Anticorruptionnz's Blog

05/08/2011

council gets press release wrong !

Filed under: AWINZ,corruption,Neil Wells — anticorruptionnz @ 5:45 pm

Over the years I have been questioning the legal existence of AWINZ ,  I found it incredible that the so called CEO of  this non existent law enforcement authority  was one and the same person as the   manager of  dog and stock control Waitakere  city council.

Recently I have collated  news items  and found this one  which states “Waitakere Animal Welfare is the only local authority animal welfare unit in Auckland to have special delegated authority to investigate and prosecute animal welfare cases. “

I sent off a LGOIMA  request   and today received the reply   both documentsare here  and I have collated  the  questions  below .

It should be noted that  the  document is called a media release from Waitakere  city

From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]

Sent: Friday, 22 July 2011 11:27 a.m.

To: ‘Doug.McKay@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz’ (Doug.McKay@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz)

Subject: Official Information act request.

Good morning

I have  this week established that the Waitakere city   dog and stock control unit run a programme for the adoption of  cats.

Under the official information act please advise

1.            Under which act and section   this “service “ is facilitated.reply

From previous correspondence with Waitakere City Council you will be aware that prior to 30 June 2003 the council’s animal activities were undertaken in accordance with specific legal advice from Matthew Casey, which have previously been provided to you and that since 1 July 2003 the council has had powers of general competence under section 12(2) of the Local Government Act 2002 (2).

12 Status and powers

  • (1) A local authority is a body corporate with perpetual succession.

(2) For the purposes of performing its role, a local authority has—

  • (a) full capacity to carry on or undertake any activity or business, do any act, or enter into any transaction; and
  • (b) for the purposes of paragraph (a), full rights, powers, and privileges.

2.            What consideration has been given to this function being Ultra Vires  for council reply See above

3.            How is the cattery funded  reply The cattery is funded by both rates and by revenue from adoption fees.

Approximately 60% from rates and 40% from revenue. Some of the labour contribution is on a voluntary basis

4.            Who pays the staff  looking after the  cats. reply  The council

I have also Linked  a newspaper item  and  raise questions with regards to   the prosecutions undertaken by the council under the animal welfare act

“Waitakere Animal Welfare is the only local authority animal welfare unit in Auckland to have special delegated authority to investigate and prosecute animal welfare cases “. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK0912/S00311.htm

Under the official information act  please advise

  1. What funds  did the council  ( Waitakere ) receive for prosecutions under the animal welfare act   reply None
  2. How many prosecutions  were there   reply None
  3. Under which act and section was the  council able to prosecute. – reply Not applicable  
  4. How did the  animal welfare unit obtain  the delegated authority – reply Not applicable
  5. When  did the  animal welfare unit  apply to council to  act outside the scope of their local government  duty   and when was it passed though council. – reply Not applicable 

 additional comment from council  From your correspondence with Waitakere City Council, and Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, over the years you will be aware that Waitakere City Council was never authorised by MAF to undertake prosecutions under the Animal Welfare Act The statement to the contrary in the press release referred to in your email was wrong.

The  question  just has to be  how  can a press release from the council be so wrong???

Advertisements

25/06/2011

When there is no accountability for perjury what expectation is there of truth?

Filed under: corruption — anticorruptionnz @ 5:28 pm

Today’s headlines are of  Mr Patrick O’Brien  who since  2007 has been trying to address Justice by confessing  to perjury  see   todays  herald article  .  In 2008  Police hired  Wellington lawyer Bruce Squire, QC, to investigate the allegations independently.

Squire was actually  hired in 2004  according  to the police web  site  to  look into allegations about the Police undercover programme.

Mr Squire finished his inquiry and sent his report to the police, but would not comment on his conclusions.

He said the report was sent to police more than a year ago…

Now if  this guy is having so much trouble confessing     what would  it be  like if you   tried to report   Perjury or corruption…   well I  can tell you   that you are pushing it up hill and the  offender has a much better chance of taking you  to  court  than you  reporting the  corrupt practices.. I know because I have tried.

And that is how new Zealand gets to be the least corrupt.. the wheels turn  very very  slowly , I think we are still processing 1948 .

In the intervening time the   ombudsmen sit    in their 10 storey building which incidentally used to be a ground floor office  but   now  site  entirely on top  of the mountain of  complaints,  Mr Obrien’s  ombudsmen’s page  reflects  my view of the efficiency of the  ombudsmen’s office.

And in the mean time the power of the  blue uniform still prevails in court ,  any thin a cop says is truth .

The same effect is had  by having   letters behind your name  apparently a  university degree makes you  honest and trust worthy.

Imaging jack the ripper..  Now look what   a few extra letters do

Jack the  ripper MD .. must be a respectable mortician ,

and jack the ripper LLB   well he must be a reputable  lawyer  who slays his opponents.

So   instead of  sending our   criminals to  prison we should  send them to university or put them in a blue uniform  and they will  become   honest and reputable citizens  overnight.

Its time NZ got real   make cops  , lawyers  and anyone else for that matter  accountable  to the truth.. if we cannot have truth in our courts  then we cannot have justice.

But in the least  ( perceived ) corrupt country in the world   it is important to keep our stats   in line to   preserve the pretence.

09/06/2011

How the rich get richer

Filed under: corruption,Fresh prepared Ltd,Lynne Pryor,Terry Hay — anticorruptionnz @ 8:30 pm

When we look at the  commercial landscape of new Zealand  it soon becomes evident that the  very few peaks are  occupied  by  a handful of  men  who  all appear to be inter connected  one way or another.

The other observation is that many of these   persons did not  get to the top using their own   resources but did so while trampling    a hard working Kiwi in to the ground.

Morals , values ,ethics  and truth have nothing to do with  it appears that  it’s all fair in commerce  and that includes matters which are considered illegal in other countries.

However in New Zealand the luxury of using the  court to obtain what you want  exists  and   in using the court  you have the added benefit of financially stripping your opponent  to ensure the takeover is  swift and  painless..  that is painless for  those occupying the peak  not so  for the  poor sod who   is driven into the ground.

Truth is  also easily avoided because there  consequences of telling lies in court is minimal as no  one will take you  to  court for perjury as it simply is not economical especially if you are the one  who can afford   big  gun lawyers  and write it off as a business expense .

It is time  that we  sought accountability to the truth in our courts and ensured this by making  it uneconomic for those  straying from the truth  to do so.  Currently our legal system   appears to  favour those  who  can afford the   courts    and those who can afford the courts   use it   to financially strip their victims.

Perjury prosecutions are  rare because basically they are uneconomic against those who can afford to defend them.

Culprits of this tactic are those who hide behind company names   , only when you delve further do the real   culprits come to light.

Take this judgement for example FRESH PREPARED LTD   in  paragraph 6 of this judgement it states “It is important to record that the shareholders in Beach Road Nominees were Messrs Terry Hay and David Nathan.  And that “Hay owned Pacific Flight Catering

In the judgement   the judge goes on to say  that fresh prepared Limited , (that is Terry Hay and David Nathan  ) “apparently pursued a scorched earth policy, forcing all parties to incur legal costs on interlocutories far in excess of what, by any objective measure, was the very modest amount of its claim, which was well within the District Court’s jurisdiction.”

In the end   Mr de Jong the   target of their litigation was bankrupted .

He was not the first  ,   I have  personal experience with   David Nathan and Terry Hay  and while David Nathan, a  director of the  chamber of commerce  appears to   be on the outside in my matter,   he cannot deny his involvement   in the   destruction of THE GREAT DESSERT company  Limited.

The  story  is set out quite  clearly in the court report  The Great Dessert company limited v Vague

What stands out is that Terry Hay  was acting  in a capacity  which was more than a shareholder, he was preparing GST returns which  conflicted with the  figures which the owner of the  company had obtained.  He also communicated with the bank and  then he and David Nathan   used  a company for which they were directors  ( salad foods Limited)to purchase the debenture   from the  ANZ  just prior to it rolling over for another  year   and immediately place the  company in  receivership to recover these funds.

Had the debenture remained with the bank  the  loan would have been    advanced to the company for a further   12 months and there would have been no financial pressure on the   owner of the company.

The receivers were appointed and   a legal battle  began, Terry Hay  is good at these he uses them to bankrupt people  and then he retreats to Honolulu   so that he can  escape his accountability to our  justice system  when he is faced with a  multitude of fraud charges( hay charges )

The decision was favourable  for the original owner of the great Dessert company limited   but  they ran out of finance for the appeal and the liquidators  stepped in as planned.

The financial reports from the liquidators how the extra financial pressure the litigation placed on the company. Receiver’s 1st Report   .  Receiver’s Final Report

This is probably the cheapest way to take over a company  there is no goodwill to pay  and  you can then continue to trade with the company as if never ceased to exist even take over the trade mark as though  you are still the same company

Although I have no evidence that this is the case in this instance , I suspect that he  operators  of the Great dessert company are   puppets  just like  Lynne Pryor was in fresh prepared Limited and Salad foods Limited .

Terry Hay has other people fronting his businesses for him. This was and still is the case for fresh prepared limited  which has now morphed into  Salad foods run and operated  by convicted fraudster Lynne Pryor under supervision of her brother Graham Pryor  who has moved from media  to the food industry

The reason for using other people is that  his reputation precedes him and  there are those int eh airline industry who simply will not deal with  him.

Hay is still operating  Pacific flight catering through his appointed eyes and ears John Matsuoka whose address Hay uses  here in New Zealand for his shareholding.

Pacific flight catering  supply food for Air Pacific ,Cathay Pacific , Air Tahiti Nui , China Airlines , China southern , Thai air lines  and   have just lost the contract to  Malaysia Airlines

I should  add that  the  original  owner of the Great dessert company  a very accomplished  pastry Chef is no longer with  us, the stress brought on cancer  which eventually claimed her life..  Well done  Mr Nathan  and Mr Hay looks in my opinion it looks like  legalised  theft and   murder.

22/05/2011

Tony Molloy QC is so on to it!

Filed under: corruption — anticorruptionnz @ 7:14 pm

Tony Molloy QC has hit the nail on the head, I hope Government sits up and takes note. the news item Law system a ‘laughing stock‎  grew out of the  presentation he made to the conference I attended last week . He was  the highlight of the conference   in my view.

Truth , honesty and evidence play no part in our court process and lawyers who are prepared to tell lies  rule the day.

Court is all about strategy   those with the most money and the most lawyers  win no matter how  weak their case is.

5 years ago I questioned the lack of existence of an animal welfare  law enforcement authority , it was to have been the perfect fraud .Court has been used successfully to  prevent this from being exposed. Because the court was misled   no authority will act on it  .

How can the government give law enforcement ability to  something which does not exist , why did they not check  and why was the person  who had a business plan for this venture able to  write the legislation  be  employed as an adviser to the select committee and then  apply  for law enforcement ability in a fictitious name.

Why is still being covered up?   Is it ignorance is it bad law  or is our legal system and government corrupt ? or is it plain incompetence?

15/05/2011

Apparently we condone criminal acts.

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 11:41 am

In the paper today there is an article     Schools arrange secret abortions   the feed back  was requested  I wonder if they will  include my response  or will we allow schools and Councillors to make up their  own law. my response is as follows

Under 16  year olds are not old enough to make decisions on their own  and    having to keep the secret of an abortion  from their mother is massive.

In no other aspect does a person under 16 have the  right to sign a contract  ,they can’t get married get a loan  drink   without parents’ consent. Where is the  exemption that says that they can when it comes to  abortions?

If they had to have their appendix out they would have to have parental consent   so why should  the decision to terminate be  any different, it is after all a surgical procedure  one which carried its own risks.

Then when we get to the person who had sex with the girl  .. and yes it still is an offence under the age of 16   we encourage silence   there by making the councillor   a party to the offence by covering up  and enabling the offender to go out and destroy some more lives.

Consider the crimes act Section  134 Sexual conduct with young person under 16 carries a penalty of 10 years   for  this offence

Section 71 Accessory after the fact-    (1) An accessory after the fact to an offence is one who, knowing any person to have been a party to the offence, receives, comforts, or assists that person or tampers with or actively suppresses any evidence against him, in order to enable him to escape after arrest or to avoid arrest or conviction.

It is for this very reason that we have legislation why can these councillors make up their own rules? It is not  up to the parents to demand a prosecution  it is  mandatory  .

Does this mean that   the privacy act over rides the crimes act ?   I think not

No one ever considered the long term effects on the girl  and the family  by keeping it quite.

And no one considers  that what they are doing is re writing the law.

02/05/2011

Open letter to Wyn Hoadley

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 2:07 pm

Open letter to Wyn Hoadley councillor TCDC  I have asked Wyn Hoadley to please explain why she  a former mayor and now a councillor  helped to cover up the  fact that the council premises  resources and staff were being used as a  side line for the venture which she  allowed her name to  be used for.  A venture which was private in nature and   one which was a parasite off the  public purse

28/04/2011

Brookfields lawyers How to win without evidence

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 3:30 pm

On the Transpaency  blog  I am  doing a daily post  with the background to the litigation  on the AWINZ matters there have been two posts so far  each highlights the roles of the various players    visit www.Transparency.net.nz   to keep  up to date.

05/04/2011

Auckland film studios public losses private gains ?

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 11:51 am

Much of New Zealand corruption is based on the lack of due diligence   and ignorance .  I am looking into the Auckland film studios at  the moment   and  give this as an  example.

I have  put a post on my blog transparency .net.nz  for those who are interested.

Auckland film studios public losses private gains ?

21/03/2011

Open letter to Kerre Woodham

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 11:29 am

Kerre
I am most disappointed in   your article about Ken Ring.
I am a private investigator and deal with facts I have also had the privilege of meeting Ken .

Ken is made out to be some kind of mystical Warlock who gazes into a crystal bowl  and predicted an earthquake this is so untrue .

Ken lived in a campervan form many years  and observed nature  by living in it . He noted the tides connections with the moon and the weather and from there on connected many other things.

Rather than being taught in a university of a structure of how things work, Ken has been a free thinker and unconstrained by previous theories which limit scientists thinking .

He is not the one  who took his   findings of a higher than usual  potential for earth quakes to the  masses  , that was done by the media .

To me it seem s incredible that he has been crucified over this when other more serious matters are ignored.

I spoke  up about a law enforcement authority  which did not exist  – I was  the one  who was crucified .. where was the press to get that story out.. they   have kept quite on that issue  and it makes me believe that  there is powerful manipulation  going on in the back ground  to ensure that the public only hears  what  the  powers that be  want to   have them hear.

Ken is an incredible  man great wisdom all learnt in the school of life , he is not a conformist  and for that   he needs to be punished just as I  had to be punished  for  saying  Hey its not right that the man who  wrote legislation also enforces it.

The press have done huge  damage to kens life  and reputation  and when I look at your comments   they are far worse than  what I  said   when I  questioned corruption and was taken to court for defamation.

I had my defence denied  and there was never a finding that  I had spoken anything but the truth  or my honest opinion , I was effectively sentenced   without a trial or formal proof , it has cost me my marriage   pulled my family apart, been more stressful than anything I have ever experienced   and cost a huge amount of money   .

I did nothing but speak the truth .

I realise that  you may have given your  opinion  but your opinion was unfair to Ken  and based on  my experience he has  the right to take you to court for  defamation too  and if he uses the same corrupt lawyers  as were used against me  then you don’t stand a chance .

I simply cant understand  why   the media has been so outspoken against him when  persons who have misled the public  so seriously as the person  who I spoke up against   are kept out of the  lime light  and their corrupt actions are seemingly  condoned.

Ken  has done no more than  express his opinion from his experience.. he has been crucified for it..  and look he was right  what if there   had been a loss of life  because those who do not understand his methods  discredited him.

In the end Mother nature rules.. he did no more than interpret her signs.

I saw corruption  and questioned it .. It would appear that the public are not entitled to protection .

18/03/2011

how transparent is the super city ?

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 4:29 pm

Is  the super city an excuse to bury the past  while   continuing the same practices  of the past?

I contacted the  Ceo of the city   and asked if I could meet  him with regards to anticorruption measures     but  he did not even reply    now my Official Information act request Auckland film studios has come back with a total decline.

What I suspect is that  there is a lot more to this than meets the  eye  , I hope that I have not just been  fibbed off   I sincerely hope that the information is  withheld so that they can conduct a proper investigation ..in my opinion it needs it.

Tine will tell if corruption is condoned.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.