Anticorruptionnz's Blog

21/10/2012

AWINZ new evidence

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

Sir

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  •  This application  contains a blank trust deed.
  • The application is made in the name of an alleged  trust  but  the application itself has not been signed by any person .
  • Evidence obtained at a later time  proves that  no trust deed existed on  22.11.1999 and the statements  contained in the application were false  . trust deed.pdf
  • The  name of the applicant   could not   have been  the animal welfare institute of New Zealand  as  this name was not defined and no legal person  using the name other than as a trading name existed.  No person using the name as a trading name was identified.
  • No subsequent applications were received and Mr  Wells gave a number of assurances  that the trust existed but avoided providing a deed.
  • Since the very nature of an  unincorporated trust means that the trust is only represented through its trustees,  there would have had to have been applications made which show that each and every trustee consented to the application for approved status and accepted  responsibility in their personal capacity.
  • Mr Wells was the only person involved in the application, He did not even sign the application but signed the  covering letter  claiming that he was a trustee.  Significantly I have located a  business plan which Mr Wells  drafted in  1996 (Territorial authority Animal welfare services.pdf) and shows the format which eventually  became AWINZ  and that this was about personal profit. The business plan  applies to AWINZ if the name  territorial  authority animal welfare services is substituted. And shows mr wells propensity to using trading names
  • Individuals could not be an approved organisation , It is therefore a reasonable assumption that  he wished the  minister to  believe that an organisation existed as individuals could not  be an approved organisation.
  • No verification of the existence of AWINZ was ever carried out  by MAF or the minister  and in  the audit in 2008 it was noted that AWINZ  operated seamlessly with Waitakere city council ( page 2 )
  • A lawyer versed  in company or trust law will be able to advise that  an entity which  has no independent legal existence cannot enter into contracts  , only real or legal persons can enter into contracts  and as such the MOU entered into    between MAF and  AWINZ was not worth the paper it was written on
  • Throughout  the application process MAF expressed their concern that the council becoming involved in animal welfare work was  not lawful , I was given documents which were edited BY MAF , I was fortunate enough to   find documents   at Waitakere city  which  had not been edited and from these documents the  edited comments  were  shown to be   as follows.
  • Crown Law has advised MAF that the Local Government Act does not allow a territorial authority to fund an animal welfare organisation or employ animal welfare inspectors.
  •  A territorial authority may employ staff only to perform its functions as set out in that Act and may only spend money on matters expressly or impliedly authorised by statute.
  • Crown Law considers that if Parliament had intended a territorial authority to have an animal welfare role then the power could be expected to be found in the Local Government Act or other legislation.
  • I believe that the opinion given by Crown Council is detailed and persuasive and raises an  important matter of public policy.
  •  I would need to consider whether I should approve a proposal given that I am advised that to do so would be contrary to the law.
  • Whether or not we approve AWINZ should stand on Its own merits ie I am not keen on the Government entering into an agreement under S37T to legitimise something that is not a l ready legit “
  • If the  crown were  to enter into an agreement with TA and with AWINZ that  would be recognition  that work was being undertaken on behalf of the crown  should it  come to pass that the TA was held not able to undertake the activity from its funds  the crown would be left with a potential claim against it.
  • etc
  • The crown law office gave a legal opinion  saying that AWINZ could not have law enforcement authority and Mr Wells obtained an opinion through  the council dog control manager ( who is not a trustee f the cover up trust ) Wells told MAF   at the time  that he felt  that he could have gone to the council lawyers  but  chose to  go to Kensington Swann, this stamen makes me suspect that  the council  lawyers were deliberately  circumvented  . It also appears from the  documents I obtained that  that  Mr Wells   probably influenced  the  Kensington Swan legal opinion  as significant changes were made to the draft sent back to  Tom Didovich   manager Waitakere   dog and stock control  who routinely   consulted Mr Wells.
  • Maf  when facing the conflicting  legal opinions stated  “A definitive resolution of these conflicting legal opinions should be decided in court”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advertisements

02/02/2011

Hot air and bullshit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to write legislation for his own business plan

Use the court to conceal corruption

Got his  litigation funded through the public purse

Give  false end titles to the lord of the  rings movies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23/08/2010

Will Hoadley expose or conceal corruption?

Filed under: Wyn Hoadley — anticorruptionnz @ 2:08 am

Wyn Hoadley is standing for Thames Ward Thames-Coromandel District Council and Waitemata District Health Board

I  have asked the following questions of her    any one wishing to see the court documents and evidence   can contact me.

Four years ago  I asked questions  about AWINZ ( Animal welfare Institute  of new Zealand ) seeking accountability. Your involvement with  AWINZ is documented   here .

AWINZ is a law enforcement body  just like the RNZSPCA  but unlike the RNZSPCA or any member  or branch it  did not exist beyond a private trust.  See About AWINZ – Animal welfare institute of New Zealand

AWINZ  using  flyers signed by you as chairwoman  ,  collects donations   for the work which it does  in Waitakere  city  using the council dog and stock control officers to  do ” voluntary work ” paid for  by the rate payer, using council plant,  vehicles and resources  .  for this trust whose CEO is also the  manager animal welfare Waitakere  and effectively both parties to the  contract  .

Mr Wells  with  whom you   signed a trust deed  (six months after commencing litigation and in what I see as a  cover up )  contributed heavily to the   writing   and advice on  this  legislation  which  was by all appearances to facilitate  the business plan he had in 1996.

You did not provide any opportunity for resolution outside the court  and  when I spoke to you and requested that the trustees of both trust should meet.  You told me that you were not  the messenger-this was odd due to your supposed designation as chair person, while you have no other proof than your own assertion that you were a trustee at that time .

You sued me and have over the past four year  together with Wells and Coutts not relented, this has  seen  me striped of my family and  life’s savings  and  damaged my   business and reputation .

In view of  the manner in which you have dealt with me and  the AWINZ cover up  I was wondering what your views are  with regards to

  1. Dispute resolution  is court the only way  and  why resort to  heavy handed tactics when other avenues are available.
  2. The action against me was funded  through  the public purse by way of charitable funds,  would you  similarly use health board and council funds to    silence any one who spoke up about an issue of public concern.
  3. What  will you implement   to prevent Corrupt practices,  that is The use of one’s occupation for personal enrichment through the deliberate misuse or misapplication of the employing organization’s resources or assets.”  E.g write legislation for your own business plan . will you condone this as you have condoned  and supported AWINZ’s activities?
  4. What are  your views on Whistleblowers –  people  who  try to alert  the authorities to a corrupt practice.. should you listen to them or silence them  with crippling unrelenting court action  or should you meet and listen to them.?
  5. Will you be  looking  at Privatisation of dog and stock control,,  are you working with the RNZSPCA, I believe the local branch has already been  taken over by their head office paving the way for  the next step
  6. What anti fraud and corruption will you be putting in place to ensure that     public money and resources are not  wasted.
  7. What transparency measures will you be putting in place for public private relationships  .

Wyn I look forward to hearing from you I believe that  it is in the public interest that you are consistent with your  actions and your views.

06/04/2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AHA wrote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need more transparency and accountability .

03/04/2010

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

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

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

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

Circumstances

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Official information request  Minister of local Government.

  1. Your office  has advised me that a  public discussion paper is going to be published in February next year. I have been told by SPCA officers that  Dog and stock control is to be privatised ,  Please advise  If this paper  is with regards to the privatisation of  dog and stock control currently undertaken by councils.
  1. As it is obvious that something is contemplated and that  those in the animal  welfare sector are aware of  what  is in the pipe line   could you please advise  if there is a policy which   allows  certain people to become aware of impending  changes  before public consultation has even begun.( and is still so distant )
  1. Please also advise if it is appropriate that some  sectors of the community are for warned about  such policy changes.
  1. The Waikato animal welfare foundation , which  I believe has close connections with  the Waikato SPCA trust  which Mr  Wells  was a foundation  trustee of (  taking  charge of $400,000  of the RNZSPCA’s money)  has  announced  developments  at WINTEC.  Please advise if  you have been communicating with Wintec or any one involved with this foundation  with regards to the facilitation of training for the council  staff   and  others  to  be trained to replace the council  dog  and stock control officers.
  1. I would  like to mention here that UNITEC  tendered for and won the contract  at the time that the animal welfare Act became law, it was no surprise that Mr Wells who had written the act was also lecturing at Unitec and had written the course to   go hand in hand with the act.  Many would say that this is using inside information and it  appears to me that history is about to repeat.
  1. If you believe that it is a conflict of interest to   speak to me  with regards to lack of accountability of the animal welfare  institute of New Zealand   ,its involvement in Waitakere  city and use of the  public funds obtained through council connections, do you then  condone  such practice  or is  it simply that you do  not wish to   be formally aware of the situation  because that would throw a spanner in the works  for privatisation  which I am aware Act supports.
  1. I  wish to draw your attention to  the fact that you were helping me with this mater before  you became  a minister, you disapproved of the  practice then,   has your status as minister made this practice acceptable? Why do you  seemingly condone this action now  when  previously  you were pro active about exposing   this conflict of interest?
  1. Please provide  copies of all documents, correspondence , notes and  jottings  with regards  to and from  any  approved organisation, to and from  Maf , SPCA, RNZSPCA, AWINZ,  training   establishments such as Wintec, Unitec and the Waikato animal welfare foundation   with regards to
    1. Privatising  dog and or stock control
    2. Amalgamating council   dog and stock control with  animal welfare.
    3. Reviewing animal welfare  services
    4. Reviewing dog and stock control services.
  1. What cost benefit analysis  have been undertaken  and what conflict of interest precautions do you  have in mind.

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

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

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

Regards

Grace Haden

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

16/03/2010

More submissions

Filed under: corruption,transparency,Wyn Hoadley — anticorruptionnz @ 5:09 am

Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill

Submission By Grace Haden  Licenced Private Investigator

I am a Licenced private investigator and  member of the certified fraud examiners association , I am a former Police sergeant ( NZ police )  as well as general investigations I  work  in the identify  fraud prevention area, I am a verification specialist. I am director of a new  company Transparency New Zealand which aims to  make  New Zealand more transparent accountable to the truth and above all encourage  ratification of the  united nations  convention against corruption .

In the course of my work I have come across several matters of concern which touch on the issue of fair trading act and charities and I believe should  be rightfully  considered  when reviewing this legislation .

In 2003 New Zealand signed the  United nations convention against corruption but  the principals in the convention have not been  ratified  by law. By ignoring the spirit of the convention we are stepping further from ratification rather than closer to it. In particular in the Legislative guide for the implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption it mentions  (http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/legislative-guide.html)

Prevention

5. The Convention requires States parties to introduce effective policies aimed at the prevention of corruption.

Criminalization

6. The Convention goes on to require the State parties to introduce criminal and other offences to cover a wide range of acts of corruption, to the extent these are not already defined as such under domestic law.

It is  therefore important while considering  the  changes  to the fair trading act  and the  charities  acts   for all aspects  and not  just for  third party  collection agencies.

While there are professional collecting  agencies which  take  a majority of the takings  there are also  charities  who obtain  funds from the public and are used to exclusively fund the corporate wages to the executive members  or use the funds  which will indirectly provide a return for themselves   or are siphoned off elsewhere.

While the bill considers third party collectors it does not go far enough to eliminate unfair practices between competing charities and provides no protection to the public as to the identity and legal existence  of the charities themselves  let alone  those collecting for it.

There is no consideration given to the ability for “ charities” to launder  money  and while  the charities commission sets out and claims to give transparency, it falls short of  the mark  , and  the should  be no way that  such registrations could  slip by. There is a very  large assumption that any  charity which is  set up  is set up for   legitimate and credible means.

I have voiced my concerns with the charity commission and it appears that here is more emphasis on the applications having all the boxes ticked than on the reality which exists behind the paper work.

There is also no apparent provision which holds any one accountable to false statements and false claims when applying for charitable status, the requirement of statutory declarations would easily overcome this issue.

As a private investigator I am aware that  you cannot foresee every possibility   which may lead to  a corrupt practice , but  I do believe that when you are aware of instances where the acts  have been misused  you are in  a more powerful place to see how  the legislation either does not work or is abused.

Charities like everything else in New Zealand have become a business  , they are no longer  voluntary organizations which  provide a service and requested funds for  survival, the focus  for many has shifted  from service  to revenue collecting, and a means of supplying corporate wages for those who control the charity and an alternative way of obtaining employment by creative means.

No matter what is done to  close the loop hole   for third party collectors  a creative  alternative will be found  , one that I can immediately identify is  that  it will be simple for  collectors  to set up with a credible name and become a charity themselves , there by paying their own costs  and then passing the balance on to  the charitable purpose.

I will illustrate my submission using   documents and examples to support my assertions

Issue  one   The inefficiency and lack of transparency of the charities register

Example : The Roundtable On Violence Against Women Trust

This alleged trust is a charity, it has registration number CC38365

  • It has a unsigned trust deed
  • There are no officers listed or identifiable
  • The trust is  not  registered under any act therefore the  name is not a legal name it is a trading name  which one or more person uses  – that person/persons cannot be identified.
  • Even its web site does not give a clue to who the members are.

Questions

Where is the transparency?

  • How much money is coming in,
  • who is receiving it, is it all being declared-
  • Who are the trustees ,
  • Why bother about third parties collecting when the Charities themselves have no transparency and therefore no accountability?

In this case the  lady whose name  does show in the data base  is  Alana Bowman , I contacted her  by phone (  regarding an unrelated matter ) and  she admitted to  being a  labour party member, she was  residing at the address  given for the charity  but  that is all the information we have. It was by having her name that I could find the trust, however  By having the trusts name  you cannot identify her .

Solution 1.

Before anything can be fixed   with regards to third parties the charities act requires amendment to make those applying for charitable status accountable to the truth.If this is not done then a third party collector could set themselves up in a “credible sounding name” collect funds than pass it to another charity after “administration” costs have been deducted.

I suggest that the Charities Act is amended to require

  1. A signed  and verified copy of the  trust deed, supported with a statutory declaration signed by a trustee  that is a true copy.
  2. A leaflet setting out the legal obligations and responsibilities of trustees of charities needs to be published by the Charities commission.
    1. Each trustee must individually,  through a statutory declaration ,  accept these terms and  conditions and  confirm  having read them and willing to comply with them .
    2. They must also provide their full name  , date of birth and address, these particulars are no more  than what  are required to be provided  for  registration on the personal property securities register.
      1. i.      If the personal property security register can show these details for  obtaining private funds  why should the standard for obtaining public revenue be any less.
      2. ii.      With regards to name it has to be remembered that  simple name like Jennifer Smith   does not identify the  person consenting, Names are not unique, addresses change , to confirm ID we require three points of reference.   If an Identity cannot be confirmed  then there cannot be accountability
  3. There must be  independent verification  that this person exists, this  can be done  when swearing  the document  where  it should be mandatory that a person provides Identification  before swearing a document  rather than saying  that is who they are.
  4. Provision could be made on a standard statutory application  form where  by the JP or  person swearing the document  confirms the nature f  the identification provided.
    1. i.      Ironically banks require more information for persons to go on a trusts bank account than the charities commission requires for the ability to obtain public funds.

Issue 2  Litigation  using charitable  funds to  conceal corruption

Although we provide a somewhat limited transparency it is dangerous for anyone to question corrupt practices as to do so can lead to litigation where   a bottomless pit of charitable funds   is used to silence those raising questions which could expose  corrupt practices.

We are apparently so determined to keep New Zealand’s least corrupt perception alive  that we   offer no support to anyone who says.. Excuse me is that not wrong?

Currently we have no legislation or protection for those  who  ask questions about corruption  or corrupt practices.

Example   : The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand- there is  profit in animals

In 2006 I questioned the existence of a RSPCA like  “organization “which claimed to be a charity and  had wide sweeping law enforcement powers.

For asking questions regarding conflict of interest   and what I saw as corrupt practices as defined by the UN  ,I was sued  using funds  which were raised from the public and later claimed to be charitable.

The UN  convention, which we signed in 2003  provides protection and support for those who   question corruption in good faith. But  without  support of  legislation  it doesn’t matter how much transparency we  get no one will dare question  anything  if they hear my story.

Articles 32-35 of the  convention provides protection  for persons  such as myself  who without  that protection would be subjected to what I have suffered.

It is ironic that  of 164  countries which signed the  convention, only 17  have not ratified the   convention and  that one of those 17  is despite this   the least corrupt.

Of the top 10 least corrupt countries New Zealand is the only one which signed the convention and failed to ratify it.

That would not matter if we protected those who question corruption but I can testily that those who question corruption are dealt to more harshly than any criminal. By preventing corruption form being exposed we maintain the pretence and in my mind makes us the most corrupt of all.    http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/index.html

Questioning corruption   has cost me   Over $100,000  in lawyers fees  defending myself  from  false claims ,  I have a further $150,000  to pay if my appeal  is rejected, It has cost me my marriage and further lawyers fees associated with that. My family has been torn apart, my business destroyed and my life taken over by fighting this gross unbelievable injustice, and I am not alone, others  too have been trampled in to the dirt by  keeping up pretences of our “ corruption free “ status.

If there is to be a  register  to provide transparency, then  there should be  facilities  for accountability and  accountability is  attained when persons  who use this transparency ask questions about things  which  they can see  don’t stack up.

Those who   ask questions so that the  public can  raise  concerns  about   discrepancies that they  may  become aware of  then there has to be a way for this to be done safely  and without  having their lives  devastated.

Background

  1. In 1999  an application was made to the minister of Agriculture for AWINZ to become  an approved organisation under the Animal welfare ACT  ( S121) the application claimed that the trust existed by trust deed  and was in the process of being registered  under the charitable trust Act 1957
    1. AWINZ was like a SPCA, it   delegates authority from the crown to animal welfare officers who have wide sweeping law enforcement powers.
    2. The new Act came into effect in 1999, the No 1 bill had been written by Neil Wells,  Barrister, who made the application on behalf of a non existent trust  and had introduced into the bill the ability  for  applications for “ approved organisations’
    3. He was also employed as  an “ independent “   advisor to the select committee which saw the act  which was  passed into law facilitate his  private business concept
    4. AWINZ called itself a charity   but in 2006 no evidence of a trust deed, incorporation or charitable status could be found. I was asked to locate and find accountability of AWINZ following the unlawful seizure and Euthanasia of a cat by an AWINZ inspector.
    5. Being unable to locate the organisation  and having exhausted our  official information act  and  LGOIMA request  , we formed  another trust called Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand  which  was  incorporated under the charitable trust act Number 1809454, 27-APR-2006 this trust obtained  donee status through IRD.
      1. It was  proved  through both these actions  that  no other  legal person existed by that  name  or had   charitable status.
      2. In early June 2006  I received intimidating phone calls from one Vivienne Wright,  the purpose of the intimidation was to  force us  to give  up the incorporated name  which  was now drawing attention to the fact that  the “ institute “ in Waitakere city  ws not a legal person and had no  identifiable identity.
      3. Later that month  Nick Wright , barrister of Brookfield’s   backed up his wife’s intimidating phone calls with lawyers demand  and offered as proof  of AWINZ existence an   unverified  signed trust deed  dated 1.3.2000 .
      4. Despite writing to the   trustees   and making ourselves available for  out of court  resolution, we were denied the opportunity and we were taken to court on allegations of passing off,  breach of fair trade and  for  defamation .-The defamation amongst other things  for stating that the  application  in November 1999 was false    because AWINZ  neither had a trust deed nor was incorporated.   These are facts.
        1. I phoned the   persons named on the trust deed and was later to be accused of harassment because I had asked if they were trustees, these persons purportedly immediately resigned. I was however told that these persons never attended a meeting and some denied ever having signed a trust deed.
        2. These persons have now retreated behind lawyers.
        3. A new chair person came to our attention , she was not one of the trustees listed on the trust deed   this  Former Mayor , Labour party member Wyn Hoadley  made  her claim to  being  involved in the trust   though  a  fundraising  Flyer which went out to  all dog owners in Waitakere city council .
          1. The only other bit of “ evidence was a document filed a year later  with the charities commission by Mr Wells claiming that she was a trustee from 3/05/2006, there was no evidence of her being a trustee  by  any legally binding means.
          2. I contacted Wyn Hoadley and asked her if the matter could be resolved trust to trust   by all trustees meeting with view of resolution, her reply was simple.. “ I am not a messenger “
          3. When the court documents were filed, it was not  in the name of the trustees  on the trust deed  dated 1.3.2000  but   of three people  who together had no trust deed or proof of being  a trust and therefore could not have been a  charitable trust as they claimed.
          4. The legal action occurred simultaneously with Ms Hoadleys fundraising flyer being sent out  .
            1. It should be noted that the logo adopted for the flyer and used  by the so called Institute was deceptively similar to that used  by the council animal welfare services where Mr Wells is the manager of the  division which deals with dog and stock control
  1. This money was paid into an account which was with the national bank in the name of Animal welfare institute of New Zealand, only one person operated this account and there were no trust deeds associated with it.  Mr Wells was the person who operated the account.
  2. Within a month of  sending out a  flyer for  fundraising  the Brookfield’s lawyers  invoices  made out  to the trading name AWINZ commenced (total some $99,000)  and were specifically for suing me   for  questioned the  existence of AWINZ Their intent was to obtain the name and to silence me..  beat me into submission.
    1. Mr Wells was to get a cost award specifically for personal gain of  some $57,000  for alleged defamation   which was never proved and I was  prevented from  defending  with truth.. the chronology says it all it is as follows
    2. His lawyer Nick Wright of Brookfield’s achieved this victory by  repeatedly misleading the court , withholding  evidence  form  the court and manipulating the system so that my   defence of truth and honest opinion were struck out.
    3. In  August 2006, after litigation had begun  another “ trustee” was to  join  again without any proof of being bound By a deed , this person  was Tom Didovich the former  manager  of animal welfare Waitakere city ,who had  worked on the project alongside Mr Wells in the  years leading up wot the legislation being passed.
      1. He was also the person who had collected and witnessed the signatures of the trustees on the 1.3.2000 deed.
      2. He was also  employed   by the RNZSPCA as national education and branch support manager
      3. It is only in December   2006  , 6 months after litigation commenced  that  a new deed was signed , the deed was amended to   change the purpose  so that it could  qualify for the Charity   commission.  Charitable status  was obtained on 28/09/2007 ( 14 months after litigation began)
        1. This charitable trust  shows through its Financial statements filed on line ,that  funds were used for   legal action against me.
        2. The chronology of events  is as follows
date event amount
27/04/2006 AWINZ  incorporated
3/05/2006 awinz.co.nz  web site set up by incorporated trust stating they were not the same as the trust in Waitakere
10/05/2006 Wyn Hoadley allegedly becomes a trustee of  unincorporated AWINZ  there is   no  trust deed  or proof of any kind

1/06/2006

request for public funds by Wyn Hoadley as ” chair of AWINZ “
30/06/2006 Brookfield’s invoice 201163 2818.35

18/07/2006

statement of claim

Legal action  was taken by persons other than those  shown on the only trust deed  which existed  dated  1/3/2000

28/07/2006 Inv 202547 6309.43
14/08/2006 Didovich becomes a trustee
30/11/2006 Inv 208729 1894.31
5/12/2006 trust deed signed
20/12/2006 Inv 209947 180
31/01/2007 Inv 210963 1795.16
1/03/2007 Inv212325 10304.33
30/03/2006 Inv 212848 6609.16
7/04/2007 Inv 214744 2401.88
30/05/2007 Inv 216401 7767.11
29/06/2007 Inv 217964 4237.43
31/07/2007 Inv 219513 899.55
28/09/2007 The  trust formed by  trust deed 5/12/06 becomes a  charity
28/11/2007 Inv 226453 2554.65
19/12/2007 Inv 227421 1654.2
29/02/2008 Inv 230016 4130.52
28/03/2008 Inv 231294 13218.68
30/03/2008 Inv 232586 14343.81
30/05/2008 Inv 233901 5426.33
30/06/2008 Inv 235278 5423.91
31/07/2008 Inv 236729 2250
5/08/2008 Inv 236820 5419.41
total 99638.22
Note all invoices are made out to
invoice made out to AWINZ
  1. It needs to be noted that  the invoices to  30 June 2008  on the financial statements  total  $91, 968.81 this is not reflected in the   financial  statements  .
  2. A lot of confusion exists with regards to trusts, thanks to this litigation I have become some what of an expert in this field, and I know that only incorporated trust have perpetual   existence, but  trustees  still need to be shown on and off the trust through  a paper trail.
    1. Unincorporated trusts are an agreement between the parties to the deed. If the name does not appear on the deed or an amended or supplemental deed they cannot claim to be a trustee.
    2. There are only two trust deeds ,  and  the plaintiffs who took  legal  action    were not bound by a deed   and were therefore not  one and the same as the group  on  the first deed or the group on the second deed which  have claimed the  charitable funds and the payments   which are not  theirs.
    3. The confusion arises through the use of a trade name for various  trusts  as if it is one and the same.  If the legal name was used in each instance that confusion would be eliminated.
    4. As a result of litigation and the inability of the incorporated AWINZ to have access to public funds like the unincorporated trust did, they were put out of business. In the end  survival comes to who can raise the most money  and invariably the honest will lose.
      1. The incorporated trust  changed their name, under duress ,  to  animal owner support trust, they were to have supported people who could not afford treatment  for their animals
      2. Mr Wells prosecutes and  obtains revenue (purportedly for AWINZ) from people he charges for not being able to afford the vet bills, the charges arise after an interaction with the council  staff who he supervises.
        1. i.       I can supply  the information’s for these  showing Wells appearing in court  wearing  his barristers hat  and obtaining remuneration for    the bank account which he  had sole control over   in 2006.
        2. It was therefore in the financial interest of Mr Wells “AWINZ “to put a trust such as   animal owners support trust out of business, for when people  cannot afford vet bill they are better targets  for  animal welfare offences.
        3. One of the claims  in the statement of  claim was breach of fair trading act   But  the incorporated trust existed 27/04/2006  so how could Wyn Hoadley    bring a claim of Passing off and   breach of fair trade when
          1. the date she  allegedly became a trustee was after the other trust had formed
          2. There was no  proof of being a trustee.
          3. Of greater public concern is that she as Chairwoman of a non charitable trust solicited for funds and although the flyer makes no claims to the trust being charitable , those who rang council were told that the donations were tax deductible and the web site www.Awinz.org.nz states on the about us page “The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand was formed as a charitable trust in 1999.”
          4. In 2008 Neil Wells writes  to the  Mayor Bob Harvey and asks for his endorsement for the next fund raising drive  He claims that it raises abut $5,000 per year. Yet the   2006 and 2007 figures in the Financial statements filed   do not reflect that and show a substantially lower figure

Solution 2.

  1. Charities registered with the charities commission should be open to review and   auditing.
  2. Funds can only be used for the charitable purpose  and penalties should be there for abuse.
  3. As with many of New Zealand’s  so called watch dogs  they appear to be run  by  people  who have little or no understanding  of the law and are easily duped by a barrister or persons  who are seen  to be persons of high profile  and are therefore perceived to be trust worthy.- No one should be taken for their word  and lawyers and  accountants should be    used to audit those about whom questions are raised.
    1. I have complained a number of times about the manner   AWINZ is being operated   but I may be more constructive in hitting my head against a brick wall.

Issue 3 transfer of  funds between charities

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

  1. On 15 May  2000 the  Waikato  SPCA trust was established .  This trust had a corporate trustee being the RNZSPCA  Waikato. The other  trustees were Garrick , Dalton Shepherd and Wells .
  2. Land  belonging to the RNZSPCA  was  sold  and  as a result $400,000 was transferred  from the  RNZSPCA into the trust. ( this is verifiable through public records )
  3. 12 may  2003 the  trust  amends the trust deed  and drops off the corporate trustee .
  4. IN 2005   it  applies for  incorporation to  become  an entity in its own right  retaining the $400,000  and then becomes a charity .

A similar transfer of funds occurs   with   the 2000 AWINZ unincorporated trust and BEAUTY WITH COMPASSION INCORPORATED

  1. BEAUTY WITH COMPASSION  had a trust called the lord Dowding fund.  In 2005   Neil Wells writes to the secretary of the  trust  which wound up on 6th September 2000 and asks for the  funds  to be transferred to   AWINZ  , and so  in excess of $100,000  are made over to  him into the account which at that time only he had access to .

Solution 3.

  1. Transfers of money between trusts   should be limited   to the same extent  as private individuals   gifting to  a trust, the sum being   $27,000 ( or what ever it is ) per annum  and   sums over that amount  being  subject to   a gift duty.

Issue 4  Registration of trustees of trusts

As previously mentioned unincorporated trusts   consist of people who come together for a common purpose and intent which is expressed and agreed to  in a deed.  If these person owned property it could not be held in the name of the trust  but is registered  in the name of the individual trustees who comprise the trust. Similarly   shares cannot not be held in the name of an unincorporated trust  and again are held by  legal  or natural persons.

The charities act  contains a fundamental flaw  in law  in  section 6 where it allows registration in the name nominated by the trustees , this name is not a legal name  .

And then in section 2  goes on to say

2) The registration of the trustees of a trust as a charitable entity is not affected by—

  • (a) 1 or more of the trustees ceasing to be a trustee of the trust; or
  • (b) the appointment of new trustees of the trust.

This statement leaves  it open to  an unincorporated trust to   bring any one on board without  signing a deed , it Fails to recognize the  difference between incorporated trusts and unincorporated trusts   and does not consider the fact that Unincorporated trusts do not have perpetual existence and when trustees  leave and new trustees come on  board there needs to be a new deed usually being a deed of variation of deed which explain, records and brings about  the changes.

Example :  referring to the AWINZ 1/3/ 2000  deed , if  that trust   had been  registered under the charities  act  and as there is no record of Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap resigning  they could  equally have claimed to be the charity  and had  two others join them.

Mr. Wells and Mr. Coutts  did just that  they brought  Wyn Hoadley and Tom Didovich on board , changed the trust  purpose singed  a new deed in  December 2005 and claimed to be the same trust,  when It  is not.

Solution  4.

While section 6 (2)  can hold true to   incorporated trusts or societies  it  cannot be true of  unincorporated trusts as  persons  not shown on a trust deed   have no accountability to the deed.

It is therefore essential that all applications are done by the individual  trustee  through a statutory declaration  ( making a false statement is a criminal offence section 110 False oaths  crimes act 1961)

Issue 5   Legal name

The  charities commission web site is misleading  , on the  site  the   line identifying the charity  states

Legal name of the charity

The Animal Welfare Institute Of New Zealand

  1. This should be a legal name, trading names are not legal names. As in the case of  animal welfare institute  of New Zealand the legal name would be the name which appears on court documents.
  2. The charities commission is therefore  facilitating a breach of the fair trading act  where by  it is allowing a trading name  to be represented as a legal name.
  3. There is no  register of trading names  and by law any one  in new Zealand can call themselves anything  but when it comes to  accountability  it is the legal name  which has to be known   as opposed to the  assumed, adopted  and trading names -yet the  charities commission   allows trading names to be  registered  as if they are legal names.
  4. To sue  a trading name , adopted name  or an assumed name  you must first identify what the real name is, if  there is no transparency in that  there is no accountability to the law as the  legal persons representing  what the charities commission calls entity  cannot be identified. E.g  how would you sue The Roundtable On Violence Against Women Trust? You would have  as much success  as suing “a tea pot”,  for both  are just names with no accountability .
    1. A true test of an Entity is would you give a loan to a group of unidentified persons. If they   failed to pay how would you  get  your money back?
    2. In the case of  the animal welfare institute of new Zealand  the legal name is  the one in which they can sue and be sued  which is  Neil Wells, Wyn Hoadley, Tom Didovich  and Graeme Coutts as trustees in the animal Welfare institute of New Zealand.
    3. By allowing the use of  trading names   to be labelled as  legal names can lead to instances of identity fraud and open a raft of traps to people who are already very confused as to the status of trusts.

Solution  5.

  1. Only the legal name, being the one in which the   organisation is legally accountable in is to be used for registration.
  2. Penalties should be in place for those  who use anything other than the legal name.
  3. This provision would also prevent the   type or registration as seen in my  first example.

Issue 6  Loss of officers

It has also come to my notice that a number of incorporated societies which are charitable   do not have any more than one   officer listed. It needs to be of public concern when  only one person operates  such a trust  or society an example of this is

  1. The Waiheke Island Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated
  2. Kaitaia and Districts Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated
  3. Hawkes Bay Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated
  4. The Hokitika Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated
  5. The Central King Country Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated
  6. The Horowhenua Branch Of The Royal New Zealand Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals Incorporated
  7. The Gisborne SPCA Inc

All of the above  have  only one officer   it is the same officer in each instance , when there is only one person on an incorporated society  there is no transparency or accountability

In my investigations I have  uncovered other   charitable bodies  such as  the Hibiscus Coast Youth Council Incorporated   which  had  self  funded manager  who used the charitable funds for her  wages  which were in  the vicinity of $60,000 per annum, she also  drove a $40,000 vehicle  belonging to the trust  and sacked the three members on the executive and recruited new executive at will.

Funding was obtained   simply by ticking the right boxes  and providing he illusion that services were being performed.

Again when I questioned this I was attacked  for those  who had provided the government funding did  not wish to  show their neglect in not assuring accountability.

An incorporated trust which I have identified  as existing without    trustees is the New Zealand fund for humane research . All the trustees except one  believe that this trust has been wound up , Mr Wells still claims to be a trustee of this trust. It is not   registered  as a charity  but  effectively  if one person  as in the instance of AWINZ can apply  on  behalf of others for   it to become one then the is nothing to prevent  defunct    trusts from being registered as charities.

Continually I have people phone me and tell me that the incorporated society to which tey belong is  wishing to   become a trust , rules need to be set in place where    incorporated societies are  liquidated  or have funds transferred  so that few can  have  greater control and provide less transparency.

Solution  6.

  1. All wages paid  by a charity should be listed to show  who they were paid to, those who are paid  from the public purse need to be accountable to it.
  2. Societies   have to have a minimum number to exist , if they fall below their 15 members they should be wound up .
  3. Society annual meeting   minutes  as well as the annual return  should be  visible including who the members are.
  4. The charities commission should work    closely with the charitable trust register and vice versa.

Issue 7   listing of  officers on the  charities web site .

A gain the Waikato SPCA  had until recently a large number of trustees shown,  the number was in excess of the number allowed by the deed.  It was expressed to me by those involves with Questioning the loss of the $400,000  that this was a deliberate move  so that no one would know who the trustees were at any given time.

This  has  apparently bee resolved  but it  does  show a need for the minutes of meeting to be sent in as proof as to election of officers and   changes of  officers.

Solution  7.

  1. Penalties need to be imposed for  those organisations which fail to keep the register up to date   and for those who file false returns.

Issue 8   Lack of verification as to the existence of   officers.

  1. To identify a person you need a name , address and a date of birth, i.e. three points of reference.
  2. The charities act   provides only for   a name for a trustee to be put forward, there is not even a requirement for  a person to do it personally and it can be  done on behalf of some one. Therefore there is not even a signature on file for those who are replacement trustees in incorporated trusts/ societies.
  3. Neil Wells made an application on behalf of  his fellow trustees for the trust to become charitable. ( as  shown by the documents on this file )
    1. Because the  trust is unincorporated and  only has a legal  identity through the  trustees comprising  it  there should have been consent from each  trustee  agreeing that the  application for charitable status   was being made.
    2. Mr Wells completed  the application forms for each person, in this case I know them to be real people  but  the reality is that  they could in other circumstances be entirely fictitious and there is  therefore no provision to  confirm that they actually knew that the  organisation had become charitable  or had consented to it.
      1. If  the trustees were to have more common names  like Mary Jones, David Green  you  would not have any basis  for identifying the trustees.
      2. Even in the trust deed there is more information available about the witness than the actual trustee.
      3. A signature and a written name does give enough accountability as people who cannot be found  have no accountability, there is  even less accountability for fictional characters.

Solution  8.

  1. Trustees have accountability to a charity, and the public  therefore there has to be direct consent from each person to show that they consent to being part of a charity and know their responsibilities.
  2. Full details  of trustees should be available as provided  by the personal property register, If one register can  provide  full names addresses and date of  birth  why is another  register limited.

In summing up

I have written to the charities commission with my concerns  and wish to comment on their reply

  1. 1. Each of the applications for registration provided to the Commission is scrutinised individually to ensure that the applicant meets the criteria set out in the Charities Act,

While the commission scrutinizes each application  there is no accountability to the truth and  any astute person can  fill in the application so that it meets the  criteria on paper. More needs to be  done  to ensure that the  charity is not a fiction. I would like to suggest an investigations branch for the  charities commission which has its own ability to prosecute and  enforce  criminal penalties for misuse of public  money.

  1. 2. A registered charity must also notify the Commission if it changes its name, address for service, balance date, rules, purposes, or officers (including new appointments).  This information is published on each charity’s page on the Register.

As in the case of the Waikato SPCA  there was an excessive number of people shown on the register , there needs to be a penalty element for not informing and keeping the register up to date, people have to be accountable to transparency.

Whist I agree that  third party collectors  need to be accountable to the fair trading act, so should charities themselves and to  allow the use of  trading names  as if they were  legal names is deceptive .

Summary of Suggestions

  1. The definition of entity needs to be amended    to being the name of the legal person , body corporate
  2. The  legal name for unincorporated  bodies need to be used   being   the name which would appear on  court documents or a loan  application.
  3. A statutory declaration needs  to be completed by each trustee or officer  giving   their name address   date of birth    and stating that they are   an office holder , giving the dates  from which they were elected etc  and stating that they have read and accepted the terms and conditions of becoming an officer of a  charitable trust.
  4. The bank statements   showing the legal name of the  charity need to be provided,  financials  are easily  doctored  and these too need to be filed subject to a statutory declaration  .
  5. When charitable funds are transferred  there needs to be a  limit  anything  outside that limit  should be questioned and be subject to gift duty.
    1. Spot checks and high penalties  should be a reality  to ensure that those running trusts do not abuse the process.
    2. Unincorporated trusts  should be  identifiable as such
    3. There needs to be a minimum number of  trustees or officers for a charity.
    4. Accounts  need to  have spot check by  forensic accountants, the  sum allowed for  payment of wages  should be a set  proportion of the  funds  raised .

I would like to  make submissions in person .

Grace Haden

Licenced Private Investigator.

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.

Then Wyn  and  another barrister  and a JP  called Graheme Coutts    take legal action  after  intimidating  phone calls  by the  their lawyers wife .. Vivienne Parre ( Wright ) now Vivienne Holm of Bell Gully failed to have the desired effect. 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?

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  Viviennes husband   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 .

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 Vivienne Parre

I was intimidated  by Vivienne Parre , wife of Nick Wright    who later was to take  the matter to court as a solicitor for Brookfields.   Parre did the work pro bono  according to an email sent  by Wright  but despite this the  costs in court were crippling .

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.

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

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.