The Animal Welfare Institute of New Zealand  was  developed to over come the  unexpected changes to the animal welfare Bill which Mr. Wells  had written.

In 1995 Neil Wells set up a Pilot Program with  Waitakere city   the correspondence   from which this  arose  was in 1994  July  and August  these clearly set out his business venture and his charge out rates

As a result the  dog  control and Stock control officers of Waitakere city were trained to become Animal Welfare inspectors  through the services  for which Neil Wells was paid to provide.

By January 1996  Neil  Wells  plans to take his project nation wide More

He Lobbies  to get the law changes  and  volunteers to write the Hodgson Bill in which he provides for  the ability  for territorial bodies to  come under the act.

But  this was  widely opposed.

A Second Bill was introduced  and the two Bills were heard together.

Mr. Wells was employed by the select committee  to provide INDEPENDENT   advice on the bills.

Whilst these Bills were being discussed  by the Select committee, a plan to set up a " charitable trust was  pushed forward

Confidentially, as you know there is a thrust to form a new charitable organisation similar in objective to the SPCA but organisationally different in that it would be a charitable trust rather than an incorporated society. But both are not-for-profit organisations.  more

in 1998 a trust was proposed  and the council  directed  the scope  which was to include a Councillor as CEO .

The  trustees were nominated thus

Mr Well is paid to recruit  the prospective trustees  and set up the trust

The trust deed which was drawn up  was to include Waitakere city  as a Trustee

But that  was 1998  and  the bills were still before the select committee  .

At some stage in 1999  without any evidence of how it occurred the trust  becomes a Private trust   on 10 June 1999 Tom Didovich  writes  

 On 28 October 1999 Neil Wells  makes an application for  Funding  from the Waitakere Community Well being Fund . in the application for funds  he makes   false claims

The  trust  had not even been  set up   there was no trust deed .   The Animal welfare institute of New Zealand is only but a name .

The trustees are shown as  Neil Wells ,  Nuala Grove, Sarah Giltrap and Graham Coutts

In November  that year Mr Wells makes an application  as trustee  of the Animal welfare Institute of New Zealand  for the organisation to become an approved organisation under the act which has now been passed

He makes a number of false statements   as to the existence of a trust deed   and the intention to incorporate.

AWINZ  does not have a trust deed at that time  nor   has it at any time been incorporated.

AWINZ   at about this time claims to be involved with the Lord of the rings Movie

legal opinions in 2000    decline  AWINZ request   and Tom Didovich seeks a legal opinion  using rate payers money 23 rd June  

The background is simply that an independent animal welfare charitable trust has been establislted so that once it
gains status as an "approved organisation" through MAF and under section 121 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999,
Council can link into it in order to have it's animal welfare officers appointed to undertake enforcement of the Animal
Welfare Act

Despite the   all the legal  examinations  AWINZ is finally approved   , it has avoided however  providing details as  to its legal standing . 

In 2006 a trust deed materializes after an other group successfully incorporates  the name Animal welfare institute of New Zealand to prove  that the application to the  minister was  made with intentional false  statements ..  ( for  further false statements see  LOTR)

A Memorandum of understanding (MOU ) was signed   with  MAF   and   with the manager  of the  Animal welfare service division of council -Mr Didovich  .

Mr Didovich   resigns and Mr Wells becomes head of Waitakere animal welfare  effectively he is now both parties to the MOU.

The  trust deed   produced  in 2006  was an uncertified Deed copy

Both MAF and Waitakere  City  entered into  Memoranda of understanding   without verifying  if the "organisation"  existed   Neither had a copy of the trust deed   we have no independent proof at the the deed was signed on that date .

Once questions were asked about the trust  Nuala Grove  and  Sarah Giltrap purportedly resigned.

There has never been any evidence that they were more  than names associated with AWINZ and  there is no evidence of any involvement. Once Questions were asked  Nuala Grove and Sarah Giltrap allegedly resigned and  have hideen themselves behind their lawyers  and stood by while  the humanitarians who comprise  the alleged trust beat up on  any one who questioned the existence or accountability of AWINZ.

The trust  which  according to its trust deed   must have four trustees  to operate  but despite this  operated on less than  4 .

In 2006  AWINZ embarked on fund raising. Wyn Hoadley  came on board and lent her name to  the fundraising campaign

From  this AWINZ applied for tax exempt status   but found that for  both  this and Charities  commission status they needed to   have a new trust deed  and  a purpose which was charitable by law  and not by some ones assertion that it was charitable  and this deed emerged  which included the former Manager of Waitakere Animal welfare  Tom Didovich

Where is AWINZ Located ?

Waitakere animal welfare operates form the concourse .  AWINZ which   uses the same Logo as Waitakere animal welfare   , through its founder Neil wells  claims that  there is no evidence that  it  operates  from the concourse.

Correspondence in the  name of AWINZ   gives   Neil Wells, Waitakere city email address and  his DDI.

 we would welcome any   information    to   refute the claim that AWINZ does not operate  form the concourse.

Who are the AWINZ inspectors  ?

Waitakere  city council council  dog control officers  become inspectors voluntarily , they  do not get paid for those  services see  source document

Is the AWINZ  relationship with  Waitakere  a  corrupt practice?

In our view  it is clearly  against OECD  guide lines  .   We have obtained a copy of the visual representation of this relationship

Where does the Money go ?

We know that  AWINZ did not have a  bank account  until 2005  and it was not registered with IRD  yet the last page of  this  document  claims substantial  funds .

We also question the  accuracy of the book keeping of the accounts listed on the  charities commission  they show  the Lord Dowding  fund  which are funds   that were scavenged from  another organisation  and give a healthy  interest return each year.   what we have a problem with   is that these accounts showed $98,208 in 2007   and  $90,000  in 2008    yet only $5,750   payments were made .  By our calculations there is  a hole in the Maths.

The accounts  also show $45,216  in legal expenses, these were incurred  when Grace Haden and  others incorporated  the name Animal welfare institute of New Zealand to prove that the statements made by Neil Wells  to the minister in this document and for therefore the    council  grant  was false

to read more about this law suit   read the Kiwis first article WHAT’S WORSE THAN BEATING A DEAD HORSE?

Although  the incorporated trust offered to meet the unincorporated ( Wells trust ) Wells refused resolution outside  the court  and sued Mrs Haden , the incorporated trust and Mrs Hadens company for  passing off , breach of fair trading Act and   defamation.  The defamation was in principal for  calling the trust a scam trust in emails to  council members.

Mrs Haden was denied a defence- truth is impossible to defend  when you  are not allowed to defend it.

A Judge   exonerated  Mr Wells by  saying that "he  got ahead of himself " whilst  slamming Mrs Haden  with $50,000 & $7,500   penalties for   speaking the truth.  On top of that  Wells claimed  some $49,000  court fees  and   a further $24,000  was paid    by Mrs Haden for  related proceedings. a total of $135,000  on top of that Mrs Haden has had  her own costs for her lawyer  some $50,000  .    

Such is the  potential cost  for questioning corruption in New Zealand  , the matter is currently being appealed.

We support Mrs Haden  and  the need for an independent commission against corruption

Ironically   criminals  don't  get costs that  high  and  if a person had been  severely injured  they would  probably receive compensation  substantially less than  $57,500.

The evidence  which the court relied on  was  the uncorroborated  evidence of Neil Wells  , we have found that much of this evidence  conflicts with  the documents we have. which are his  affidavit and his  .notes of evidence..

Defamation

Defamation is only defamation  if what is said is untrue  , we  each   have  control of our own lives, we learn from an early age that if you don't want  people to think bad of you  -  live according to the values of your religion, beliefs and moral fiber.   How you act is how you  vibrate in your community.

Why does a charitable trust Sue ?

We have to  wonder  why a charitable trust of humanitarians  who run workshops on how to be nice to animals  can treat their fellow Humans in  what we consider  to be a   oppressive manner .

We consider that court action  is a last resort  and should not be used to  bully your opponent into submission.  

The trust could have saved itself $45,216  in legal expenses, and put it to its cause,  is this a wise  use of donated funds  ?

We only suspect that the two trusts could not meet  because  the unincorporated trust   consisted only of those who lean their names  and were not actively involved.( see Mr Coutts  evidence ) "The Trust doesn't me et weekly or monthly. It was form ed as a tool to help the Waitakere City Council and the other operations. It's not as if we meet daily or weekly because there's not a lot to talk about."

SLAPP

In the USA  Slapp cases are common they are used to  discourage freedom of speech , in this instance we believe that it was used to silence Mrs Haden  so that  the dubious practices of AWINZ  would not be exposed    read more about Slapp 

HELP Please

If you   have any involvement with Wells or AWINZ and  can provide us with  further evidence conflicting with  the  affidavit and or the oral statements   we will be happy to hear form you  and will pass it  to Mrs Haden  to further  her fight for  justice.

If you can help provide information we   would love to hear from you 

 Please  email   AWINZ08@gmail.com