Dear Ministry for Primary Industries,

IN November 1999 Neil Wells who has now been acknowledged to have been a corrupt lawyer , made an application for the coercive law enforcement powers provided by the animal welfare act.

Neil Wells had drafted and advised on the legislation and basically wrote it to facilitate his own business plan see here http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-conte...

He made a fraudulent application claiming legal existence of AWINZ your own records prove that on 1 may 2007 MAF recognized that AWINZ had no legal existence http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-conten...

MAF had entered into a MOU with AWINZ http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-conten... as if it was a body corporate in its own right

Evidence that it was not a body corporate is found here http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-conten....

In 2006 I reported to MPI that AWINZ had no legal standing as an entity . MAF did nothing except be obtrusive and believe Neil Wells , MPI has continued to be obstructive, I personally attribute this to the conflict of the chief legal officer who was a crown solicitor at the time of the application and failed to check the legal standing of AWINZ , hence and investigation into AWINZ would highlight his oversight at the time http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-conten...

I realize that I have had all the documentation and the documentation that I have proves that MAF and now MPI condoned this public fraud and allowed a fictional organisation to continue to administer animal welfare law on the public

By way of OIA I would like to know the legal means by which the MPI can condone fraudulent applications for approved organisations and how it possibly thought that an organisation which did not exist and had no evidence of existing could possibly have responsibilities to the criteria provisions of the act.

I further request all documents in which MPI consider the consequences of contracting to a undefined name and discussions where by a decision was made not to investigate this public fraud and conceal it

If MPI considered that this was not fraudulent then I would like to see all documentation which they relied on that proved that AWINZ had legal existence

The situation is ironically that AWINZ could not have got a bank loan for $10 yet MAF gave it coercive public law enforcement powers. While this is bad it does not compare to the 15 years of the concealment of this corruption by failing to investigate the fraudulent application

The public need to have confidence in the MPI and this fraud has been ignored for too long, I am still under attack by one of the lawyers who was instrumental in the initial cover up I am a whistleblower and want the attack on me to stop by getting the government department which had responsibility to the public to act responsibly .

The manner in which AWINZ had been dealt with brings into question
the competency of MPI to supervise the one and only approved organisation which now has a changed constitution and appears to be acting in conflict of interest and using their inspectorate to promote the interests of animal welfare activists .

Yours faithfully,

Grace Haden

Dear Official Information Act,
Thank you do I take it to mean that the MPI condones fraud and is not prepared to do anything about the fact a fraudulent application has been made .

I have never had any information from MPI which shows that they have the power to condone fraud and not investigate .I have never had any information which shows that MPI considered the consequences of contracting to a fictional organisation .

I realize that I have obtained a lot of documents and those documents disclose the fact that a fraud has been committed .and that after MPI knew that AWINZ did not exist it allowed a fictional organisation to administer the coercive public powers under the animal welfare act for a further 4 years

what I want to know is what power and legal ability MPI had to do that

How can the public have confidence that the MPI can safeguard us when MPI condones fraud

Yours sincerely,

Grace Haden

Dear Official Information Act,
thank you

I appreciate that you have sent me information about AWINZ this information is not about AWINZ but about your ability to condone corruption and not investigate the fact that you have given law enforcement powers to a fictional entity the proof of this is in a document which you have provided to me and in the audit report

in the document http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-conten... MAF acknowledges under item 5 that maf enquired if AWINZ had been registered and the reply was that it had not that categorically proves that the application made in 1999https://anticorruptionnz.files.wordpress... and the letter of assurance to the minister in 2000 http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-conten... stating the original is being submitter to the Ministry of Commerce for registration as a charitable trust in accordance with clause 20 (a) of the Deed are fraudulent

AWINZ did not exist in any legal manner yet it appears that MPI is condoning false applications and for 15 years has failed to investigate, I just want to know the legal basis on which you can do this

Neil Wells has been proved to be a corrupt barrister who defrauded his own client https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Docum... the suppression has ben lifted on this by the court of appeal and the practitioner identified as Wells

All I want to know is the legal basis under which MPI can condone such a public fraud and by condoning and concealing it is MPI not a party to corruption ?

Yours sincerely,

Grace Haden

Dear Official Information Act,
let me rephrase this

please provide the policy , guidelines or instructions which MPI follow when assessing an organisation as suitable as one that they can enter into a contract with .

what requirements and proof of existence are required by you for an organisation to be deemed to exist

please provide a copy of the fraud policy which existed in MPI in 1999 and the fraud policy which exists now

Yours sincerely,

Grace Haden