Anticorruptionnz's Blog

11/03/2010

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

Advertisements

08/03/2010

What is New Zealand doing about corruption – why is it better to be a fraudster than Question corruption ?

Filed under: corruption,Neil Wells,transparency,waitakere city council — anticorruptionnz @ 8:11 am

Official information request   Simon Power

(the hyperlinks will open the  referenced documents)

Sir

Your ministry of  justice web site http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy-and-consultation/crime/bribery-and-corruption/legal-framework/the-united-nations-convention-against-corruption relates to the United Nations Convention against Corruption  it   states in its opening line

“In December 2003, New Zealand signed the UN Convention Against Corruption, which requires countries to take action in both the public and private sector to prevent corruption.”

The link provided  opens on the united nations page which contains a copy of the Text, I downloaded the English version .

I note that the  issues raised in the convention are right on track to  give me the support that I  would have expected   when I  boldly stuck my neck out in 2006 and  asked  questions about   the existence of a law enforcement  agency  which  had no apparent  visibility ,accountability  and operated in circumstances of  what I saw was  conflict of interest in a public private relationship. I have since proved that that    “organisation”   did not exist  and since then  a lot of covering up has occurred to   retrospectively cover up.

In brief the “organisation ‘is the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand ( AWINZ ) , it is an ‘approved ‘ organisation   by virtue of section 121 of the anima welfare Ac 1999 .

AWINZ grew out of a concept which Neil Wells  an animal welfare Barrister and  former RNZSPCA  director saw   animal welfare as something  which could be privatised and drew up a  concept in   1996  for  the   territorial animal welfare authority .

This concept intended that for remuneration he would train, supervise control and audit the   council dog and stock control officers to become   animal welfare inspectors nation wide.

To facilitate his venture he wrote the first bill for what was to become  the  animal welfare act 1999 but through the select committee stages   where he was employed as  an “ independent “  advisor , the involvement of territorial authorities   was ruled out .

“ to over come  the legal and policy issues that precluded  local authorities  having an animal welfare  enforcement 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  ”Paragraph 9 letter from MAF. obtained by official information act

This letter also descries the legal implication and public role of the   “ trust”  and   MAF object to it being  given the approved status.

A year later   AWINZ was given approved status under the act , despite the fact that no trust deed or proof of  existence  had been provided.

MAF and Treasury  had both objected to the application  , but Mr Wells  who had a longstanding political  association the labour party  consulted his  colleague  Mayor bob Harvey( page 8) who at the time was the president of the labour party. Following that the application which the minister had the  ability to approve or decline was placed before the   labour Government cabinet   and approved.

I have proved  that

Mr Wells  manager of Waitakere  city council animal welfare  division  ( where Bob Harvey is Mayor )  contracts to the CEO of AWINZ  – Mr Wells.

AWINZ uses the councils paid staff voluntarily for animal welfare work   and although  the council lawyer claims  that AWINZ does not operate from its facilities Mr Wells claims that it leased for $1 per year.

Awinz also  solicits public donations using a new logo which is  very similar to that of the Waitakere City Animal welfare  division (  refer back to the lawyers letter   AWINZ does not operate from those facilities)

In a recent case a Council   dog control officers ,  picks up  a  dog at  what  I believe to have been at the request of the owner, the dog as sick and had sought refuge under a nearby house  and would not come out.

The  dog control officer  reported the  illness to the  council dog control manager Mr Wells who referred the  animal welfare issues on to  the CEO of AWINZ Mr Wells

The CEO of AWINZ approves the matter for prosecution and passes    the matter on to the AWINZ barrister again   Mr Wells .

The matter is then dealt with by diversion  with a donation to  AWINZ or by prosecution and seeking reparation payable to AWINZ. In this  case reparation was awarded .

I have details of another prosecution and it appears from the Waitakere city web site that there are other prosecutions .

In 2006  Mr Wells   was found to be  the only person  in control of a bank account  in the name of a legal person  by the name of Animal welfare institute of New Zealand  , into which the  donations and prosecutions  funds were deposited. ( yes I do have proof )

Neil Wells and his non existent trust took me too court ,  three people  pretending to   be AWINZ but not having any documentation to prove that  they were , sued me .

For seeking transparency and accountability of this non existent law enforcement  authority  ,  I have been hauled through the courts and   sued , It has  cost me  $100,000  and   another $150,000  is being demanded by  Mr Wells and his lawyers  for costs and an award which was made  for  defamation  where I was  prohibited by the court from defending the matter.

Every time  I told the court that this action was to conceal corruption the court would come down harder on me . No evidence was ever called for and I  was found    guilty arbitrarily and  costs were awarded  against me on the uncorroborated evidence of the man who stood to gain.

The judge even  admitted   doing a Google search  during his deliberations.

The stress has killed my marriage and torn my family apart .I am a former police sergeant and currently a Private Investigator   .

I have  done nothing but speak the truth and  the truth of  the  alleged defamatory  statements  have been proved   .  Truth is  never defamatory .

I have covered various aspects of my case including the use of charitable funds to pursue me through court on my blog https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com where this open letter will also be posted

In reading the  document   UN Convention Against Corruption  I note that  in the scenario above   Mr Wells  is a public official   and that these events  would   be exactly what  the convention  intended   to prevent and provide  assistance to people like my self  for  questioning corruption .

Being

Article 33. Protection of reporting persons

Each State Party shall consider incorporating into its domestic legal system appropriate measures to provide protection against any unjustified treatment for any person who reports in good faith and on reasonable grounds to the competent authorities any facts concerning offences established in accordance with this Convention.

Article 34. Consequences of acts of corruption With due regard to the rights of third parties acquired in good faith, each State Party shall take measures, in accordance with the fundamental principles of its domestic law, to address consequences of corruption. In this context, States Parties may consider corruption a relevant factor in legal proceedings to annul or rescind a contract, withdraw a concession or other similar instrument or take any other remedial action.

Article 35. Compensation for damage

Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary, in accordance with principles of its domestic law, to ensure that entities or persons who have suffered damage as a result of an act of corruption have the right to initiate legal proceedings against those responsible for that damage in order to obtain compensation.

Official information act request

  1. Why  is New Zealand  one of  17  of the  163 signatories  who have not ratified the  convention .
  2. What is the government doing to ratify the agreement it signed in 2003 .
  3. If the  Government  was  serious about signing the  convention  would  assisting persons such as myself not take the  country one step  closer to ratification?
  4. Why do people such as my self not   get any protection  , assistance or support from the government or courts  fro  questioning corruption ?
  5. What measures have been incorporated into our legal system, or do you intend to incorporate which will provide protection against any unjustified treatment for any person who reports in good faith and on reasonable grounds to the competent authorities any facts concerning offences established in accordance with this Convention.
  6. Why  is new Zealand the only country ,in the  top 10 least corrupt  countries  to have signed  the  convention , which has not ratified the   convention.
  7. How many more cases like me are out there, does this government    seek to silence us or will people be encouraged to speak out  on matters of public concerns.  If we speak out what protection can you offer us?
  8. I can understand that the last  government    had cause to  conceal corruption  being as that they were in my opinion  the most corrupt government we have ever had   and I can see that they  ran secret trusts and  societies and therefore would   have wanted me to   be silenced , is this also the view of the national  government  and what is being done to ensure that  those  who question corruption are not  going to have their lives destroyed.
  9. Why do fraudsters have more rights to  a fair trial than some one who rightfully questions corruption.
  10. I note  that fraudster Warren Pickett was sentenced to 5 years for  20 million  fraud , he will probably get half remission  which means  he will  do 2 ½  years   which means  he   will be inside for  8 million per year .. I wish I was as lucky  I questioned corruption and it has cost  me 4 years  my family and probably in excess of $250,000 , why don’t I get the protection that the  NZ bill of right  should afford me ? Why  can criminals have their matters proved and I am deal t to arbitrarily? Doesn’t that mean that   criminals   get more protection  from the law than those who question corruption ?   What are you  going to do about it?

I hope that  the government can use my particular case as evidence of  how corruption  occurred in New Zealand  and that even though  the  judiciary  were made aware of   the fact that it was corruption I was exposing  that  they were apparently  powerless with our current legislation to  assist in turning this about.

I am now  appealing to the court of appeal , I believe that all it will do is   make more lawyers  rich  but I am going to  fight this to the  bitter end  even if I have to go to the UN myself and tell  them just how New Zealand attains its least corrupt status  because  we firmly stomp on those who  say “ excuse me  sir  but isn’t that  corrupt!”

I like others who are sick of the fraud and corruption which is  so prevalent  despite  the  least corrupt perception, are looking forward to a better   less corrupt New Zealand .. Being top of the least corrupt perception index is great but we must do it with honest means and the perception must not be a total fiction.

I know that many New Zealanders share my view I hope that you do too.

I look forward to your reply and some assistance from the government if  it really is serious about  curbing corruption .

I have copied this to the executive of  Transparency International.  I am some what  disillusioned with the New Zealand branch  who   cover up corruption and  turn those ( like myself )   who can point out   the holes in the system , away – transparency New Zealand is  keeping the illusion  – the perception  alive..  we need to get real

Regards

Grace Haden

06/03/2010

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

Filed under: corruption,Lord of the rings,Nuala Grove,Sarah Gilltrap,waitakere city council — anticorruptionnz @ 12:12 am

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

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

Excerpt from Bryers’ interview, May 2008

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

Bryers: “Yes I do.”

Grove: “What is the Sebastian Trust?”

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

Grove: “To your family interests?”

Bryers: “Yes.”

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

Bryers: “Can’t recall offhand.”

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

Bryers: “I can’t recall that either.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions which need answers

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

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

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

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

The following is the correspondence  which  Daniel and I have exchanged

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

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

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

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

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

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

The link to the site is

http://aniticorruptionnz.wordpress.com

Regards

Grace Haden

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

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

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

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

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

Yours faithfully

Daniel Grove

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

Chancery Street Chambers

P O Box 130

Shortland Street

Auckland

T + 64 9 362 0101

F + 64 9 362 0102

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

Thank you very much for your response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will be posting these  emails on the blog .

Regards

Grace Haden

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

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

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

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

Chancery Street Chambers

P O Box 130

Shortland Street

Auckland

T + 64 9 362 0101

F + 64 9 362 0102

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

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

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

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

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

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

If they did sign them then  they could explain

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

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

22/02/2010

How to get your litigation funded through the public purse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The chronology  goes like this

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

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

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

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

17/02/2010

LGOIMA request Waitakere City

Filed under: corruption,Neil Wells,Tom Didovich,waitakere city council — anticorruptionnz @ 10:46 am

From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 17 February 2010 11:42 p.m.
To: ‘Denis.Sheard@waitakere.govt.nz’; ‘david.carter@parliament.govt.nz’; ‘priscilla@epsom.org.nz’
Cc: ‘Penny.Hulse@waitakere.govt.nz’; ‘Bob.Harvey@waitakere.govt.nz’; ‘Councillors@waitakere.govt.nz’; ‘Tony.Illot@ombudsmen.parliament.nz’
Subject: LGOIMA request

Good morning Denis        and  for the information ministers  of agriculture  and local Government

I have  a few more questions  by way of LGOIMA

Neil Wells had been employed by the  city to set  up a trust  ( as per attached invoices ) invoice re trustees.pdf invoice trust 97.pdf The  document  waitakere re trust  dec 1998.pdf claims that an interim trust had been set up .

Attached is a  report from Mr Wells   to  Mr Didovich    dated  1996( Teritorial authority Animal welfare services.) where by   Mr Wells shares his  views of setting up an organisation which  he was to head   and  provide animal welfare services   to councils , by using the  dog and stock control officers. Mr Wells subsequently wrote  the   first bill for the new animal welfare act to  facilitate this concept   but  this was amended  through the no 2  bill  and animal welfare  was deemed to be ultra vires to  council  activities.

The manager animal welfare worked actively   with Mr Wells to  overcome this hurdle  and a trust was proposed  apparently while  Mr. Wells was still  on the pay roll of the select committee where he was an independent advisor

Mr Wells  purportedly  proposed the concept of  trust  which was to  have the  city  as  trustee , the city paid Mr Wells to set up the trust and even recruit the trustees. ( odd that  for a voluntary organisation )

I now find that  I have conflicting   documents  which   show that   the city decided not to go ahead with the trust  (19 jan 1999.pdf)and then  documents from Didovich 14 june 1999. stating that “There is a very real need to establish the Animal Welfare Trust so that preparation for MAF auditing and subsequent  audit and acceptance of the TRUST/IWCC link is achieved in a timely fashion”

I also have a  memorandum  21 march 2000. shows Didovich writing to Wells  about contracting to the trust . Correspondence which I have  obtained form your files would indicate that Mr Wels and Mr Didovich were   in close contact with each other over that period of time  and it would  appear unlikely that Mr Didovich  did  not know of the  intended structure of the trust .

These documents  give rise to a number of questions which I request answers to  pursuant to LGOIMA

  1. In the  email  “waitakere re trust  dec 1998.pdfit states  “An interim trust has been established by Council, with Neil Wells as acting CEO. Please provide the copy of the signed trust deed  .
  1. In the letter 19 January 1999 Mr Wells refers to the discussions  with  of  the city secretary , please advise
    1. who   this was at this time
    2. please provide  the notes  jottings , correspondence or   computer entries  generated  as a result of that discussion including the date when it  took place
    3. under whose    authority the secretary was acting in making this decision .
    4. Please provide all copies of  documents   notes and  outcomes  from the  meeting referred to   on 26 January at 3pm or the one which was rescheduled in  its place also if this meeting  overturned the secretaries  decision  not  to include council
    5. Please  advise  why  a trust had purportedly been formed on 23  December  and  had been over ruled by the city secretary  by the 19th January  and why Mr. Didovich  needed it  to  be set up urgently in  June  and why  it subsequently became a  private trust which needed your manager to  drive about Auckland collecting the  signatures.
    6. Please advise   the dates on which the   council secretary  worked in the period between 23  December  1998 and 19 January 1999
    7. Who authorised the statement  that the  council will continue to fund the institute .
    8. Please advise what the status  of the institute was at that time ,( this is quite confusing  we  seem to have a   trust then we don’t, if there is no trust   please advise who or what  the institute   that Waitakere  supplied funds to  was.
    9. Please explain how  Waitakere could  fund something which did not appear to exist , who was the money  paid to ? and in what name were payments for the “ institute” made out to .
  1. Please advise  what the  councils criteria are for  accepting a trust  involving the city as  formed.
    1. It is some ones idea
    2. We have talked  about it
    3. We have put it to councillors
    4. We have seen a copy of a draft deed
    5. Trustees have met and  signed the trust deed  and we have a copy of the signed deed.
  1. In terms of funding n institute  when does an institute exist
    1. It is some ones idea
    2. We have talked  about it
    3. We believe it  exists
    4. We have seen a copy of a draft deed
    5. We have a copy  of a  signed deed  and we know the organisation  exists in reality .
  1. With regards to the   letter  21 March  Mr Didovich states “On behalf of Waitakere City Council and as the contractor for North Shore City Council (North Shore Animal Care and Control) I am able to provide an assurance that Council is satisfied for staff to enter into an arrangement with AWINZ and that no problems are fore seen and that benefits are expected. Waitakere City Council is aware of any liabilities  involved and accepts that responsibility. The intention is that each individual Officer will enter into a “memorandum of under standing” with AWINZ. All fourteen potential Officers have already signed a letter of assurance of which the Minister of Agriculture has received the originals. A copy of the standard letter is attached(attachment 2).
  1. By what authority could  the then manager animal welfare provide an assurance on behalf of  Council with regards to
    1. i.      the use of its staff by an outside organisation  for no  remuneration
    2. ii.      give assurances with regards to liabilities  and responsibilities
    3. iii.      As the staff to enter into contracts with a third party  as part of heir  employment
  1. With regards to the statement (“letter  21 March  )Waitakere City Council possesses a strong intent to hold a “memorandum of understanding” with  AWINZ
    1. How could the city   form an intent to   have a mou with an organisation which did not exist
    2. Who authorised this statement, did it pass through council ?
    3. Why were councillors not involved
    4. What policy does the council have  which enables  head of a department to give assurances for and  on behalf of  their city
    5. Why did the city not sign the MOU  (as attached  ) and  what authority did the city give Mr Didovich to sign it.
  1. With regards to the mou waitakere. does the city have any concerns that Mr Wells  was through his employment as manager  animal welfare  contracting to itself.  As attached .  What is council policy on this ? the OECD  find it unacceptable  why does Waitakere city condone it?
  1. In the letter  21 march 2000 Kensington swan is reported as providing a legal opinion  with regards to the funding of  animal welfare from  general revenue, please advise  when this proposal passed through council and   provide  the  minutes of  that council meeting.
  1. Please advise who authorised the expenses  involved in this legal opinion  and
  2. provide the  costs of  this advice.
  1. In the email 14 June 1999 Didovich to Neil Wells , Didovich  copies Wells in  on correspondence with the  city lawyers  other correspondence indicates that  Mr Didovich and Mr. Wells   were working together .On 28 June  Mr Didovich follows up with 2 emails    in the first he volunteers the services of Neil Wells  as Solicitor to  do some tweaking and in the second he  reiterates   “it is becoming a huge issue for the Animal Welfare Services Business Unit to establish the “Trust”. Please advise
  1. what discussions occurred between December 1998  and 28 June 1999 with regards to  establishing a trust  and
  2. why  would  Waitakere city need to tweak the deed  when   it was  not  going to be a party  to the deed.
  1. Could you please provide any  documentation or information which would explain why   Mr Didovich states “Our last meaningful meeting was early in January and at that stage the deed was on the verge of completion Nothing has changed in almost six months,’  when the current manager of animal welfare   at that same time   advised MAF that the city would not be involved. “
  1. Please provide the  criteria  the council has   for the ability of   heads of department
  1. to contract to themselves.
  2. To sign  agreements on  behalf of council
  1. Please provide the councils views as to whether Mr Wells appointment  as manager  Animal welfare was not  seen as  a conflict of interest   when he was  representing himself to be  the CEO of an organisation which that department  contracted  to and  assigned staff to.
  1. Please advise what council did to ensure that AWINZ was bona fides  and actually existed , i.e. obtained trust deeds , verified that it was actually an organisation not  just a tradename for person or persons un known.
  1. And lastly What  concerns the city  now has   in view of  Mr. Didovich used council money and facilities to set up a trust  which   had  no legal existence on its own ( independent of trustees ) and ability to use council staff to  perform  work for  the “trust” which had no deed,  trustees did not meet and   he is now  claims to be a trustee of a similarly named trust which uses a logo  confusingly close to that of Waitakere animal welfare.

I look  forward to having the   reply   urgently as I  am preparing   documents  for an appeal to the  court of appeal.

I have posted this  request  on my blog https://anticorruptionnz.wordpress.com in the interest of transparency

11/02/2010

The lack of verification -opens door to corruption

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

page 13

02/02/2010

Where MAF missed the point

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. That person exists.

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

3. They  are aware of their responsibilities

4. They  consent to it their involvement

Did MAf  check this  out.. apparently not !

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT FURTHER FALSE REPRESENTATIONS WERE MADE

Assertions made in applications  and correspondence as to incorporation “A charitable trust has been formed by Deed of Trust as the “Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand” (AWINZ). It is being registered under Part II of the Charitable Trusts Act 1957. The founding trustees are:

• Nuala Grove

• Sarah Giltrap

• Graeme Coutts

• Neil Wells

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

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

3. Application to minister for approved status

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

29/01/2010

About AWINZ – Animal welfare institute of New Zealand

What is  AWINZ

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

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

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

Origins of AWINZ

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

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

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

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

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

Who is AWINZ

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

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

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

early 1998           Waitakere Animal Welfare Trust

Late 1998             AWINZ Waitakere  city council     and un named trustees

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nick Wright and  ex wife 

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

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

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

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

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

This requires some explaining.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

07/01/2010

Update on Didovich

Update on Didovich

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

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

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

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

12/12/1994 Waitakere City SPCA  author Neil Wells

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

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

January 1998 strategic options author Neil Wells

Flow of funds author Neil Wells

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

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

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

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

02/01/2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tom Didovich

SPCA NZ National Branch

Support Manager:

branchsupport@rnzspca.org.nz or

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

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

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

« Previous PageNext Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.