Anticorruptionnz's Blog


too close to the truth

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 3:36 pm

Over the past 4 1/2 years I have been involved in litigation  , it certainly was not what I  had experienced in our courts  when I was a police prosecutor. But then I did leave in 1989.

It appears that in the civil jurisdiction  no evidence is needed at all  as in my case  I was taken to court for defamation.. for speaking the truth.. for trying to  ask  questions as to why a non existent organisation   had law enforcement powers.

Defamation was never proved.  the only evidence the court relied on was my affidavit in mitigation of damages  which  unfortunately   by its nature  shows that the complainant is not worthy of  his word.

in producing that document the  court  judged me  as continuing to defame  when there has never been a decision that I  did no more than  speak the truth.

My affidavit in mitigation of damages is found here  Grace Haden Affidavit and affidavit 29 feb

The statement of claim was never proved  the copy I have  with comments is located here Statement of Claim with comments

A friend  who knows  what I have endured  sent me this – apart from the sexual references  it could fit the scenario  of my case .

Please do not be fooled  by New Zealand’s least corrupt status , this video  can also apply here, please note  it does not  apply to all judges   or  all  lawyers  but it does happen.

legal exec talks about justice



Official Information act request Auckland film studios

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

Sent: Wednesday, 23 February 2011 7:17 p.m.
To: ‘’; ‘’
Cc: ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’
Subject:Official Information act request Auckland film studios


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the interest of transparency I will be posting this on  My blog


Grace Haden


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

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

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

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

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

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

and  if it is Ok then it is not corruption

hence we have  no corruption

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


How to invest using public funds

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 3:30 pm

13 June 1999  CHRISTIAN charity director John Massam is unrepentant about his pro-family values Challenge Communications Foundation funding its activities by exploiting tax loopholes which benefit the wealthy. See story

“The people who invest in the film feel they are doing something worthwhile with their money,” he said. “In a sense, they are choosing how the money is spent rather than the Government. Some might prefer to do it this way than to fund abortions,” said Massam, whose organisation publishes the conservative Christian newspaper, Challenge Weekly.


This news item   links the   events which follow and  the use of public funds for private enterprise revolving round the film industry , I would   like to thank Bob Dey for   the   excellent web site he runs  which has made much of this material   so readily available

Had those  in local government done   some research they could have saved many  millions of dollars but as  with the granting of   law  enforcement ability to non existent organisations  such as   Neil Wells  “AWINZ “ it just goes to prove  that our government and local governemnts never check  and  certainly don’t verify.

Not surprisingly   the majority of those involved in this are Baptists who through their   church have  a high level of affiliation.  Another council  Baptist affiliation which   was highlighted in my research was that of  Dale Ofsoske  who is connected  to  Tony Tay through the  Tabernacle .

I  present this chronology to show   that the writing was on the wall for the Auckland  film studios  before it even began. It was never more than a vehicle that   people were going to use for their  riches and not something for the  public good.

Also Read  the blog Tony Tay Film Limited in Receivership.

A chronology is attached by way of PDF  it is interesting reading .These are the events to the present day a trail of liquidations



Baptist connection with movie industry

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 4:27 pm

I have been doing some research into the  Auckland film studios of which I found there had been two.

The first   changed its name and    has since folded the other  has been involved with a huge  chunk of public assets.

The  second  Auckland film studios  was previously called prime west Ltd  it changed its name   on 21 July 2009 .  I was keeping tabs on it as prime west had  sub divided the land at  Henderson  and  helm many smaller titles.  The name changed had left the   sub divided areas  still showing as being  owned by prime west.

Strangely enough  there I s no record now of   Prime west having owned any land , I can only presume that these smaller titles  have been cancelled

All I  can say is that someone in authority   should have a closer  look at these land titles.

I rather suspect that some land may have ” dropped out” in the re arrangement of titles


Prime West  changed its name 21 Jul 2009 its directors and shareholdings

WILLIAMS, Kenneth Michael      Ceased Director, Resigned 09 Jun 2006

MAHER, Andrew John                   Ceased Director, Resigned 13 Jun 2006

COLDICUTT, Andrew Bruce          Ceased Director, Resigned 21 Mar 2007

MAHER, Andrew John                   Ceased Director, Resigned 27 Feb 2006

FITZSIMMONS, Kieran Boru        Director, Appointed 01 Aug 2009

PARKER, Gregory Kenneth          Director, Appointed 01 Aug 2009

TAY, Tony Meng Hiang                   Director, Appointed 21 Jul 2006

JEWELL, Ross William                      Director, Appointed 21 Jul 2006

DUNCAN, John William                  Director, Appointed 28 Feb 2007

TONY TAY FILM LIMITED               Shareholder, 56% Individually Held

AUCKLAND COUNCIL INVESTMENTS LIMITED     Shareholder, 44.44% Individually Held

In December 2009 Auckland film studios amalgamated with


MAHER, Andrew John   Ceased Director, Resigned 14 Jun 2006

TAY, Tony Meng Hiang   Ceased Director, Resigned 17 Dec 2007

COLDICUTT, Andrew Bruce          Ceased Director, Resigned 29 Jul 2009

DUNCAN, John William  Director, Appointed 13 Oct 2009

FITZSIMMONS, Kieran Boru        Director, Appointed 17 Dec 2007

PARKER, Gregory Kenneth          Director, Appointed 21 Jul 2006

TONY TAY FILM LIMITED               Shareholder, 56% Individually Held

WAITAKERE PROPERTIES Limited 44% Individually Held



There have been many strange things going on with the share holdings of  PRIME WEST MANAGEMENT

By dissecting the shareholding  it would appear that  Andrew Bruce COLDICUTT  did  well when he sold his  shares in PRIME WEST MANAGEMENT LIMITED  to  the newly renamed AUCKLAND FILM STUDIOS LIMITED.

This share parcel is them mysteriously removed   on 17 December  2009 just prior to this company being amalgamated  with the company whose shares have been removed.

The question has to be  how much  did  Auckland film studios pay  Coldicutt for his shares  and what happened to the money  since the company was then  taken over  for no remuneration.

I have located a most interesting   news item  Tax loophole no sin, says charity,” CHRISTIAN charity director John Massam is unrepentant about his pro-family values Challenge Communications Foundation funding its activities by exploiting tax loopholes which benefit the wealthy.”

John Barry  MASSAM is also  intrinsically entwined with


COLDICUTT, Andrew Bruce past  director / shareholder  PRIME WEST MANAGEMENT & previous director  AUCKLAND FILM STUDIOS LIMITED

BRADLEY Leslie Grant   ( previous director of CHALLENGE COMMUNICATIONS FOUNDATION LIMITED )  who together  Dale  ran a company  AUCKLAND FILM STUDIOS LIMITED  which changed its name to AUCKLAND FILM STUDIOS (NO. 1) LIMITED  and is now being struck off

Challenge communications in itself is interesting as it   has 50% share holding in CANTERBURY TELEVISION NETWORK LIMITED, its address is care of the challenge Communication  foundation  .

The  CHALLENGE COMMUNICATIONS FOUNDATION LIMITED   has dubious shareholding  with many of the share holders   in receivership    or struck off.


LYNFIELD MINISTRIES LIMITED struck off  since 1989

CALLARD PROPERTIES LIMITED in receivership  since 1991


Estate Of Peter TAIT  is not a legal entity capable of holding shares

PAYNTER CORPORATION  struck off since 2001

I also found  that Tony Tay is a former  trustee of the  Auckland Baptist Tabernacle Church

Neil Wells who used to monitor animal action  at the Auckland film facility through his pseudonym  AWINZ  in which he  ran  a so called   charitable trust   which prior to 2006 had no existence  is also a Baptist    he is on the  board of the Laingholm Baptist Church

Wells  was also on the board of the  Waikato SPCA trust where he through clever manipulation of trusts saw $400,000 removed from the SPCA for use else where. (see my earlier post }

I see a trend emerging….

and then  some how I stumbed on another connection  I dont know  how it occured but the name cropped up and led me to

An excerpt from Nicky Hagers book  which  reads “Brethren had formed a front company called Strategic Information Services Limited to hide the financial backers of the campaign.42 The obvious intention was that no one would trace the advertising back to the church, at least until the election was safely over”

The three directors and shareholders of the company were, in 2006, Gregory Charles Mason, a wealthy Auckland businessman who has been described in the news media as head of the New Zealand church, Andrew James Smith, the Hastings man who co-ordinated the ‘Wake-up call’ advertising, and Caleb Hall, a Palmerston North Exclusive Brethren member who helped Andy Smith arrange the printing and distribution of the ‘Wake-up call’ pamphlets.

Andrew James Smith  was also a director of find a  and yellow pages group  something  which  scares me with the amount of  information  that would through these portals be available to  Strategic Information Services Limited.

In digging  just a little bit further  under the surface I find another directorship  to NEW ZEALAND INSTITUTE OF SCREEN INNOVATION LIMITED SMITH, Andrew James  was appointed Director 08 Apr 2009

they are all wheels  within wheels  and it looks like the tax loop hole may have extended to using the public money for private  enterprise.   I hope   the  council has  sufficient expertise to look into this.


RNZSPCA Waikato asks ratepayers to fund their bad bookkeeping.

Filed under: AWINZ,Neil Wells,SPCA / RNZSPCA,Tom Didovich,Waikato RNZSPCA — anticorruptionnz @ 3:58 pm

The headlines read Support swells for stray cats funding

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

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

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

So the no kill policy effectively  does  two things..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And in More submissions

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

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

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

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

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

Other   blog postings worth visiting they are

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

Waikato SPCA

The lack of verification -opens door to corruption

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




Hot air and bullshit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to write legislation for his own business plan

Use the court to conceal corruption

Got his  litigation funded through the public purse

Give  false end titles to the lord of the  rings movies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


All you need is a trading name and a lot of spin and confusion.

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 1:08 pm

It would appear that Neil Wells has continued to   confuse all those who have dealing with AWINZ.

First of all I have to make it clear that AWINZ is a trade mark belonging to the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand Limited. It has been offered to Neil Wells   and his associates  but they chose not to   take it but have continued to use it ..  it appears that Mr Wells is totally protected from the law to such an extent that he can make things up and  every one believes him.,, he is a barrister  and how could a barrister possibly be pulling the wool over any ones eyes..

In fact  his court action has proved  that  company names,   incorporation   and legal status means nothing.  It has also proved that truth means nothing  and that  you can win in court without evidence and    or proof.

He has also  with the help of his lawyer Nick Wright ensured that  the   inconvenient step of having  some one found guilty can be skipped    and go straight to sentencing.

They continued to mislead the court and    I have been unable to appeal any  of this or seek a review   of the process which was used.

In short  the   last 4 ½ Years of litigation with  Wells has proved  that  every thing in our   so-called legal system is a mockery   going right back to where I  first came in.. it is possible   apparently to have a law  enforcement agency which does not exist.

All you need is a trading name  and   a lot of spin and confusion.

Now  we are  dealing with the charities commission  and it appears that you can take litigation   then set up a trust afterwards to pay for the litigation out of he  charitable funds.    Cool  idea   wait till it   cottons on  we could be on to a winner.

It appears that in New Zealand law  confusion  tactics  and spin win out over truth and  facts.

Below is the correspondence with the charities commission    with Wells   I have taken the liberty of commenting on  some of the documents in Blue  I have also given  the   links to   the relevant  deeds  and  statements of claim.

  • 1998 Wells advises on legislation  that will allow for ” approved Organisations “
  • December  5 2006  the three   litigants  and Tom Didovich   who has been   using  public funds to fund this  “venture”  form a trust note  how  this deed  has a  different objective  and  also a new section 5  which allows for its funds to be used for litigation… only issue is that   these are not the litigants  it is a subsequently formed  trust.
  • 2007 this  latest trust becomes a charity  and the funds  which  they have are used to pay litigation  going back to 2006 Brookfields  have never checked out  to see who their clients were and  obviously are happy to be paid and don’t care about the   cover up.
  • I raise questions with  charities commission   the following is the  over up by wells and     it is not questioned by charities commission ..Why do people not look at dates??????
  1. Requested info – annual return correspondence
  2. Requested info – Emails to-from Neil Wells1
  3. Requested info – Email to Neil Wells2

I have taken the liberty of adding comments to the documents as  follows

Requested info – Emails to-from Neil Wells1 with comments

Requested info – Email to Neil Wells2 with comments

If any one cares about the mockery this is making of  our entire  company structure and judical system  please don’t hesitate to contact me.


We could all hide behind trusts and Trading names looks like its legal

Filed under: Uncategorized — anticorruptionnz @ 5:28 pm

Official information act request  MAF and minister and office of the auditor general .

Open letter

Animal welfare institute of New Zealand (AWINZ) has at all times been a trading name .

This trading name without  proof of  who it represented ( that is the parties  who were alleged trustees) was given approved status under the animal welfare act  1999.

The approved “ organisation “  has never been  an Organisation under any  enactment which  provides it  with the ability to act   in its own name, ie independent existence from those using that trading name.

The trading name Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand  has been  used by  various groups

1.       Neil Wells personally .. in 1999  when  he  made an application for approved status, and for  funds  falsely claiming that a trust existed.

2.       An unincorporated trust consisting  of Nuala Grove, Sarah Giltrap  and Graeme Coutts   this trust was formed   allegedly 1-3-2000

a.        these trustees never  applied for or consented  to  the application for approved status ,

b.       or appointed or approved any person to   sign on the individual trustees behalf in  such an application . the deed specifically states that  powers of the trustees can be delegated in writing.  If such a document had existed then this would have had to have been produced, and  kept  on record , before one could sign  for  and on behalf of the others.

c.       This trust has a common seal , this common seal has not been appended to any   formal document  to  show that  it is this trusts trading name that is being used. According to the deed , and without  further evidence this trust ceased to exist 1.3.2003

3.       Neil Wells personally    Dec 2003  when he signed the Mou with Maf and   Mou  with Waitakere city council

a.       Opened a bank account that only had access to

b.      Applied  for IRD status

4.       The name of a subsequently formed  trust 5.12.2006   who without  evidence claim that they are the same trust as the trust which ceased to exist in 2003. These persons became a Charity   and subsequently asked for  the revocation f the approved status.  These persons were Wyn Hoadley, Neil wells , Tom Didovich and Graeme Coutts.   There is no record with Maf of these people having entered into a contract with maf for  animal welfare services , They could therefore not request the  relinquishment of the approved status

In December 2009  the minister accepted the application to revoke the approved status from   the  last group listed above     , Could the minister please advise  what   checks were  carried out and what evidence was presented to him to satisfy him that these people wer the one and the same  “ organisation using the trading name  Animal welfare institute of new Zealand.

And  what evidence the minister  has   that would indicate to the public  who at any time   during the existence of the approved organisation  , were the persons or person  who  used that trading name.

Could you also please provide a copy of  the criteria  the  government  used for   contracting to a trading  name

and by which means  was   accountability to the public addressed  given that no one knew   who   was using this trading name at any given time.

Could you please also  provide any discussion papers and   documentation which  considered the implication of  providing a trading name with law enforcement powers .


Revocation of approved status AWINZ

Filed under: AWINZ — anticorruptionnz @ 10:52 am

The  animal welfare institute of New Zealand   a fictitious organisation  which had vast  law enforcement  ability  finally has had its  status as an approved organisation revoked .

Notice Number: 9586
Year: 2010
Publication Date: 16 December 2010
Page Number:
Revocation of the Declaration of Approval of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand as an Approved Organisation under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 

Notice No. 1703


Notice Text:
Revocation of the Declaration of Approval of the Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand as an Approved Organisation Under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 (Notice No. 1703) 

I hereby give notice that, pursuant to section 123(1)(a)(i)

of the Animal Welfare Act 1999, the notice for the Declaration of Approval of the Animal Welfare Institute

of New Zealand (Inc) as an Approved Organisation, as published in the New Zealand Gazette, 18 January 2001, No. 6, page 116, is revoked.

This notice takes effect 28 days after it is published in the New Zealand Gazette.

Dated at Wellington this 8th day of December 2010.

HON DAVID CARTER, Minister of Agriculture.


« Previous PageNext Page »

Blog at