by those elected by the people  not  by committees  of pre selected persons  who have conflicts of interests and hidden agendas

Please Treat this as the  vote   for  or against the super city.. if you are for the super city and can’t be bothered reading my material   vote for whoever you like

If you are against the super city and don’t like the undemocratic manner in which it has been done  or  you  have read my material and say Oh my gosh what is happening is so  wrong. Then please vote  Like I did    just the one tick on the form     Vote for Penny Bright .

I am not  part of her campaign, this has not been authorised by her  this is   my recommendation  based on real evidence  .

Please forward this email  to anyone  who is yet to vote  click on the links   have a look at the evidence  this is a  corporate take over the very people I have  mentioned  own the news papers the  only way we are going to get this out  is through  email.

This  email has been posted on  http://transparency.net.nz/2010/09/23/stop-the-corporate-take-over-speak-out/

Regards

Grace Haden

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

08/09/2010

Pacific flight catering blog

Filed under: corruption,Lynne Pryor,Terry Hay,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 2:37 pm

From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 8 September 2010 2:33 p.m.
To: ‘Julie.luo@pri-pacific.com’; ‘davidn@pri-pacific.com’; ‘rita.smith@pri-pacific.com’
Cc: ‘administrator@pri-pacific.com’; ‘Georgenitta@hotmail.com’; ‘graeme.clark@pkfrm.co.nz’; ‘jugdis.parbhu@pkfrm.co.nz’; ‘gina.cook@pkfrm.co.nz’

Subject: Pacific flight catering blog

Several years  ago I had to find  a liquidator and director of a company called fresh prepared Limited  this company has  now morphed   into Salad Foods ltd

Neither director nor liquidator  existed   but I was not to know  that.  But Terry Hay and Lynne Pryor knew   and they needed me out of the way

So they sued me  for harassment.. it didn’t matter that I had not investigated ,been near or even enquired after Terry Hay   they sued me any way ( that’s what rich people  do apparently ) Lynne was annoyed because  I  visited the home address  of the   director and the  factory he claimed  to own .

Before we went to court “ Julie”   placed an advertisement in the mandarin  times  , this  saw  my house  besieged  with telephone calls and  callers.( mandarin times original )

A year or so later I tried to  find Julie   and rang David Nathan.  He was so upset that I had phoned him that  he swore an affidavit  and had me taken to court again for contempt of court.

The judge said that it was not contempt of court   but   they were not going to accept that and took it to the high court  where I won the right for discovery.

The matter is still live in the court today   and in the process I have  lost not only $49,000  for my lawyers  but it saw the end of  my marriage  which  would have seen its 25th anniversary this    month.

I  fully believe that everyone needs to be  responsible for their actions  and that  wrongs  can be put right  with compensation .

I   foolishly believed that  now that Lynne  Pryor has been convicted  of fraud   and has  been  banned from managing a company (   yes I know she still is )  that  someone may  see it  fit to  withdraw the charges from the court and  compensate me for my loss .  I ran into Lynne at the supermarket   and she did not  wish to talk about  what is happening to the proceedings  .

So Since I am in the  anti corruption  and  Anti fraud line of  work  I thought that I would use this  to   illustrate  how  companies function and   what  goes  on  behind the scenes  so I have  put a new page on my  blog  Pacific Flight Catering what are its ethical values?

I will add to  this    on a daily basis ( if I can)  showing the intriguing story behind the  persecution of me   and  the links to  the   people at  Pacific flight catering.  The Directors, who they are    and the shareholders .     I have already done my research and I can promise you that    this is  going to be an eye opener.

As I do nothing behind any ones  back   I  am advising you  are connected in one way or another   with this blog . I will endeavour to contact everyone   involved  so that they all know  what is being said about them and their associates on the web.   People have a right to know   who they are dealing with .

If there is anything inaccurate I do hope that  you will let me know and I will correct  . everything is    well researched  and  I  believe it all to be the truth and factual

The news paper stories   which explain it all  are located here

Charges over alleged fake liquidator
Saturday, July 12, 2008

Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt

Sunday, May 30, 2010

And my other  blog  is Using the court to conceal corruption

I hope to turn the blog  into  a book  I need to do this to  recover the costs     Turning  a negative into a positive is a good thing    I want people to  learn from what I have experienced.

This page is posted on https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com/

visit the Pacific flight catering blog

Regards

Grace Haden

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

08/08/2010

Read the emails that may take down the chief justice

Filed under: corruption,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 5:26 am

The NBR have released the emails which  show  what really goes on in the back ground  of New Zealand’s judiciary .

The NBR article  revealed that top commercial lawyer Jim Farmer QC and retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Ted Thomas were in regular contact during an appeal of a decision Justice Wilson was part of.

I have posted a reply as follows  “For too long NZ had hidden behind the facade of being the  least corrupt    I  Like Vince am a victim of  a justice system which   does not require truth or  evidence   and  happily denies  those  exposing corruption  the right to a defence.

The corrupt with connections to the old boys club  can  mislead the court and no matter  how much evidence you have there will never be enough to prove  perjury  .

You need only look at the data which  I have obtained by OIA and posted on my web site  under the  same title as this NBR  article, to see that we are soft of  truth.

White collar criminals are actively using the court to conceal corruption, last week a woman was convicted  and fined $18,000 for  fraudulently running a business.   Her false claims against me   cost much more to defend . Her associate a business partner of a Director of the chamber  of commerce  financed the proceedings  , he has skipped the county  avoiding 22 charges of  fabricating evidence which have been brought  by the MED.

I found it impossible to complain about the lawyers who   facilitated the court action and who were criticised by  judges on several occasions.  The law society is actively protecting them and refuses to investigate.

For any one  , especially those  well connected to the old boys network  it is  worth  while suing the person who could expose you   and that will give you  many years   to cover up .

When there is no accountability to the truth   there  is no justice

Our Government by refusing to ratify the  UN  convention against corruption is unwittingly condoning corruption  . Hope fully this will become an election issue.

Grace Haden

Transparency New Zealand

https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com”

It will no doubt be removed  which is what  appears to happen to  my posts of late  which can only suggest that the NBR has given little thought to corruption.

The data which I refer to is perjury data

From my calculation   and leaving out the figures on obstructing justice   there is one prosecution  every four days   for telling lies.

According to statistics NZ there are currently 4,371,442 people in New Zealand   which means that  your chance of being prosecuted for  lies  is   only  1 in 17,485,768.

Compare this to  your chance of winning lotto as being 1 in 3,838,380 see source

Hope that puts it into perspective.

28/07/2010

Lack of accountability of the SPCA – RNZSPCA or what ever it wants to be called this week

Filed under: corruption,SPCA / RNZSPCA,transparency,Waikato RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 9:24 pm

Sent: Thursday, 29 July 2010 9:18 a.m.
To: ‘Murray.Sherwin@maf.govt.nz’; ‘d.carter@ministers.govt.nz’; ‘enquiry@oag.govt.nz’
Subject: Lack of transparency RNZSPCA official information act request.

To the Minister of Agriculture the Auditor General   and MAF

The first part is  a request for investigation   by  the minister and the OAG  the latter part a OIA for MAF  they are here in conjunction as both   parts are relevant to all parties. I have hyperlinked   documentation  which I have received from MAF for your reference

I am seriously concerned  with the lack of accountability in the  process of  delegation of law enforcement    and believe this entire process needs to be reviewed for legal accountability  both by the minister and   the office of the auditor general .

I do not believe that any private company in New Zealand would contract out its services   in this manner as  there is  apparently little accountability and  transparency.

A search of international New will reveal issues elsewhere with the administration of the laws  by the SPCA  and in Australia there has been a call to have their powers limited

We are not  talking about contracting just anything we are contracting out  animal welfare services which enables law enforcement   under the act  which in turn will provide   revenue for the  enforcers through prosecution of the public .(  See section 171 of the act )

Therefore the more they prosecute the more revue they will derive from the legislation and so the  SPCA will not be about animal welfare at all but  will become an enforcement unit like the police and councils  except that this body is  private and is not subject to  matter such as the official information act.

What makes it of more concern is that most of the offences require  no intention  ( mens rae)   so the opinion of the  enforcer  is what drives the  prosecution of an animal owner whose only sin has been to have been remiss in the opinion of the enforcer.

With costs  for lawyers on an hourly basis  being  round the $300-500 mark   few will be able to defend  themselves  and  paying the fine and possibly  surrendering their   loved animal  becomes the most economic  measure.   An example of this is a pensioner in the UK who was prosecuted when   they probably needed help .

The RNZSPCA and the SPCA  hold on to their  bequests and  investment funds   and have been known to fight over who has the right to claim the money.  This makes it clear  it is NOT one organisation .  They have been given Money and Donations  to Help animals  .

It is a misconception that  The RNZSPCA is One organisation  each is a society or trust  and exists as an individual legal person.

I  have set out my concerns below  and the matters relating to the official information act request  is for  Mr Sherwin. The reason  I take so much interest in this  is because I once asked a totally innocent question  with regards to the existence of  an approved organisation (AWINZ)   and because it did not exist  and needed to cover up   the writer and advisor for the animal welfare act sued me.  This has cost me not only $100,000  it has potential of costing  me  a further $100,000 and has destroyed my family .This has now gone on  for over 4 years .  I do not believe that anyone else should  suffer what I have   and therefore  request that  MAF and the government ensure that this process of delegating law enforcement to a private organisation  is  fully transparent and  legally   defendable.

Further to my OIA request   dated 26 May and  MAFs reply from 16 July I wish to request further information  again pursuant to the official information act

Point 1 you have supplied me with overview of mafs animal welfare activities Please advise why the select committee was not  given the total number of animal welfare officers   who  have powers under the animal welfare act.

Point 2

  1. Please provide details of whether or not the select committee was advised of the contact   for provision of  animal welfare services to any third parties.
  2. With regards to the  document Agreement for  sale and purchase of  animal welfare services Please provide  copies all  such contracts  which  have been issued for these services to any  party

Point 3-

Point 4.  I had requested the names of all   Inspectors appointed   by the RNZSPCA   its member societies and branches  . I had requested that    each appointee be shown   with the  branch  or  member society  who had  requested that appointment.  That information was refused.

I subsequently asked for   papers which require the withholding of this information and  was advised that it is decided on a case by case  basis.

  1. please provide all documentation which led to the decision to withhold this information  I this case.
  2. In the event that the above cannot be supplied I request that In the interest of transparency and  as a right of the public to be fairly informed as to which  private  individuals  being non government  employees can enforce the law under this act , I  request that you  please provide a list of all inspectors  recommended for appointment by  any RNZSPCA society or SPCA trust or society and any other  inspector not employed by Government. . I request that this documents   Identifies who the inspector is and which  entity recommended their appointment  and the date of appointment and  the  district to which they are affiliated.

Point 5

  1. Please provide a copy of the certificate of appointment which   the inspectors carry   so that   we know what it looks like  and that  a certificate produced is genuine.
  2. You state that MAF anticipates  that in the vast majority  of cases a description of the background to the complaint would be sufficient  to identify  the  individual  involved, without difficulty.. please provide the research and discussion papers  which led to this statement being made.

Point 6

You say that the information requested  does not exist  yet I have made you aware that AWINZ   did not exist as a legal person  and  is in my opinion based on the evidence I have ,  a sham trust .  If you look at the trust deed  which was supplied to  you in draft form  in 1999  and  an unverified  copy of which was supplied in 2006    you will note that   the deed states that  the trustees are appointed for 3 years only.

This means that the deed signed on 1.3.2000 expired  on 1 March 2003.  I have  evidence  from Mr Coutts trustee and the other two trustees  that they only met in 1998 or 1999 . Therefore   by the time the MOU with MAF was signed in  December 2003 no valid trust existed and Mr Wells, the writer and advisor of the act which he was now using to promote his own business venture ,  could not have signed as trustee  of a nonexistent trust.

Despite this MAF have defended their actions and the  auditor general  simply stated they wouldn’t do anything because I was being sued for defamation . I wish to point out  that  through an over sight  in law   no one has ever proved that what I have said was defamatory, in fact all my statements  have been proved to have been  true. Truth is never defamatory.

You also  state in an audit report that the current trustees of AWINZ (  who  do not have a MOU with  you )   have offered to relinquish their  approved status. One has to ask how they can relinquish something they never had?

It therefore means that  inspectors appointed   on the recommendation of  a nonexistent AWINZ   did not have  any one to  be accountable to  and there is no one  to make a complaint to with regards  these  inspectors.

Please advise if   MAF has at any time  considered  this aspect or given any consideration to

  1. The lack of trust deed
  2. The lack of proof of existence of a trust
  3. The need to  receive and accept only verified information
  4. Seeking verification of existence of a trust  .. even after I brought it to your attention
  5. The validity of any  action of inspectors   recommended for appointment and responsible to AWINZ

Please provide all  documents which relate to    this  aspect

Point 7

There is much confusion in referring to  the RNZSPCA  .

the act refers only to the   ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED section 189

Section 190 of the act refers to “Any incorporated society that is a branch or member of the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Incorporated may, through that royal society (in its capacity as an approved organisation) “

I have not yet found any legal document which defines   the branches  or members  or process by which   branches and members  are approved. Nor have I seen any  evidence other than inference that  an organisation is a  member or a branch other than by being referred to a web site.

Through this statement in the act  it is apparent that   the “ royal society “   is ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED  which is one society    with the registration number 218546 other SPCA’s  have gone through  name changes  some  having  gone to  a branch then back to  being a SPCA. There are  branches and    members  which  pre  exist the “ royal society “

The memorandum  of understanding Defines the RNZSPCA   as THE  ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED its branches and  member societies

The national  council   is defined as “ the body of elected  members from the branches or member societies who are constitutionally  responsible  for he workings of the RNZSPCA

The national executive  is the administrative body of the  of the RNZSPCA  national council

The performance  and Technical standards defines SPCA as THE  ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED an approved organisation  for the purposes of the act.

The national  council   is defined as a body of elected persons who are constitutionally responsible for  the working of the SPCA

The national executive  is the administrative body appointed by  the national executive

The  Agreement sale and purchase of  animal welfare services is between  THE  ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED trading as the royal new Zealand SPCA  and its permitted successors and assigns.

However  nothing in the contract indicates  what its “its permitted successors and assigns”  are and these are not defined.

This indicates that there is much confusion as to  who is what and in the absence of further proof the only  organisation empowered to  carry out    work under the contract is between  THE  ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED identified  with  unique number 218546

  1. Please supply all correspondence and documentation which show who the  member societies are and who  its branches are and  all documentation  identifying the “its permitted successors and assigns”
  1. Please provide  details as to what  formal structure the” national  council” is ..  is it a trust  is it a group of people    is it a society? Is it identifiable as a legal person or is the national  council   the name of an informal committee?  What is it a committee of   ie which    legal person/ persons ?                       Please provide all documents which you hold which identifies who or what the national council is.
  1. Please provide  documentation  which MAF relied on  in treating the  national council as   a legal or  natural person  capable of   entering into an agreement  such as an MOU.
  1. Please provide  all documents discussion papers which  considered the legal enforceability of  an MOU
    1. When it is signed with a natural person or legal person
    2. When it is signed on behalf of  a trading name or undefined group of persons.

Point 8

It would appear that  your MOU  is inconsistent with the act

I am referring to the  fact that the act specifies that  only  the  ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED (with  unique number 218546 )   can  recommend   persons for appointment  and that  member societies  and branches can   recommend through it. Yet the MOU  defines RNZSPCA as being The  ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED its branches and   member societies .

There appears   to be  no legal ability for your MOU to be   with   branches and  member societies  as the obligations under the act are with the RNZSPCA  Inc   and   the  individual  societies and members  come below it.

This structure has opened the back door  for   previously declined applicants   for approved status  such as the international  league of horses to simply change  its name and become  “ approved “  by affiliating with the SPCA  , since the role  involves law enforcement this has to be of serious concern .

Please provide all documentation

  1. which  considered the application  of the international league of horses in it application for approved status.
  2. Which identifies the inspectors  which  now makes this organisation an approve organisation in the name of SPCA AUCKLAND HORSE WELFARE AUXILIARY INCORPORATED previously known as INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR THE PROTECTION OF HORSES (NEW ZEALAND) INCORPORATED previously known as HORSE PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED unique number 212301
  3. Al correspondence from  the RNZSPCA   Inc  showing that this  organisation is now a member society or  branch

Point 9

You have supplied  a copy of  an agreement for sale and purchase of  animal welfare services between  the crown and  The  ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED.

  1. Please provide any contracts and agreements  which  that society has  with other  societies ,  trusts  ,companies or legal persons for the provision of these services.
  1. Please provide copies of all legal opinions and reports which  MAF has sought  to clarify the  dealings with a number of   incorporated societies who  have  provided no real proof of  belonging to  one umbrella organisation other  than by inference.

You state in your letter (reply from Maf 16 July)  that the RNZSPCA as a whole  is an approved Organisation under section 189 of the act .

I believe that Maf    since day one has never grasped the concept of   legal persons    and the importance of correctly identifying who you deal with   Your statement conflicts with  the act which you administer      at section 189 (1) states

(1)    The organisation known as the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Incorporated is an approved organisation for the purposes of this Act.

That organisation is  Number      218546 Name     THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED   Incorporated   11-SEP-1933

There  are  many other societies   named as branches  and others  names SPCA  which  exist . Please look up the societies web page   and search in the key word search using the words cruelty and animals  you will find that  some 80   societies  come up both  current and historic  .

You will notice also that many of these societies are only run by Robyn Kippenberger  ,  What are the implications of branches being run and administered only by one person.  Each of these “ branches’ is a legal person a society in  their own right. They have assets and should have 15  people .

  1. What  records  does Maf hold on these societies which are  currently only being run by one person , what enquiries has MAF made with the register of societies  to ensure  that this is  a legally   viable option  please provide all documents which have considered the validity of such organisations  which could effectively be employing   inspectors  yet  exist only as a paper society.
  1. For the record I wish you to consider that   these   societies  frequently own land which has been bequeathed to them  , I have had  members of  such defunct  organisations contact me advising me that they have been removed from office  as Mr. Wells   so accurately states in his poster there is money in animals Please  advise  what anti corruption measures the   Ministry has considered by giving such wide scope of power to a group of private  individuals  who  through their contract to   the crown  have unlimited ability to raise funds .
    1. Please further advise what controls  and audit systems MAF has considered for the  income generated though prosecutions  and the ability for such money to be moved sideways into trusts  and be whittled away  through various payment  streams to the  high paid executives.

There are now trusts called SPCA  which have sprung into existence   and it is no longer clear as to which is a member society   or a branch or not affiliated  other than by inference  that  the name  provides membership.

There is also nothing in the public arena  which   shows any affiliation of the various organisations .

We are talking about the  delegation of   law enforcement here and we appear to have no chain  of authority and we  have apparently left it wide open for any organisation  to  call itself SPCA and come under the umbrella   of what is New Zealand’s only private law enforcement   authority.

MAF was similarly   negligent when it approved AWINZ as an approved organisation  when  you were not even in possession of a trust deed. I questioned the existence of that organisation and was sued  because MAF had been incapable of verifying the  organisations existence before sending it to the minister for the  pproval.

Transitional provisions

There appears to be nothing in the act  which  stipulates the duration of the transitional provisions   , as MAF appear to be continuing to use these transitional provisions for  the delegation of animal welfare enforcement they must be aware of the working so f the act.   It would appear from your answer  and action that the transitional    measures are  permanent unless  MAF has an application from  the RNZSPCA INC  to become an approved organisation.

  1. What consideration has Maf given to   treating  each individual  society as an approved organisation   rather  than allowing the RNZSPCA inc   to   continue to appoint which ever  organisation they wish  as a branch or  member . please provide all discussion papers .
  1. Please provide  any documents you have which shows  how the  RNZSPCA can appoint members or take on new branches.
  1. If there have been any other applications for  organisations including  member  societies or branches of the  SPCA  to become approved organisations  please provide these.

Point 10

There is general confusion and blurring of organisations because of the conflict of using   RNZSPCA  and SPCA  and now royal SPCA  , I respectfully request that MAF seeks legal advice from a suitably qualified lawyer on this issue  as   the real names and trading names    appear to become mixed and this does not allow  for proper identification  of the parties.  This would be  akin to identity fraud if it is done  intentionally  .( I am not saying that this is the case ) But  the public have  the right to know which entity they are dealing with and at present that is not  possible.

There is much missing in the   transparency of the RNZSPCA inc and its  branches and  member societies  this is an issue which is of public significance  for accountability reasons and  MAF should ensure that we know at all times  who in the private sector is entitled to enforce the law.  Lack of  transparency breeds corruption

Point 11.

The issue which  I  am trying to clarify is that the delegated authority to   individuals     is done as follows

  1. RNZSPCA inc is  an approved organisation
  2. There are member society and branches  by  inference but there is no documented proof- perhaps a  flow chart may exist which you can supply  to clarify this
  3. These  member societies branches  .. called local SPCAs   are all separate legal persons and have separate  society and  trust registration numbers  -each   can  select candidates for training  and then make recommendations to the  national office  which presumably again by inference  is the approved organisation
  4. The approved organisation   recommends the person to Maf
  5. Maf approves /declines
  6. If approved the inspector is warranted and works  for the member society  or branch
  7. By virtue of section 190 (2)  that organisation then becomes an approved organisation  and can retain any  fines from its prosecutions by virtue of section 171

It is  therefore  very lucrative for a society to have  an inspector as the inspector through prosecutions can generate revenue especially now that the penalties have been increased.

It is therefore  essential that the   all steps in the delegation process and all legal names are transparent and accurate.

It is my concern that MAF  have  not  properly considered the implications of the contracts  between parties  and the ability to expand  the branches and  member societies without  consultation with  Government.

The  MOU  dated 16 march 2006  claiming to be  between the minister and  THE ROYAL NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS INCORPORATED      and branches and member societies  is  signed only  by Barry O’Neill through delegated authority   and Peter Mason  national President.

  1. I  therefore request information pursuant to the official information act so  as to complete the chain of evidence  of  delegation and accountability  with respect to this process  As  mentioned above
  2. I also request any  documents  which may  discuss a limit to the growth of the   number of member societies and  branches and  the limit on numbers of inspectors who may be appointed.

Further with respect to the Memorandum  of Understanding supplied

  1. Point 11 please provide All  discussion documents, reports and correspondence  which considered the implications of delegating law enforcement authority through an unenforceable  document.
  1. Pont 20 & 22  Please advise how many RNZSPCA  inspector applicants have been interviewed by MAF
  1. Point 53  Please advise   whether MAF considered the fact that the RNZSPCA is a private  society and therefore not subject to the official information act   when it directed that an  inspector should advise  a district if they are working outside their jurisdiction.  What consideration  did MAF give to the  availability of information to the public who  may wish to question the jurisdiction of an inspector.  .. Please provide all documents  which discussed this aspect before having it included in the  MOU
  1. Point 66  please provide copies of all newsletters

Further

  1. Please provide all correspondence  to MAF with regards to the new facility being  built at WINTEC  in Hamilton being  built by a  group of persons calling themselves the Waikato Animal Welfare Foundation ( but otherwise unidentifiable as this organisation  does not exist  beyond perhaps a well concealed  private trust deed )  the trustee named Jan Thomson   is on the executive  of the Waikato RNZSPCA  and she is talking about leasing he building back to the Waikato SPCA  which is  exactly the  same organisation which  Jan Thomson  is an executive of.  Some of the money being used is  $4000,000  which  came from  the Waikato RNZSPCA and has been used   to set up the Waikato SPCA trust. .. It is such creativity and lack of transparency which  opens the door to corruption and fraud.   This is preventable  and therefore MAF should take all steps to ensure that  those who they allow to enforce the law  are transparent.
  1. I believe that Unitec secured the training  for  inspectors fate  it had been included as a requirement  in the act. The training was provided  by Mr Wells the author of the bill  who  obtained  employment at Unitec to   facilitate the new legislation. Unitec  won the contract   please provide the names of  all those who tendered for the  supply of this service .
  1. who is the current  training provider   contracted to MAF  and  please advise who the providers were since the act   commenced. Pease supply copies of all these contracts.
  1. I  request all documents  which  relate to any consideration given to changing the  current service provider or to any consideration to implement a new provider  at Wintec to train the new influx  of  animal welfare inspectors.

Lastly

There have been a number of long term  RNZSPCA  & SPCA officers  inspectors and  committees  from various legal entities which are branches or  member societies  that have been laid off . It would appear that there are changes afoot in the running of the SPCA which has brought about the  need to remove the old to make room for the new.    Has Maf  investigated  these changes  and have they been notified   regarding any of these changes. Please provide any   or  all correspondence which  relates to  the   takeover of  administration of branches,  dismissals of inspectors  and  officer in the past 2 years.

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

Regards

Grace Haden

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

http://transparency.net.nz/

Documents referred  to   reply from Maf 16 July

This letter refers to attachments as follows

A   overview of mafs animal welfare activities

B   maf letter 19 may

memorandum  of understanding  RNZSPCA inc  and  Maf

performance  and Technical standards for  inspectors of the RNZSPCA

sale and purchase of  animal welfare services

F email from peter Mason regarding the   name of the SPCA ‘s

26/07/2010

Verification of facts and accountability to the truth in our courts needs addressing.

Filed under: corruption,transparency — anticorruptionnz @ 5:50 am

On 3rd july I sent the following email   addressed to the  Attorney General  and others

Corruption in New Zealand is alive and well as long as we continue to beat up those who speak  out.

I hope  Vince’s  incarceration  can serve as precedent  ..

Remember the old saying “sticks and stones will break my bones  and words will never hurt me”

Well if  Vince has been ordered to Pay $940,000   because some ones feelings were hurt because he spoke the truth     and  then  is repeatedly sent to jail for defying  the court    can you imagine   the penalties  which we could get from violent offenders, habitual  criminals  and repeated drunk drivers

I actually don’t know why we bother with crimes act offences.. deal with everything  in the civil section,  No proof, no evidence  , no rights    and penalties  which no criminal offending could even get close to .

I know   Vince did not have the ability to defend his truth , neither did  I.

Like him I questioned what  I saw as a  corrupt practice     but apparently if someone   who has lots of buddies in high places  does  something naughty  it’s Ok  and   the person questioning  gets  done in the courts  –  its common practice and  it is  accepted worldwide  .

Even Madoff  used that trick.. see people  who have been successful  at being naughty have  lots of money  to throw at the courts  to silence those who could expose them.  But our system allows that  we condone corruption to the extent that those who speak out are treated harsher than criminals.

Easier to shut up the  whistleblower than deal with the  issue.     And Evidence.. well the civil court doesn’t need any – the uncorroborated evidence of  the plaintiff is as good as gold.  And if you tell the court  you are exposing corruption the court says  there you have it  proof of defamation. …..

I see parallels with  the Madoff  matter and invite you  to  look at this clip of a congressman   reprimanding  government servants  for their inaptitude.  New Zealand is no different.

There is a lot wrong   with our defamation laws   and the way the court deals with them. And the manner in which  it prevents  ordinary new Zealanders from questioning what they believe are corrupt practices.

Whistleblowers expose themselves to high personal risks in order to protect the public good. …They often end up in years of legal litigation, fighting for their own rights or for the case they have disclosed to be adequately investigated source Transparency international

Regards

Grace Haden

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

I have recieved this reply Attorney General

I have  followed this up with  the following

Thank You  Mr Finlayson

I   do hope that   you have  closer look at what is happening in our courts generally .   This week a woman is being sentenced for  fraudulent business practices.  Lynne Pryor   and her associate  Terry Hay ( who has absconded from our laws   but was still able to use our  courts to pursue me )  caused extreme stress to me by  bringing malicious charges, defending these  malicious charges  cost me some $50,000 .

Because our courts do not   function on verified fact  and  do not hold any one accountable for perjury  they have become a very good tool to  use by the rich to beat up those  who  have limited resources. Why use a base ball bat to beat someone up when you can  cause great stress over  many years and even bankrupt a person so that they cannot fight  back.

I consider this a gross  abuse of  our courts system. It can be easily overcome  by holding people including lawyers accountable to the truth  .

In the case of Fresh prepared Limited  I  could prove that the lawyers  who represented  the company had  used these tactic before.  I can prove this using the judges  decisions  who said that they had used the scorched earth policy   and had used  over the top actions.  This was in a case  which led  to my investigations into a   director and liquidator  who did not   exist.

Boss invents accountant to escape $60k debt
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Terry Hay has fled the country but his business partner, Lynne Pryor, 45, has pleaded guilty to one charge of carrying on business fraudulently after an

Charges over alleged fake liquidator
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Lynne Pryor has been charged with 22 counts of attempting to defraud creditors and the Companies Office, by using false documents to create a false director

As a former Police prosecutor and  lay litigant I did not stand a chance in court, judges simply prefer to believe the so called officers of the court .Yet on the other hand  you hear that every lawyer lies  and that  this is a well known fact ( that statement came from a lawyer ) .

I was taken to court for Harassment. I had never seen  spoken to or  been near Terry  Hay , My crime was to try to  find the director and liquidator .

While the court had difficulty  accepting that a liquidator could   fictitious they  did not hesitate to  issue restraining order against me   when no evidence existed.

I am a verification specialist  and see that the issue we have in our legal system as in many government departments is that we do not know how to verify .

Anyone can file anything in our courts   there needs to be a requirement where by   lawyers  need to certify the truth of their clients  claims  and that the claim is  being brought correctly . Litigants in person  need to  do this as well.

Secondly any one swearing any  statutory declaration ,affidavit or giving sworn evidence  needs to be held accountable to the truth.

Currently it is accepted that people tell lies in courts   if the judges  make decisions on lies  then how sound are those decisions  and what does it do for justice.

Good decisions cannot  be made on fiction . And when  there is no accountability to the truth you  will not get the truth .

I can provide you with examples to  illustrate  that fictitious claims are brought to  court,  there are even fictitious litigants  .

The  police do not action perjury complaints, I know that because I have provided them with a very thick file  with a ton of evidence  yet  this is not enough to  counter  an uncorroborated statement in court.

The law society is less than Useless   complaints  against lawyers are simply not investigated.

It is time that we realise that lawyers are not investigators   and the Law society   does a very good job of looking after its own, occasionally it will hang out to  dry a lawyer who  they wish to dispose of  as an example  that they  are doing their  job.

Middle income New Zealand has no access  to justice  the court is being used as a bullying exercise , it is currently cheaper to  submit to unjustified demands than to stand up for your rights.

Those who are honest do not stand a chance in our courts     as the truth  is  inflexible and  a good manufactured story always wins out on the day. Doesn’t matter if the facts  don’t fit  no one will check and  no amount of proof  will be enough to prove  perjury.

Until our courts  ask for  evidence and insist on something more than the uncorroborated evidence of the person who stands to gain there will never be justice.

I am happy to  come to Wellington to meet with you and   guide you or your advisors through  the issues which I have experienced in my personal and professional capacity.

Regards

Grace Haden

Phone (09) 520 1815

mobile 027 286 8239
visit us at  www.verisure.co.nz

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.