Catering Limited : Muse Eatery : Samuel North in Liquidation

 Just three weeks after  Samuel North closed the  doors to Muse eatery   the company catering Limited which  operated the business muse eatery  has  gone into liquidation  .

It would appear that the share holder

HANIA TRUSTEE (CATERING) LIMITED Hoggard Law Limited, 29 Hania Street, Mt Victoria, Wellington, 6011 , New Zealand

has placed the company into liquidation  and appointed their own liquidators .

Samuel North was the share holder of the company but   moved  the share holding into a trust in  april 2016  .  It has all been very predictable  and North continued to sell Grab one   and groupon deals  even after he knew he was closing, we  believe that this is  fraudulent.

Our suggestion is that if you  are owed money that you  attend the liquidators  watershed  meeting  when it is announced and  ensure that independent  liquidators are appointed ( as opposed to one  appointed by North )   .

When a company  appoints its own liquidators  the  liquidation is   likely not to be  as transparent  or fair as it would be  if the liquidator is working for  a creditor .

It is our honest opinion  that the Liquidators will   sell on the   Chattels, at a nominal price and  the phoenix will  fly again   when North purchases them .

Muse eatery opened its doors before Muse on Allen had even been placed in to liquidation and  it is believed that many of its  assets actually belonged to muse.

We have  been contacted  by many persons   who are  owed by North , North is avoiding service by debt collectors , there are  former staff members who  have unresolved  grievances .

Samuel north has removed the  face book page, the  linked in page  and the web site .

samuel north _ LinkedIn

samuel north _ LinkedIn messages

samuel north _ LinkedIn liquidators

samuel north _ LinkedIn 2

Muse eatery and bar_ Overview _ LinkedIn

the old web site is still viewable  here 

Muse eatery and bar former Muse on Allen relocated and opened its doors on the 1st of April 2016, housed in the restored heritage colonial carrying company building.

Any one knowing  where North is please send an email to us through our comment section  and we will share the information  but will keep your  details confidential

We will happily  collate information to  ensure that Justice is  done

https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/101640499/Wellingtons-Muse-Eatery-Bar-put-into-liquidation

Update

Samuel North  has engaged Stephen Iorns <stephen@iornslegal.co.nz>   and is bleating defamation

We Hope the   barrister gets  paid .

Malcolm North from the ministry of social development , Bullies us again

An email  from Malcolm North  has been  forwarded to me, it  is grossly defamatory  and bullying and  alleges  that Samuel terminated his lease.  we would like to hear from any one at MSD ( ministry of  social development), is he also a bully at work  because he certainly is in emails, again speculating and threatening  by stating ” I have spoken to xxxxxx employer about his behaviour so don’t expect him to be employed for much longer‘ it is noted that his email had this  disclaimer ——————————- This email and any attachments may contain information that is confidential and subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this email and attachments is prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify the author immediately and erase all copies of the email and attachments. The Ministry of Social Development accepts no responsibility for changes made to this message or attachments after transmission from the Ministry. ——————————-” does that indicate that he sent the email from the ministy of social developments servers and using his Muserestaurant email address.  Not a good look

But getting back to the statement   that Samuel terminated his lease, this  generally requires a ” notice period ” so when di dhe give notice and how did this  line up with the  Grab one and groupon offers? https://new.grabone.co.nz/restaurants-bars-cafes/european-restaurants/p/muse-eatery-and-bar-13   and   https://www.grouponnz.co.nz/deals/muse-bar-and-eatery   

the pdf   copies downloaded tonight are  here  Muse Eatery and Bar • GrabOne NZ and here    Muse Eatery & Bar – Up To 60% Off – Wellington _ Groupon

We first heard the rumour that Muse was closing on the 18th  January , this is  just 10 days after   the   deals were offered on line  .  If you have an uncertain future   then 10 days out would you offer  deals . These offers are valid till end of march and  early april  as shown on the PDF’s  so where are they  going to  be honoured if  Samuel knew all along that he had  terminated  the  lease .

at least 80 people  spent $99  on groupon  =$7,920    at least  10 people  spent $195  on groupon  =$1,950   total $9,870

86 people bought the  grab one deal at $69 =5,934  total for the two deals potentially outstanding  $15,804

We look forward to hearing from the landlord.   The land lord in Allen street was left out of pocket according to liquidators papers  time will tell if  the name of this land lord will ultimately  appear on the liquidation papers for catering company .

The web page which   was paid up  until the 16 th February was pulled  5 February and now defaults to  the web serves page , The face book page was taken down   last week .So if the web page and Face book pages were pulled  why not pull these deals ?   Why  leave them up why no formal announcement .

We have  heard from  reliable  sources  that  there  are substantial  debts .

Any one out of pocket  with a provable  debt please contact us we are coordinating  a group action .

we will keep you posted  we know there is more to come

The Phoenix has flown .. Muse Eatery rumours of closure prove true

 Hard on the heals of  Five Boroughs  another  restaurant has closed its doors.

This one however  did not come as a surprise to us,  as rumours had been flowing freely that Samuel North was going to close the doors at the end of the month.

Transparency took the precaution of notifying  key people so that  the evidence of the intent was there .

This is not the first time that   boy wonder  Samuel  North has closed shop he did this with  Muse on Allen,  took all the   Branded crockery cutlery and any thing that was not tacked  down and started a new business leaving massive debts in his wake.

Our people in Wellington managed to capture the action  as it unfolded . we wonder

1.if the staff knew that they  would turn up for work and ind the contents  gone ,

2. If the land lord knew of if he is going to be out of pocket just like the last one

3. was the stuff  Samuels to take  he had  previously said it belonged to  the premises

4. where  was it all going

5. Are the grab ones  which are still being  sold going to be repaid ?

6. are  the groupons still going to be sold 

Guess these pictures will be of use for  the liquidator   we believe that once again IRD have  been left out of pocket ,well timed  Samuel  we believe that the 7th feb may have been D day for tax payment   so it appears that   to prevent   liquidators  recovering  assets  you have  got in  first.   we wonder where the next  phoenix will rise ? The company Muse eatery   traded under  wsa  Catering Limited.   The face book page for muse was pulled last week  .

Samuel was last seen   in the castle parcels van   shown below ..  he had a convoy  but  , Sam it was not  unseen. and . will you refund the   Grab ones ?  was it not a tad   fraudulent to keep selling them   when you  and every one else in wellington  ( it seems ) knew that you were going to  do a runner.

 

 

The secret Law Society Disciplinary Committees

Following on from the previous post

As we saw   the law society   nurtures and disciplines its own members, this  can be like the  mother of a very spoilt  child  , if the child is a favourite its a case  of  Now Johnny you go and be a good boy mummy will be very cross if you do that again .  or if  the child  is  not liked  a step  child or a foreign lawyer for example  then   there will be a crucifixion   so that a message is sent to the  others and to show that the system is working .

The  disciplinary side of the law society is  undertaken  through statute, the lawyers and conveyancers act .

The conflicting roles of the law society are set in statute .. statute is written by lawyers   and  as with the animal welfare  Act, there is concrete evidence that statutes are written  and advised on by lawyers .

(The animal welfare act , no 1 bill was written by Barrister Neil Wells  to facilitate his own business plan, he advised on this as independent advisor to the select committee without declaring his conflict of interest   )

The resulting swiss cheese legislation has sufficient holes for the lawyers to crawl through  and evade the intention of the law.

section 65  sets out the  Regulatory functions 

The regulatory functions of the New Zealand Law Society are—

(a)to control and regulate the practice in New Zealand by barristers and by barristers and solicitors of the profession of the law:

(b)to uphold the fundamental obligations imposed on lawyers who provide regulated services in New Zealand:

(c)to monitor and enforce the provisions of this Act, and of any regulations and rules made under it, that relate to the regulation of lawyers:

(d)to monitor and enforce, throughout the period specified in any order made under section 390, the provisions of this Act, and of any regulations and rules made under it, that relate to the regulation of conveyancers:

(e)to assist and promote, for the purpose of upholding the rule of law and facilitating the administration of justice in New Zealand, the reform of the law.

It is my experience that the  law society  is very poor at holding lawyers accountable to the rule of  Law    and that is where  our entire justice system falls  down . Close enough is not good enough , lawyers  are officers of the court and as such   have higher obligations to truth and honesty  than the average Joe Bloggs  , and we all know that  many lawyers  don’t know the definition of truth.

In a recent decision from the law society the society stated that

The lawyer is an agent for the client in conducting the client’s affairs. The lawyer is obliged to follow the instructions of the client where it is consistent with their professional duties. The lawyer has a duty of absolute loyalty to the client and may not have regard for the interests of third parties except insofar as they are consistent with his or her own instructions and relevant to the protection and promotion of the interests of his or her own client.”

This may be true  but  this is surely limited to   being an officer of the court first  this  is spelled out in  section 4  of the act

the obligation to protect, subject to his or her overriding duties as an officer of the High Court and to his or her duties under any enactment, the interests of his or her clients.

This  to me at least makes it clear that the  lawyers primary obligations are to the court  and  he has a duty not to mislead the court or to use the court for an improper purpose .

Time and time again we see   that lawyers  are not being held accountable   to the rule of law  and because they know that  this particular bit of the rules is purposely overlooked they use it  to abuse the use of the court.

In these hard time of lawyers being paid upward of $250  per hour  its about winning ,  no matter how. When   a group of  people   are backing each other up and  no one is being  held accountable to the rule of law then  injustice   reigns.

As a result  it is our observation  that the new Zealand courts have become extremely unsafe .

When a lawyer  steps out of line the first step is to  make a complaint to the law society .

We made a complaint against a lawyer in April 2016, the  quote above came from the decision which was delivered by an anonymous group of people represented with the name and signature of only  one barrister who signed the decision  on 28 November 2017 .

Law  society  disciplinary  committees  are made up of up to seven lawyer members and two lay members , however  the standards committees appear to work   from a position of total anonymity aside from a requirement to notify the minister of the appointment 

Standards committees are set up under section  126  of the act , they appear to be  are totally anonymous  and  are in reality not a legal structure which is capable of being sued or suing,  but   they are regularly represented in court proceedings as if they have  every right of a legal or natural person .

Standard committees in effect are nothing more than  a trading name given to a  group of unidentified persons  , at best it is an unincorporated group and the  rules in law dictate that  they  should be treated as naming the individuals  as members of the what ever trust  or committee.

The decisions  of the committees are listed here look at them the  majority have the lawyers names anonymised despite the fact that many lawyers  who have come to their attention  have  committed real crimes and have never been held accountable  in  another court .

There is a good chance that the  lawyers on the   disciplinary committees   are connected to  the  lawyer  under review  due to them  belonging to a secondary alliance   whihc many law firms  have formed for example

 NZ LAW Limited which is according to the companies office  jointly owned by 55 lawyers , this  from this link 

This is not the only   law firm made up  of many others , there are also  LAW ALLIANCE NZ LIMITED 34 share holders   and LARGE LAW FIRMS GROUP LIMITED 9 share holders  and probably more .

All in all there is nothing at all transparent about  the disciplinary process  , it behind closed doors and as seen  with the example   takes  a very long time for a complain to come out the other end  1 year 7 months   in the example above .

the decision is delivered with this  note

Decisions of the Standards Committee must remain confidential between the parties unless the Standards Committee directs otherwise. The Standards Committee has made no such direction in relation to this matter.

But  despite the  fact that  they decide to back their lawyer members up  for not  complying with the rule of law  there is  an avenue open to appeal their decision  and that is through  the LCRO       and that is even more fascinating.. to be continued

 

Why the New Zealand justice system is prone to corruption

Has any one else noticed that the  New Zealand Law society appears to be   at the centre of every thing in New Zealand .

It has more power than government  as  its members are the advisers to government  and local bodies and the  judges are selected from the membership by  another  member or former member.  In the last government Christopher Francis Finlayson QC member of the NZ law society and Attorney-General  selected  fellow members   to be judges. His recommendations was accepted  by the governor_general

In all over the years he appointed the majority of our judges  this from Kiwi’s first 

this from the  Courts of New Zealand web  page  

it goes on to say that “Judges have been appointed whose career paths have not been those of the conventional court advocate.”

and ” The appointment process followed by the Attorney-General is not prescribed by any statute or regulation.”

Many years ago I heard  a presentation by Anthony Molloy QC  who hit the nail on the head when he said   ” nothing is going to change until  one day a judge, while playing golf  is hit on the head  by a golf ball. Requiring urgent  brain surgery he  arrives in theatre   to find that there are no  brain surgeons available , but the staff reassure him  that  the  surgeon a highly qualified and respected Gynecologist .  They are all doctors after all.”

A list of judges of the high court is shown  here   all those appointed after 2008 were recommended by Finlayson 30  out of a total of  39  justices

Of the 7 associate judges  four were recommended by Finlayson.

Appointment of judges in the UK 

the head of the court is of course the Queen  it is her court , in days of old the king/queen  would  be the ultimate decision maker and was advised by the knights templar and    secular .  Below crown  was the privy  council , the crowns closest advisors   and  this  has over the years become  this highest appellate court , but New zealand did away with this and the question therfor eis    are they still the queens court ehan the queen and her advisors have no role to play.

Since April 2006, judicial appointments have been the responsibility of an independent Judicial Appointments Commission.

They effectively  did away with the system  that we  still hold on to . A system which   lacks transparency  and  independence.

The New Zealand Law society 

A judge   has to have held  a practicing certificate for at least 7 years   and generally  those appointed to the bench    leave the law society to  take on their   position and  if they leave  the bench  they will again become a member of the law society .

The New Zealand Law society has the conflicting roles of regulatory and nurturing for barristers and solicitors alike  .

In the UK  these duties are split between a regulatory  authority such as the solicitors regulatory authority   for regulatory matters  and the law society for   support assistance and nurturing of the  lawyers who are solicitors.  The lawyers who are  Barristers belong to  a bar council  or one of the four inns of court  and are regulated by the  bar standards Board 

why do we think  The New Zealand  justice system is open to corruption? well   this is a serial   you will have to drop back and read our stories  of the lack of transparency  and the   vast disparity between the ways lawyers are treated and  how others are treated

 

 

A tale of two companies Tamaki Redevelopment company Limited and Tamaki Regeneration Limited

There appears to be an awful lot of confusion with the  Tamaki Regeneration  project

first of all  the web site is called http://www.tamakiregeneration.co.nz/ but the web site is owned by Tamaki Redevelopment Co

Tamaki redevelopment company limited was set up in in 2012 following the signing of a heads of agreement between auckland council and    two ministers of  the crown

Tamaki Redevelopment company was set up with share holding from the crown and   council and the shareholders adopted a Constitution this 31 page document was  drafted and filed by the company secretary  Simpson Grierson . The comprehensive constitution was amended in 2014 to this version Amendment of Constitution a 27 page document , we are uncertain as to the input of the crown shareholders into that document , it was again filed by the undefined  trading name  simpson Grierson .On 14 March 2016 the  constitution is replaced by the 25 page document  Revocation and Adoption of Constitution what is of note   is that this constitution unlike the two former ones has no obligation to the heads of agreement .

on 11 November 2015  Tamaki Redevelopment company limited  became the sole  share holder of a new company called Tamaki Regeneration  Limited and of a company called THA GP  Limited .

THA Gp limited subsequently became   the  general partner in a limited partnership  called Tamaki Housing association  Limited partnership (  19 january 2016)  these bodies remain as  subsidiaries of Tamaki Redevelopment company limited  and we will just put them to one side for now

we  will now look at   the  government  web sites and   special announcements

9 FEBRUARY, 2016 John Key  Prime Minister’s Statement to Parliament

 In March this year, 2,800 Housing New Zealand homes will be transferred to the Tamaki Redevelopment Company.This will result in at least 7,500 new homes in that area over the next 10 to 15 years, of which more than a third will be for social housing.The transfer of Housing New Zealand properties to community housing providers in Invercargill and Tauranga will happen later this year.

 

25 FEBRUARY, 2016  Bill English Speech to the Auckland Chamber of Commerce and Massey University – State of the Economy

The Tamaki Redevelopment Company will become the owner of 2,800 former Housing New Zealand houses at the end of March, which the company plans to redevelop into around 7,500 houses.

Note that  up to this stage the   housing new zealand stock was going to be transferred to Tamaki Redevelopment company Limited  which has   been abbreviated in correspondence as TRC

then on

31 MARCH, 2016   Bill English, Nick Smith Auckland’s Tāmaki housing transfer confirmed

The ownership and management of about 2800 Housing NZ properties in Tāmaki will today be formally transferred to the Tāmaki Regeneration Company (TRC), which is jointly owned by the Crown and Auckland Council

TRC was established to lead the Tāmaki Regeneration Programme

Note that he states that the houses will go to Tamaki regeneration Limited, but he called it Tamaki Regeneration company  TRC.   He goes on to say

The Tāmaki Housing Association, a subsidiary of TRC, will tomorrow become the new landlord for Housing NZ tenants who live in the areas of Glen Innes, Point England and Panmure,” Housing New Zealand Minister Bill English says.

But  Tamaki Housing is a subsidiary of  Tamaki redevelopment company  limited  TRC not of Tamaki regeneration limited TRL  he then adds to the confusion and states

TRC was established to lead the Tāmaki Regeneration Programme

Yes Tamaki Redevelopment company limited was set up to  lead the regeneration  programme     not TRL  which at this date  was   a subsidiary of TRC .

On 14 April the shares of Tamaki regeneration limited are increased from 100  to   1631161218 and the shareholders are updated Particulars of Shareholding

What is of concern is that it appears that the ministers   believe that  the  properties are going to the company of which council and  crown are the share holders , the company which was set up for the transformation project  the company which is the ultimate holding company for Tamaki Housing Limited partnership . but..

The reality  is that the  assets have gone to an entirely different company one which  the  crown had no input in to the constitution, a company which is a stand alone . 

Now let us look at the  annual reports of tamaki redevelopment company  Limited   this is the 2015 report note that the company is referred to  as TRC .

The annual report states

page 5

The New Zealand Cabinet agreed that the ownership and management of approximately 2,800 social homes currently held by Housing NZ in
Tāmaki will be transferred to TRC by 31 March 2016

Page 6

On 1 April 2016, TRC will own and manage all current social homes of approximately 2,800 in the Tāmaki area.

We are respectful of the responsibility and mandate provided to us by Shareholders to look after the most vulnerable families in our rohe. At the same time, this will be an opportunity to catalyse community led action and move at pace to achieve our objective of making Tāmaki an awesome place to live. 

and

Whilst Housing NZ and TRC have different mandates, the commitment by both organisations to ensure a seamless transfer and prepare TRC for
1 April 2016 is unwavering. 

In the  2016   annual report  the  confusion continues the report is entitled TĀMAKI REDEVELOPMENT COMPANY
ANNUAL REPORT 2016  .

page 2

TĀMAKI REGENERATION COMPANY (TRC) HAS BEEN MANDATED BY ITS SHAREHOLDERS, THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT AND AUCKLAND
COUNCIL, TO REPLACE 2500 SOCIAL HOUSES WITH 7500 MIXED-TENURE HOMES OVER THE NEXT 10-15 YEARS.

There is no such company as tamaki regeneration company  limited.  There is Tamaki regeneration Limited  company number 5840214 

and Tamaki redevelopment company limited 3937662

The name Tamaki regeneration company is  used twice   and in both  instances it is tied to the  abbreviation TRC

page 9

Tāmaki Regeneration Company will bring about transformational change to achieve four equally important objectives – social transformation, economic development, placemaking and housing resources.

Through its shareholders, the New Zealand Government and Auckland Council,TRC will replace 2500 social houses in the suburbs of Glen Innes, Pt. England and
Panmure creating 7500 mixed-tenure homes over a period of 10-15 years.

Tamaki regeneration limited  the  owner of the properties  has no share holding  of council

to add to the confusion on page 18  a  TRC legal group is created. a legal group  has no statutory definition or legal existence   .

Tamaki regeneration Limited is referred to as TRL  .  Through the annual report  references are made to the transfer of the properties to  TRC ( pages 6,10,12,23)   this is incorrect they  were transferred to TRL

The confusion is such  that  courts have been misled  with regards to ownership   see  Open letter to Robert Gapes Simpson Grierson

this has resulted in  a fundamentally flawed decision  due to the court  basing the decision on the   lawyer’s flawed  submission.  The lawyer a member of simpson Grierson law firm, the  company secretary   told the court that  Tamaki regeneration limites was a subsidiary of tamaki redevelopment company limited.   we ask How can a lawyer  and the company secretary  get it so wrong and what does this say about the integrity of the  management of the company’s affairs  by the secretary .

Of even greater concern is that  it appears that the Ministers  and   treasury were not involved in the setting up of this new crown entity  and had no input into the constitution.

Considering the fact that 2800  houses were transferred into this company of mixed identity and dubious origins  it is something that  we the public need to be concerned about

we note that in the  2015  annual report Mr Holyoake page 6  states “TRC and its partners must also own the lapses or mistakes.”   we therefore hope that   full transparency is applied and that  this  mess is  corrected to remove  any   doubt as to  who had a mandate to receive the houses  and how they came to be in the possession of a company other than the one  Government intended the stock to go to .

We note that  several of the directors are property developments  and one states as his  interests ” Potential development opportunities in and around Glen Innes”  an other lists directorship in Tāmaki Investment Trust Company Ltd

To those who care about   crown assets  it would appear that  foxes are guarding the  hen house   we have to ensure that they   do not  get fat  and  accountability and transparency is how we wish to achieve that .

 

The state of corruption : New Zealand

Further open letter to David Mc Neill  Corruption , Whistleblowers  and Transparency

David,

Since responding to your reply  to  my first open letter  a number of people have approached me and  have asked me to put questions to   you as a director of transparency  International .

Could you  any  one else from Transparency International NZ please respond  with your observations

You state” I can certainly see great misdeeds have occurred.” and then you  ask  “If Neil Wells is so horribly corrupt, who is he exploiting now?”

These statements indicate to me that  you  and Transparency International New Zealand may have missed the point on this entire issue.

it is not about me , it is not about Neil Wells

   it is about corruption in our public sector , how it is concealed  and  about our ministers in ability to act responsibly when  issues of corruption are brought to their attention   .

Unfortunately  Transparency International New Zealand claims that we have the least corrupt  Public service in the world , if this was the case I would  still expect to  find corruption   but I would  expect that there were  policies and  methods  in place throughout  the  public sector which would ensure integrity   and  systems of accountability .

Jose Ugay  , your international president used an equation  which I have been fond of

Corruption = monopoly + discretion – accountability .

If you were to apply this to our public sector  you would  quickly find that   accountability  is  almost totally absent and discretion being  the use of the  unreasonable complainant conduct manual  , totally out of hand

I have actually come across  items where it stated  that  due to the relatively  corruption free environment  such policies are not required .This was all driven by the fact that New Zealand was perceived to be  the least corrupt .

Of the 2013 Integrity report  ,which I believe Susan Snively was paid for  for  compiling,   she said

Our report finds that the mechanisms that support a high integrity and high trust society, and that facilitate social and economic development, remain generally robust but are coming under increasing stress. There has been complacency in the face of increased risks“.

It was not  coincidence that TINZ was at the time   funded by  the very organisations on whose behalf the report was being written.  see here  To me this appears to be a conflict of interest  which in itself is corrupt .

Now if  TINZ  had taken the trouble to  listen to the  issues which I and other  whistleblowers  had raised  rather than treating us as a villains then  the person  conducting the integrity review could have included some very valid points. But then    the results would not have  been so glowing .

In an impartial and thorough  evaluation of integrity in the public service an  important aspect would be   to monitor  public service deals with complaints, this can be done by listening to  whistleblowers and evaluating their  experience based on the evidence  that  they have to support their claim  .

The reality is that the public sector does not know  what  investigation is . As a result they investigate the persons  and not the issue. 

It appears to me , on what I have seen and experienced ,that the public service definition of investigation is about speaking to the persons involved and  short cutting the process by accepting what they are told by their trusted colleague , evidence  plays almost no part and assumptions , preconceived ideas and  perception of integrity of persons  are  what is accepted and  considered. Of course if they want to get rid of  the person involved then   any complaint will do .

The person “investigating” and coming to an adverse  conclusion could of course be  implicating his /her work mates and in a way the investigator  becomes the whistleblower  and become  unpopular at work  .

So what does the public sector do they turn to   manuals , so they go to the ” Good administration guides” published by   your gold  partner   the ombudsman’s office .

There  a number of documents are available including Good decision making 10 pages Effective complaint handling 23 pages   and Managing unreasonable
complainant conduct  138 Pages Yes that’s  right there is no manual on how to investigate

What do you think the “Go to” resource  will  be , which one   allows them to  get the head ache off the desk  and Write off the matter ?.. yes that’s it  “the  unreasonable complaint manual”   its the thickest and  was copied from Australia minus the  essential resource  “Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Model Policy”  .

In NZ  and our manual  simply refers  the user to locate the  model policy on  the Australian web site. This essential  part of the  document which is missing in NZ  stipulates that  each organisation  should rely   on their organisations own policies for  unreasonable complainants.

So with that part missing  so are the policies in our  public sector  and there is no go to person to decide who can make the call  on unreasonable complainants and   how they are defined.

While I accept that there are fruit loops out there  at all times it could be the complaint and not he complainant who is evaluated.  and if a complaint is properly  and fairly  evaluated then people  don’t get cross if they are shown   why their complaint comes unstuck .

But we work  in terms of economy  and its not economic to look at ll complaints  so    throw up a brick wall and  very soon you will have enough to designate the complainant as an unreasonable person.  Problem solved

The essential  Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Model Policy  which is missing in New Zealand  specifies

3. Avoiding misuses and overuses of UCC policies
Organisations also need to take steps to ensure that their UCC policies are applied cautiously and sparingly.

So this is how the ” investigation  ” in our public sector  is conducted

  1. Get complaint
  2. go to the person  allegedly accused and run it past them
  3. accept what they say about the person making the complaint who    after consulting the   alleged perpetrator has been made out to be a troublesome person  and   go to the check list
  4.  The manual says ..”All complaints are considered on their merits”.   the  perpetrator has already given a good  explanation… therefore the complaint has no merit
  5. The manual says…”Unreasonable complainant conduct does not preclude there being a valid issue”..  well how can there be a valid issue when the   complainant  is reportedly just a nasty person  the whole thing has to be a set up and we know  the  alleged perpetrator and trust him / her
  6. The manual says”The substance of a complaint dictates the level of resources dedicated to it, not a complainant’s demands or behaviour.”  Substance  has already established from our trusted colleague and  based on what he/she tells us there is  no substance
  7. For good measure   the complainant is evaluated against the Why do some complainants behave unreasonably? page 14  and the early warning  signs UCC? page 16   and I can assure you that a genuine whistleblower  , on issues of genuine public interest  can tick  many of these boxes

So let us see how this applied to me

I had been on a trust  with Neil Wells  , I was treasurer and he was using trust resources and used the trust for his own benefit , I did not know this at the time but I was asking questions   due to the trust being  in danger of becoming insolvent  .

He removed me from the trust  by telling lies .  I  sent him a fax to his work place , Waitakere city council dog control   to express my opinion that he was the biggest bully I had ever known .

Lyn Macdonald   who worked at waitakere city council as a dog control officer  saw that I was a private Investigator  , she too had been bullied by wells and he later   got her kicked out of her job for associating with me .  she asked me to find out  who or what AWINZ was  , she had been a dog control officer for many years but was now required to prioritise  animal welfare  over her council paid duties.

I  searched for AWINZ but could  not find  any record of it existing , I did a OIA with MAF and a LGOIMA with council  I found that although both had a MOU  with  AWINZ( MOU Waitakere          MOU  MAF) neither had a copy of  a trust deed .

I obtained other documents from MAF which indicated  that  AWINZ had to be a real  or legal person .  This was 2006 and  registers were not that easily searched  so with  others we formed and  incorporated a trust called the animal welfare Institute of New Zealand .  we did not expect to  be successful  but we were, this proved  conclusively that   the entiy  which Neil wells claimed to  operate was fictional.

Here I have to explain something about names  and trusts

  1. an unincorporated trust    can be a group of people  who are trustees in a trust which they  then give a name , the legal name for that trust is  (the names of all the persons ) as trustees in the .. trust.
  2. An incorporated trust    can use the name of the trust and  trade  in that name without referring to the  trustees  as the  trust is registered and becomes a legal entity in its own right , our trust was incorporated ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE OF NEW ZEALANDNeil Wells had  previously registered ARK ANGEL TRUST BOARD and the NATIONAL ANIMAL WELFARE TRUST BOARD both were registered in mid 1999 these  were all legal persons  in their own name .

 

The application which Neil Wells  filed  with MAF  to obtain law enforcement  powers under the legislation  which he had  drafted and advised on  was fraudulent  it categorically stated

since the trust had not been   formed  but  was allegedly in the process  of being incorporated  the application should have been in the names of  the four people  shown  as trustees of AWINZ  and each should have  at least signed the trust deed  and  each would have to take  responsibility for their role in running a law enforcement body by signing a document  committing to that role.

The reality was that the  trust did not exist   as there was no trust deed .

Wells covers this up in a letter to the minister   In this short paragraph   he  tells the following lies 

  1. Originals are not sent only copies he knows this because he has just incorporated  ARK ANGEL TRUST BOARD and the NATIONAL ANIMAL WELFARE TRUST BOARD
  2. The deed are not registered with the ministry of commerce .
  3. the trust deed  which was allegedly signed three weeks earlier   only goes to 19

Just this little bit of information should make   the investigators look more closely  but Wells was  well connected to MAF and was  known to ministers  he was even able to write caucus papers .

When I   raised concerns  with AWINZ not existing he created a trust to cover up   he selected the people wisely

Graeme Coutts  .. a non questioning JP  who worked in the office beside  Wells and beside the  RNZSPCA  his name had been on the original application .

Wyn Hoadley  QSM..    great to have someone with a queen’s award they are always  reputable

Tom Didovich .. the previous manager of Dog control  who had written letters outside his field authority claiming to give approval on behalf of council  . Tom Didovich  was in this up to his neck  and went out to get the  signatures of the   alleged trustees when the deed was    missing.. probably  missing because hit had never been signed .

So  in my situation

I was  made out  by wells as some fruit loop  who  was disgruntled about her removal from a trust

Wells was a respected barrister  wrote legislation and  lots of friends in very high places

so  Maf and  Council threw up brick walls   and  I became frustrated, My marriage fell apart due to action which wells took on the side line and  also  his  desire to bankrupt me which was stated in 2007 to  Joanna Tuckwell  who was so obliging that she regularly communicated with wells with regards to my requests and complaints.

Wells took me to court for  defamation ,  his lawyers  Brookfields  did not check to see if there was a trust deed  before commencing proceedings  ,  Nick Wright a resource management lawyer  started the proceedings by having his  then wife harass me , they  then ensured that my defence of truth and honest opinion was struck out , the   fed the court  a lot of BS  and Voila  a judgement which   they could wave around to   discredit me and  use to apparently legitimise  AWINZ .

every one happy  except that Wells  kept attacking me subversively  and saw to it that  I lost my ability to earn a living   through private investigations .

when he appeared before the lawyers and conveyancer tribunal he sought name suppression as he was still fearful of being caught out  and  knew that I would use that decision for his corrupt conduct  to   have the investigation into AWINZ opened.

Had the public sector   acted with integrity  they would have left people aside and investigated the  Very simple  issue

Did  AWINZ exist …No it did not   no one had a trust deed prior to 2006    By that stage  it had  been acting as a law enforcement authority for 6 years

Was the application  for approved status  fraudulent… Yes it  was

can you see   that we have a problem ?

If we conceal corruption and give  the public sectors resources  which help  conceal corruption  then we have no corruption  .

You report  that there is integrity in the public sector  and by   refusing to look  beyond the perception  which you help create . whistleblowers  and their families have their lives destroyed .

You don’t have to   support our complaints but if you are going to evaluate  integrity in the public service, then you have to ensure that   proper  and fair complaint measures are available  and that    the issues are dealt with   .

I am by no means alone , those of us who are more prone than other to speaking up  are  easily Labeled  Uncooperative complainants  because that way we remain  the least corrupt  and after all ask any economist  .. that’s good for business.

so in the end the question is

are you going to look at the integrity of the public service  with regards to how they  deal with  complaints

Are you going to allow whistleblowers to  be members of transparency International New Zealand

will you monitor   the complaint making process ?

will you be impartial or is the income from your sponsors

Where is the transparency in your accounts     you have $400,000 of your 500,000   expenses written off as  other expenses .. does this include wages .. who to  how much   and  why be conflicted   when  you could be making a real difference to corruption in New Zealand instead of being part of the problem .

 

Transparency International NZ and whistleblowers

I received a reply from TINZ  director  David McNeill in response to my post Open letter to David McNeill Director Transparency International New Zealand

the email can be found here response from TINZ director David McNeill

In the interest of transparency  I publish my response

From: Grace Haden [mailto:grace@verisure.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 9 August 2017 11:37 a.m.
To: ‘David McNeill’ <dm@ti.org.nz>
Subject: RE: open letter to David Mc Neil

Thank you for your response David

I am sorry  that you don’t  agree  with the methods I use to pursue my case but after 11 years  I   think I have tried everything to bring this matter to  the attention of the authorities and misters .

Should bringing corruption to the attention of the government be this hard ?

If it is ignored  what does it say about our values?

The only reason I have kept on  with it is because it has cost me so much  it cost me my marriage and my family not to mention the obscene sum of money which  was  taken t from me through  the subsequent   fraud on the  court where Wyn Hoadley Barrister, Graeme courts  JP and Tom Didovich the  conflicted  former manager Waitakere city council dog control  along with Wells set up  a similarly named trust and passed themselves off as the   law enforcement authority  .. a total legal  nonsense  but the names were the same  so it  was OK

I acted in good faith on a matter of public interest which I raised with the purest of intentions after a council employee had come to me .

In becoming a vocal  whistle-blower I also became a go to person  for  those  with  issues of their own  . In  the 11 years at the coal face of corruption I have found why corruption is so prevalent in New Zealand    and I thought that this information would be of use to TINZ.

How can you  work on the  issues of integrity , change of policy and political attitude if you yourselves remain  uninformed of what is occurring and shun whistle-blowers.

You ask “If Neil Wells is so horribly corrupt, who is he exploiting now?”   well the short answer is   that he  died  last week  but the legacy of what he  set in action lives on.

He has proved that  in New Zealand

  1. writing legislation for your own business plan is condoned.

  2. you can be an independent adviser to the select committee on matters in which you have a  personal  financial interest.

  3.  you can make  a fraudulent application for  Law enforcement powers and influence the decision makers

  4. Those investigating  an application for statutory powers do not check if the organisation exists or any alleged fact

  5. Obtain your own legal opinion for government   and have input into it

  6. You can draft your own documents for    the  government

  7. You can  contract to  councils and government department using a fictional name MOU Waitakere          MOU  MAF

  8. That he can influence the government department   to such an extent that  the  Whistle-blower is discredited and  no one verifies   that  a fraud has occurred or not .

Simply put he has proved that   if you make it easy for the public servant  ,  have their trust and liaise with them frequently and meet with minister  then   you can get them to accept anything  and they   won’t check.  Rule number one  never verify . Being a barrister helps   after all   a man of the law  knows and would never be corrupt   .

Ironically today there is an article in the newspaper  “SPCA confiscates man’s dog based on ‘hearsay’, he claims “   this is very relevant  currently the RNZSPCA is  undertaking a very  dodgy “ amalgamation “  and will be focusing on the inspectorate  which   will see more personal properties raided by persons who are privately  employed.  But that is not for now

You say “We see the global trend towards tip-offs and leaks being more effective than formal whistleblowing”    Please tell me the difference  . If I am screaming corruption now it’s probably because  after 11 years of hitting my head against a wall and having my reputation maligned  it’s the only thing left to do .

You state “Transparency International NZ “approaches corruption in a different way, attempting to give the whole system more tools & techniques for exposing and preventing corruption. ‘  How can you prevent corruption when  you   don’t know  what the symptoms are  ?

Cancer left untreated will kill you  corruption left untreated will   kill our country and indeed will have killed many  in its path . I know this  as at one stage I was suicidal .

My criticism  of  TINZ   has been that you   prefer not to know about corruption  and  appear  hell bent on  portraying New Zealand as the least corrupt  to enhance business interest.  When I heard Jose  Ugaz  speak  I was  heartened I would never have  thought that you belong to the same organisation .

You have no idea  how difficult it  is  to see transparency International run programmes such as WHISTLEBLOWING FOR CHANGE, etc  yet be shunned by  your local branch .

ON  https://www.transparency.org/topic/detail/whistleblowing/ the following appears

This opens  up onto  https://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/activity/our_work_on_whistleblowing

“ Through our Advocacy and Legal Advice Centres, located in nearly 50 countries, we advise whistleblowers in making their disclosures and work to make sure that their disclosures are duly addressed by appropriate authorities.

The international body recognises the importance of Whistle-blowers

There is growing awareness of the important role whistleblowing plays in stopping corruption. “

yet TINZ say   this approach is wrong.”

We see the global trend towards tip-offs and leaks being more effective than formal whistleblowing.”

I did not wake up one day  and decide to become a whistle-blower.

I  was a mother   had a family of three teenagers thought I was happily married , I helped a lady at Waitakere city council and my  whole life  changed . this should not happen to any one  !

I found something that was  very wrong  and  raised questions with MAF and  Waitakere city council  which I thought  were the appropriate bodies

Rather than checking out my claims they colluded with the perpetrator  who then took me to court  for defamation, deceived the court  and  got a judgement  against  me by denying me  the statutory right of defence. That judgement has been waved about ever since  to discredit me.

My marriage was simultaneously attacked and my funds were frozen I could not fight back .Lawyers cost money  . when My  matrimonial property was settles I got a lawyer  he happened  to be Evgeny orlov  who fleeced me  and was himself embroiled in   matters relating to the panama papers . He  had no credibility with the court and was at one stage struck off , just my hard luck that he was my lawyer .

In 2007 Mr Wells wrote to  MAF   that   he intended to bankrupt me . over the years  he advised them as to what to and  was kept in the loop with every OIA  I made and allowed to make comment . see here for another example

The down side of publishing on transparency NZ has been that it allowed Wells and Hoadley to  engage a Private investigator who   then  assisted in muddying the waters. The intention was to  deny me  my PI licence .  five years later they have succeeded putting me out of  work at age 64  from a career which  is an extension of my police  career which commenced when I was 21

I was discredited  even to my own children . what I have been fighting for is  to get my  reputation back

While Neil Wells  was portrayed to be good I was made out to be a sinister person

Just prior to his  death I found a news item  on the  law society news  Censured lawyer gets name suppression , I recognised  the   events  and from this  have speculated that Mr Wells was  actually a corrupt barrister  . I was charged with  alleged  breach of  a suppression order   , the police didn’t need evidence to charge me , it took them 6 weeks to find  something that  could at a stretch be an order but in reality is vague .

Our biggest issue with corruption in New Zealand is that we  thrive on perception  , make someone out to be bad and they are bad forever and no one will ever look at  the evidence .

Evidence  is what   Jose Ugaz   felt  is essential in proving corruption  but  evidence  plays no part in our courts.

Barristers such as Neil Wells and their legal representatives have the ability to influence the court   without any evidence  this is reflected in a speech made in  2014 by : Justice Helen Winkelmann – Chief High Court Judge of New Zealand (Helen Winkelmann’s 2014 Address).

There is also another aspect to the adversarial model which depends upon legal representation. It is the reliance that judges place upon counsel to never knowingly mislead the court in matters of fact or law. This duty of counsel enables the system to function efficiently and maintains its integrity. It frees the Judge from having to conduct his or her own inquiries to independently check the veracity of what they are told by counsel. For counsel this duty flows from the fact that counsel are officers of the court. It is also a manifestation of the obligation on all lawyers to uphold the rule of law, an obligation now given statutory recognition in the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006

David  the process of   holding lawyers accountable to the rule of law   is long and  again the lawyers  word is preferred over  the   complainant.

I have lost my  PI licence , the matter is still under review by the LCRO,  I  was accused of harassing a lawyer  for telling him that he had an obligation   to the rule of law and could not use his office for fraud.

Such is  New Zealand  today   have not even touched on to another raft of issues.

I am sure that we could work well together    we would  both  like to see corruption contained  and by providing policies that work   much grief can be avoided.

I wonder if the  Joanne Harrison matter could have been  prevented if the lessons which could have been learned from AWINZ had been  implemented.

No one should have to go through what I have had to endure   there is only  one way forward and that is by providing transparency  .

I would like to join TI NZ   we can learn from each other .

Regards

Grace Haden

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

Open letter to David McNeill Director Transparency International New Zealand

Dear David

I am delighted to see your latest  news release in my in box Download Media Release Document

I have been a persecuted whistleblower for the past 11 years . I was heartened by the presentation given by  the  Transparency international  president  and I certainly hope that Transparency International New Zealand  accepts the importance of whistleblowers .

I was  not an employee of the organisation I blew the whistle on  but   in My line of work as a Private Investigator I discovered that our government  had given coercive law enforcement powers to a fictional organisation . I thought it would be simple to bring it to  their attention  and was not prepared for the onslaught that  followed .

For the past 11 years  , my family and   myself have  paid a very high price , I even tried to join transparency International but was rejected by your organisation because  ” As noted in previous applications, the TINZ  Objectives, Guiding Principles and Rules of TINZ are not compatible with your actions and objectives. We do not undertake investigations on single cases of corruption or expose individual cases

In desperation I setup  my own organisation which  now has a massive following   I called it transparency New Zealand LTD

The matter which I blew the whistle on was not rocket science. Its basic fraud   using a fictional identity

While the country  is  jumping up and down about an address in Mt Eden used for election purposes and some extra flat mates  we are rather ignoring this massive public fraud , how can we make fish of one and  fowl of the other.

The origins are with labour  and it continued  under national . Kennedy Graham once met me and we talked about y issue at length .. he did nothing  yet he is miffed with the relatively minor  indiscretions of  his leader .

The fact that this Fraud  has gone on for so long without any one looking at it  shows  that   the fraud situation in NZ is far worse than any one can imagine. This case proves  how in reality those in power condone fraud .

I hope that transparency International  looks  at the issues that whistleblowers face    , We don’t expect you  to do anything more for us than  to  look at our  cases and see how they impact on the reality of the integrity of the  public service.

A public service that ignores and thereby conceals  corruption has no integrity   

Neil Edward Wells had close ties to  MAF ( now MPI )   he met with them regularly and  as a member of one of the  advisory boards saw an opportunity to write    the legislation  to update the Animals Protection Act 1960

In writing the bill he saw an opportunity  Not only  did he write the bill to update legislation  he also used it to  facilitate his own business plan  see here  the document  drawn up in 1996 clearly shows his intention to make  money from this.

He goes on to   write the no 1 bill for the  new legislation   without declaring his conflict of interest.

A second bill is introduced by National .

Both bills go before the select committee and again without declaring his conflict of interest  Neil Wells becomes ” independent” adviser to the select committee .

Simultaneously  he was paving the way for his business to   line up with the  legislation which was being passed . Use of confidential information for private use

He set  up courses at UNITEC for  training the inspectors for  the new legislative requirements, a role he was to  take on personally  for $$$ .

He spoke of an organisation   which  would  have the same powers as the  RNZSPCA and  he called this AWINZ ( Animal Welfare institute of New Zealand ) .This organisation existed only in his mind.

When the act passed into law he made a fraudulent   application in the name of the animal welfare institute of New Zealand  see the application here 

AWINZ did not exist in any manner or  form, there were no trustees , there was no trust deed   yet he called himself a trustee and  made out through the application that AWINZ existed.

In 2006  I did a Pro bono job  for an employee at Waitakere city council , Lyn Macdonald ( the bird lady )  questioned why  the buildings and vehicles had been rebranded  see here  and why  she had to  ” volunteer”  her council paid time to AWINZ and prioritise animal welfare over her council   duty;-dog control

Neither  MAF nor Waitakere  city council had a copy of the alleged  trust deed and  it was only then that Neil Wells  produced one  and I suspect that the  ink was still drying . He gave me a copy  see here and sent a different copy to  Maf  see here . Note that  both are different to the one attached to the application.   To me this  proves that the man had absolutely no hesitation in forging documents .

I have truckloads of documents and  have taken this  matter to  the Ombudsman, ministers  court  and have found  that  I have been under attack because  of it.

I have simplified the whole matter and ordinary people   get it  they understand but   those in MPI and   in so called positions of accountability  don’t look at the  facts they look at the  reputation of the persons, some I fear are acting in self interest as some where at a previous time they had a finger in the pie and  covering up   also saves their own necks .

I have been at the receiving end of an 11 years smear campaign   while Neil Wells promoted himself as being  holier than though  . That was until he was proved to be corrupt  but   he then  had the advantage of   having his name suppressed.

The fraud in a nutshell 

Over the years I have learned to simplify it  , I also have more  documents available  now than I had in the early years  but ordinary people get it  so why do the ombudsmen lawyers   etc not understand   that

  1. The application is fraudulent  and resulted in   a fictional organisation  getting law enforcement  powers.
  2. The applicant   AWINZ    did not exist … no trust deed had been signed ,  no persons had ever met  to approve this  trust deed or  had agreed to be trustees to this deed
  3. The  persons who were allegedly  trustees  had never met never passed a resolution   never consented to being a law enforcement authority , never took  part in the operations or decision  making or application for   “ awinz  “ to become an approved organisation .
  4. Neil Wells concocted a trust in 2006 and backdated the trust deeds   and signed them  claiming that they had  gone missing.  But the date was out by three months   so  how  could a trust  which    allegedly formed 1.3.2000  make an application 22.11.1999. as can be seen the  deeds are different
  5. Then he supplied a copy of the deed to Maf  except he had to change the details  of the deed again and  another deed was   concocted and sent to them.

With regards to the Waitakere city council

  1. He made an application for   the position of dog and stock control manager  see here   and effectively  contracted to himself for the services of AWINZ  See the document MOU Waitakere    where Wells signs  this On behalf of the fictional  Animal welfare institute of New Zealand  with  Tom Didovich the person  whose job he was to take over .

Note: that there is no mention of  the conflict of interest  in the  application for the  job  , he treats AWINZ as though it is a legal person separate from himself  when in reality he is the only person associated with AWINZ  and   this is in reality a trading name for himself.

  1. He rebrands the building  the Waitakere city council   dog control building  to appear to be his fictional organisation
  2. there is of course much more   but his will do  this  relates to the public   and public wrong doing

this could  have been easily dealt with .

In the first place MAF did not check  they assumed and gave law enforcement powers to  a fictional organisation .

secondly like the  Joanne  Harrison matter  Maf relied on Neil wells  to  provide them with information and directions  to  ward me off .. I have the emails to prove it

Our  internal systems for dealing with this type of offence    do not exist  and  every one was quite happy to stand by while  I was beaten up from all angles.

No one knew how to investigate   the simple questions which should have been asked are

  1. Did AWINZ exist  when it made the application … NO
  2. What structure was AWINZ.. it was a nothing  it was an unsigned  deed at best a trading name for person or persons unknown 
  3. Who were the trustees .. there were none there was no trust therefore no trustees.
  4. But we now have a trust deed  dates 1.3.200  .. but that is three months after the application how can a trust make an application before it is formed 
  5. When did that deed first come to  light.. 2006
  6. Were any of the alleged trustees  apart from wells involved in the running of the approved organisation.. no
  7.  Did Maf have consent from any one else  acting  on behalf of AWINZ apart from Neil Wells.. no
  8. Should MAF have ensured that AWINZ existed  legally ..

    yes   there was a Statutory need for accountability  how can there be accountability if the organisation does not exist 

    122Criteria

    (1)The Minister must, before declaring an organisation to be an approved organisation for the purposes of this Act, be satisfied, by the production to the Minister of suitable evidence, that—

    (a)one of the purposes or roles of the organisation concerns the welfare of animals or a particular species of animal; and
    (b)the accountability arrangements, financial arrangements, and management of the organisation are such that, having regard to the interests of the public, the organisation is suitable to be declared to be an approved organisation;
  9. How could they do this ..  they had no idea about identities  even the lawyers   did not check   .. they took Wells word as a barrister for it 
  10. was the trust  deed attached to the  application in 1999  and the one provided to Maf  in 2006 the same.. no    therefore consideration of the  unsigned deed by Maf  was irrelevant.
  11. Why  did Maf not insist  on a  deed ..Because Neil  Wells misled them and they  did not check
  12. Why were the other alleged trustees not involved  ..MAF should have contacted these persons  and  ensured that   they were  actively involved  
  13. Why were legal names avoided  ?  If legal names had been used   we would all have known who we were dealing with

 

With respect to Waitakere city council

  1. Did  tom Didovich have the ability to allow a third party to use his  staff for  animal welfare purposes … no
  2. Didovich signed a MOU   should this have been   brought to the councils attention..Yes
  3. Wells applied for  Didovich’s Job should he have declared the  Mou which he had signed .. yes
  4. Did Neil Wells work in a situation of  gross conflict of interest .. YES!!!!!!
  5. Wells rebranded the building  was  the logo animal welfare on the building confusingly similar to the   logo of the fictional trust ? definitely 

 

Fraud and corruption  Is New Zealand up the creek  without a paddle? 

When it comes to back ground screening I tell people that the corrupt  usually don’t do things by  half measures.  what is the point  of  inflating your  Cv just a bit when  you can be dynamic and give yourself a degree which will  take you to the top .

And so it is  with perception ratings.  If we acknowledge that there is fraud and corruption then the perception  of  being fraud and corruption free  is destroyed  .

“Our public-sector agencies have focused successfully on developing processes that prevent corruption and these contribute to New Zealand’s stand-out reputation for a trusted public sector” says Transparency International New Zealand (TINZ) Chair, Suzanne Snively. “New Zealand trades on its low corruption reputation and we are increasingly finding how to transfer these behaviours from our public to our private sector to leverage off this enviable reputation for integrity.”

It is ironic however that Transparency International New Zealand    prepares the integrity    report  with funding from theses very sectors .partners / sponsors 

The reality was seen this week when the police    acknowledged that

White collar crime ‘rampant’ as nearly 900 fraud complaints go uninvestigated

It appears that  the investigation into Joanne Harrison has lifted the lid on corruption in New Zealand. within a few days  we got interesting head lines

Fuji Xerox NZ voluntarily suspends competing for government contracts

FujiXerox NZ corruption scandal grows in spite of New Zealand’s silence

Binnie: Bain case tarnished NZ’s reputation

Immigration NZ staff investigated for corruption and fraud after visas issued to family, friends

New Zealand: thousands of bottles of allegedly fraudulent wine exported

Patrick Gower: Metiria Turei’s political fraud is ripping off the New Zealand public

The hypocrisy of NZ’s approach to fraud

see SFO  press releases 

A number of victims of these frauds suffer significant loss. Some of these people would have lost a significant portion of their retirement savings, a lot of these files aren’t minor files.”

And there is another side to it too  Victims  and whistleblowers are attacked  in an effort to ensure that the fraud  goes undetected.    In my experience it appears that  the fraudsters get far more  support from the police than the   person discovering/ reporting/ victim  the  crime does.  I often wonder how  lack of   action on fraud  impacts on our  overly high suicide ratings.

These are true stories  I know they are true because they happened to me , I know suicide is a factor  because there were times when it appealed to   me thanks to neil  Wells Wyn Hoadley , graeme Coutts and tom Didovich

I am ex police   and found myself  working as a private investigator  right in the line of fire

Lulled into the  false sense of security  that NZ  has no  tolerance for corruption   I raised the fraudulent application of AWINZ  to be a law enforcement authority  with   MPI and Waitakere city council . Neil Edward Wells a  barrister who  is now known to  have been  corrupt , had written legislation for his own business plan made an application for law enforcement powers for a fictional organisation  he then had the   council buildings re branded with the name of his  fictional organisation  and worked in a situation of severe conflict of interest using council resources infrastructure and  staff to operate his  own business.

11 years later  and this still has not been independently investigated by the authorities and in a move akin to Joanne Harrison neil edward Wells was able  influence the staff   at MPI  so that the matter was not investigated.  he took me to court  for defamation for claiming that the  trust was a sham ,  I was denied a defence of truth   and honest opinion  , my family was torn apart  and now 11 years later I have been taken to court by the police for speculating that Neil Wells was  the  lawyer  in a law society  news publication .

Not long after I had raised this  issue  I  assisted a lawyer in locating the director and Liquidator of  Fresh prepared Limited 

The  liquidator and  director were both fictional , they had been created by a   Hawaiian  business man  named Terry Hay  .  I found my self being harassed by him when he  posted three advertisements in the mandarin time to ensure that  half the chinese  population descended up on our house hold   to buy a super cheap car,  get  a great accommodation deal, get a   fabulous job .

Simultaneously   I had reported  fresh prepared to  MAF at the time as it  was a border control    facility  and they  had  now claimed to be  a different company . I found myself under investigation by Maf and warned for passing myself off as a Maf officer.  I was to learn that this was handy work of Neil Wells.

Hay  was charged by the National enforcement unit and took of to Honolulu  he remained there for  several years and the 22 charges were dropped

Next up   was fraudster Jonathon Mann and his   partner Dr Gerald Waters , Jonathon Mann seeks to silence victims

His victims had to set up a blog site to deal with him,but it appears that fraudsters  don’t like having potential  victims warned

I came under attack by Gerald Waters  but eventually he was charged with companies act offences

Then  I was approached  by  a couple ,  the husband had had a former brief relationship with  a Parisa Hamedi  . Hamedi had gone to  Steven ZINDEL and engaged him on legal aid ,  after a  dozen or so  bonks Hamedi  thought she was entitled to the   mans house . I conducted the investigation and found that  she maintained her housing corp home in Nelson  where she and her children lived with  her former husband.

I committed a terrible crime by suggesting to  ZINDEL that he  should do some home work on the  de facto status as my investigations had proved that   they were a long way off  the  threshold. He came back and suggested that  if   $50,000  compensation was paid then it would all go away . This   wonderful hard working couple  spent some 6 years fighting  this through court   and  in the end the verdict was.. wait for it.. there was no   de facto relationship .  Yet Zindel took me to the Private security licencing authority   because i  told him to check his facts as he may otherwise be using his office for fraud.

Then there is the on going saga  of Muse on allen, where a young immigrant   invested money  in a restaurant o see it all taken away by Samuel North  who then claimed to be  the youngest chef to own his own restaurant.  this has gone through courts   for many years and simply proves that the   civil jurisdiction  cannot cope with fraud ,  on top of being  ripped off the   victim then gets a hiding to nowhere and loses even more funds.

Lawyer  David Abricossow  was acting for the company  and   when I told him that he had an obligation to the rule of law  and could not use his  practice to facilitate fraud  he   took me to court  for harassment and made false  claims that I had defamed him,  I was beautifully set up and lost my Pi licence because this lawyer   was at the start of his career and needed protection .

From what I can see is the  Fraud is left un addressed as it is a fabulous meal ticket for lawyers. Brookfields Lawyers certainly clipped the  ticket on the AWINZ matter .

If you are defrauded  or if you  discover fraud the best thing you can do is close your  eyes and walk away.  make that RUN     the courts appear to support fraudsters   evidence has no place  the ones with the   biggest lawyers  win and when you have been scalped and  the other side has the money  you don’t have much  of a chance at all  .

You have no  rights   there is no justice and in the civil jurisdiction there is actually not right to a fair trial .

But it all helps in   the concealment of  fraud  , if  we do not acknowledge that  fraud exists  then there is no fraud.

You cant find   something that you are not looking for  .. see no fraud problem in New Zealand.