Dear Ministry for Primary Industries,

in april 2000 the international league of horses made an application for approved status under section 122 of the animal welfare act .

I was provided with the documents in 2012 and have just re discovered them . I note that the documents they provided included a certificate of incorporation thus proving that the league was a legal person in its own right capable of suing being sued and entering into contracts

at the same time an application by the animal welfare institute of new zealand was being considered. I have been told that I have all the documents and know that it was not incorporated because our trusts successful incorporation in 2006 proved that no other legal person by that name existed .

AWINZ enforced the law on the public for 10 years yet had no accountability to the public this has been brought to the attention of MPI and I cannot believe that this has simply been covered up .

please provide all documentation which the MPI relied upon for a legal existence of AWINZ . I am aware that you were provided with a trust deed in 2006 which differed from the deed which was produced in court and would like to know what MPI has ever done with regards to the fraudulent application for approved status and the supply of an fraudulent trust deed.

Yours faithfully,

Grace Haden

Dear Official Information Act team ,

In view of the absence of you having any evidence of proof of existence of AWINZ the approved organisation . It can then be safely assumed that You had no evidence and did not look for any evidence as the documents which I have do not disclose the legal existance as a incorporated trust or otherwise of the applicant to the approved status.

As opposed to International league of horses which was incorporated and provided you with documents of incorporation .and proof of existence

I intend to make a formal complaint about granting law enforcement powers to a fictional organisation and to that end wish to be certain that a vital document was not withheld from me in the process , therefore am asking specifically for any trust deed which you held or any evidence of incorporation which you had for AWINZ prior to May 2006 .

I also request any copies of any reports, records , notes and documents where Maf communicated with to the alleged trustees at any time being Nuala Grove , Sarah Giltrap , Graeme coutts and Wyn Hoadley and later Tom Didovich .

I further request any documentation which shows that Maf conducted an investigation into the legal existence of AWINZ the approved organisation and the file which relates to my complaint that it did not exist

Yours sincerely,

Grace Haden

Dear Official Information Act,

thank you

I have had confirmation from you in the past that "AWINZ has not been incorporated under the Charitable Trust Act 1957, as was originally expected " http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-conten... page 5

You also did not hold trust deed , the deed you accepted and considered was unexecuted and Neil Wells falsely stated in the application that he was a trustee http://anticorruptionnz.files.wordpress....

the trust deed which you were provided with in june 2006 was this http://anticorruptionnz.files.wordpress.... which is different to the
alleged original trust deed which is this http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-conten... this deed was dated 1.3.2000

Your audit report also recorded that the ( alleged ) trustees had not met since the inception of the trust, they held no assets , they had not passed a resolution and by the trust deeds own terms had not been appointed to ensure continuity of the trust .

the legal name of this trust would have been Neil Wells ,Graeme Coutts , Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap as trustees in the animal welfare institute of New Zealand

The trust did not have perpetual succession, this is the significance of being incorporated under the charitable trust act see section 13 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/publi...

You however dealt with AWINZ as though it was a legal person in its own right, the name had no legal standing of its own and could not be capable of holding real and personal property of whatsoever nature and whether situated in New Zealand or elsewhere, and of suing and being sued, and of doing and suffering all such acts and things as bodies corporate may lawfully do and suffer.

In other words AWINZ was not capable of having Law enforcement powers , it could no enter into MOU's with any one let alone MAF http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-conten...

This is classic Identity fraud , it is also corruption as defined by the United Nations Convention against Corruption where by Neil Wells was using the council property staff and resources to create an income for himself , the evidence is another audit report http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-conten... page 2 " it was at times difficult during the audit to distinguish where the structure of AWINZ finished and where WCC began hence it was at times difficult to separate the AWINZ organisation from that of WCC. For example AWINZ inspectors are not employed by AWINZ but are all employees of WCC"

Wells had also rebranded the council buildings to give them the appearance of being AWINZ and also used near identical Logos for both council and his fictional trust

14 years ago I blew the whistle on this fictional law enforcement authority , and I am still paying the price for it now. MPI has totally protected those who have been involved in this and have ignored its obligations to the state services commission code https://ssc.govt.nz/resources/code/

there has been no impartiality and there has been liaison with the perpetrators with regards of release of information and the withholding of information http://www.transparency.net.nz/wp-conten...

This is not vexatious this is dealing with a very serious issue of having had a fictional law enforcement authority and the government department which administered it covering it up .In Ontario there was a supreme court decision which dealt with the lack of accountability of a legally constituted organisationhttps://www.canadianlawyermag.com/static... Here we take it one step further MPI has totally protected the lack of existence of a similar law enforcement body

could you please provide me with a copy of your current corruption and fraud policy , I wish to know if concealment of fraud is permitted by the MPI

Yours sincerely,

Grace Haden