I started to construct this site after our

I started to construct this site after our horses were taken in April 2010 it took a considerable amount of time and was first posted on the internet at the end of 2010 beginning 2011. I have not been able to add, change or alter anything on it up until very recently. So when reading the substance of the site, please take that into account .

I am at present working to try and post the many documents on and arrange them in some coherent form.Once I have done that I will complete an up date on how this  matter  has and is progressing. And also comment on matters I have mentioned to  clarify any  confusion or misunderstanding I hope it will be, as I hope this site is, interesting and informing

I am indeed heartened by the  many people I know and more importantly; do not know, who have sent kind and compassionate  comments to me about this situation. It has given me a little bit a faith in the human nature of the people of this country.

I actually thought by now I would beset with a host legal threats or initiated litigation  from many of the organisations and individuals I mention. Or our home would be raided at 5 am by the SIS or what ever they call themselves and I would be put in prison for contempt of court. As happened to Vince Seimer the brave American man in Auckland who also got on the wrong side of  a Old Boy Network crony conflict of interest and chose to describe and disclose this corrupt New Zealand  Judicial and Government system for what it is.

But  the only source of dissent or discord  I have heard, according to my sister, has come from my parents eldest child,  Lindsay Williamson evidently he is very unhappy and wants all reference to him removed.

                       thank you

                                         Doug Williamson (19 August 2012)

Preface Dec (2010) this has been transferred from the original home page

The subject and substance of this web site created to expose the gross Governmental systemic corruption in New Zealand orchestrated and perpetrated by Lawyers in cahoots with Local Government crony property developers.

It shows the utter futility of small property owners trying to defend their legitimate property rights against huge odds and the sway these big players have in subverting expert opinion thus the course of Justice in New Zealand.

But most of all it shows the Judges in this country as corrupt in relation to Oldboy network connected lawyers and/or powerful litigants.

With respect to the situation with our horses, how can any Government sponsored agency go to these Courts and obtain a warrant to seize every horse we own with the escorted power of the police. Not only are we the owners not allowed to defend our selves but we are not allowed access to, or even information indicating the evidence put to the Courts to enact this draconian behaviour by the New Zealand government.

Why can the SPCA seize these horses and not allow access to independent experts to view them,individually photo them, record and verify their condition. Why can they do this contrary to the Animal Welfare Act, empowered by the Government? I will never accept in this country of New Zealand any Government agency can do this. Seizing the horses and giving statements to the media they are ‘all malnourished in a serious condition’is one matter. Denying us a fair chance to refute and repudiate this allegation with a number of experts is another. That is what the Government of this Country did to my brother and I.

How can a TV3 Current affairs program ‘Campbell live’ make a program based on the images of a proven and undisputed minority of our sick horses? Then repeat these same images of these same individual horses in different formats, over and over again to give the perception all our horses were in this condition. Corroborated only by the subjective views of apparently illiterate schoolgirls, and the  makers of the TV programs are not held accountable by the same New Zealand Government.

As to the actual condition of our horses, look at the photos and make up your own minds. These photos include the photos taken by the Vet David Senior (with the horses in SPCA custody) who we secured partial reluctant access after 10 days of legal wrangling. The photos are in periods of Nov/Dec 2009 when the SPCA first become involved and March 2010 just before the seizure and April 2010 10 days after the seizure.

Who is responsible for the integrity of clean, clear fresh water coming out of the ground in Canterbury? Who would have ever believed it could be so insidious and devastating. The same goes for Lawyers, politically connected cronies Local Government and corrupt Judges.

As for Harness Racing and drug Cheating two metaphors describe this ‘A Can of worms and a dogs breakfast” In 2004 after I became certain of the situation concerning drug cheating, through personal circumstances. I wrote a letter to the governing body of harness racing in the USA; the USTA. Stating because of the escalation and development of  the complete lack of integrity concerning drug cheating ,lack of detection and enforcement as well as other matters. Harness racing not only should  fail it deserves to fail.i got no reply but history will show who is right.

It is interesting the view of the National Government, re the seabed and foreshore. I as most people, have strong views on this matter. I find it extraordinary that the Government can take from the general population combined and complete ownership of every part of this huge area with its extensive mineral resources and recreational potential and cede it to a mere 15% of the population on the basis of a document in the 1800’s that never even conceived or envisaged, let alone mentioned these resources or potentialities.

In an interview on TV1 breakfast, the Attorney General cited property rights of these 15% of population and access to the process of justice. It is contentious if Maori have or ever had any exclusive right to everything they are claiming over and above their basic birth right as a New Zealander that this area belongs to each and every one of us. As opposed to Maori’s traditional customary right to collect their traditional food source, for which has become now not more than a basic recreation, which I for one have absolutely no problem with. That is completely different from any kind of separate sovereignty to this huge and valuable resource

Nobody can deny my brother and I had a legitimate   property right on our farm in Rolleston, to train our horses in peace, safety and security. And if anything was to change this, nobody can deny we had democratic right to participate fully and completely in the process in order to guarantee this basic property right. Nobody can deny my brother and I had a legitimate expectation to have our farm correctly valued on the basis potential Industrial subdivisible land. As it was inevitably to and has become despite the strong repeated misrepresentations of the Selwyn District Council and the lawyers (Chris Fowler and Paul Rodgers formerly of Anthony Harper lawyers now Adderley Head Resource management lawyers Christchurch)) supposed to be representing us. The potential industrial value was obviously discussed and any future chance of it through the commercial subdivision or use of our farm was strongly denied and distorted by all concerned including the Lawyers supposed to be representing us ;Fowler/Rodgers, who were unbeknown to us,  were Councillors Jens Christensen’s our main opponent, personal  lawyers and close associates.

No one can deny that when we put all our trust in these lawyers and they had a significant and valuable association with our personally toxic opponent (Chairman of the Local Government alliance) we were first entitled to be informed this in the first instance by both the lawyers concerned. (Fowler/Rodgers from the firm Anthony Harper). But just as importantly the Selwyn District Council had a legal requirement to disclose this situation under its obligations to the Local Government Act as well as their own code of conduct.

No one can deny that a Local Government in New Zealand is not allowed to use underhand methods, abuse and manipulate the process in order to place gratuitous harassment and danger on small land owners as well as utilising an undisclosed compromising connection with the lawyers that same small land owner is depending on for protection. To pressure the same small landowner into selling their farm to this local Government property developing alliance, woefully under valued.

No one can deny in the fresh light, the landowner is entitled to proceed with a cause of action against the Chairman, the Local Government and the Chairman’s lawyers who were supposed to be acting against him. That when we enlist new lawyers( Dean Russ of Dean Russ and Associates , now Fletcher Vautier Moore in Nelson,Grant Cameron of G CA Christchurch) they will act with the necessary honesty and robust integrity the adversary system we function under requires

No one can deny that we are entitled to have this matter tested in Court by the proper means of a trial. And that this is a vital prerequisite of any citizen’s access to the Justice system. With these Judges completely distorting the judgement on the basis of a Summary Judgement against us by the Selwyn district Council, to give the impression my brother and I are dishonorable, disappointed vendors. When we never ever wanted to sell that farm for any reason other than the danger and harassment the SDC they themselves had illegally created and were able to exert on us if necessarily indefinitely due to the purposeful ineptitude and deceitfully wrong advice of these lawyers. When this is plain to see we are denied basic protection and redress under the law.  The Courts and Judges in New Zealand’s highest Courts and up to now the Government. Can and do deny, my brother and I all of this.

But who can possibly deny that when lawyers(Russ and Cameron) are in possession of a vital RMA report they are not only expected but in fact obligated to pass it and its contents on to the subjects of that report in a timely manner instead of concealing and misrepresenting it and ultimately fail to forward the authors full name and actual report until I by chance become aware of it 2 years after it was completed.As they clearly have done. No doubt the New Zealand Law society and subsequent the Courts and Government will deny this also.

Please read the contents of this report in Document 4 (Resource Management Report compiled by Peter Glasson) and make up your mind why these subsequent lawyers Dean Russ and Grant Cameron of GCA lawyers,  engaged and paid for with our own money.  Not only neglected to pass it or its contents on to us but actually misrepresented it. Why would these lawyers do this if the Selwyn District Council had not acted contrary to its obligations under the Local Government Act of Open, Transparent and Democratically accountable?Contrary to what these Judges in New Zealand’s highest Court so strongly rule that all concerned did act in accordance with due process and the law.

If these subsequent lawyers (Russ and Cameron) were acting in only our interests as they were retained and obligated to why would they misrepresent the contents of this report. Obviously these subsequent lawyers were acting deviously and treacherously in the interests of the Selwyn District Council/Christensen and Christensen’s Lawyers (Fowler and Rodgers) who were originally supposed to be representing us with this valuable undisclosed connection to Christensen.

Clearly this is a measure of the civil justice system in New Zealand and the manner in which the Selwyn District Council operates as Local and Consent Authority.

In my one and only brief telephone discussion with Mr Glasson before I had any basic let alone the full and true knowledge of his report. He suggested   I contact a noted journalist at the dominant Newspaper in our region; Martin van Beynen at The Press. I had great difficultly in getting Van Beynen to reply after I sent to him a complete set of documents whereby he could glean a full understanding of what had gone on. Then after 5 weeks of constantly trying to contact him. Van Beynen, replied stating his paper is not interested in this matter.

It is significant as I mention Van Beynen is a resident of the same small community of Diamond Harbour, as Fowler. No doubt they are regular commuters on the launch together to Lyttelton to get to Christchurch. Considering they only worked no more than 200 metres away from each other in Christchurch they could well be more closely acquainted.

This attitude of Van Beynan should be compared to the submission I made to the Supreme Court Concerning the contrast between 2 murdered Russian journalists (exposing graft and corruption by gangsters and corrupt Politicians in Russia) and these journalists in New Zealand.

One Russian lady was exposing the links of organised crime with local government was assassinated by 4 masked gunmen out side her home. The other a “60 minutes” reporter in one of those Ekistans, was exposing the links between the police and organised kidnappings, was shot in the back.

Of these Russian reporters and journalists like them, compared to the corrupt New Zealand news media, I walk in such people’s shadow.

How possibly can our societies remain functional  and more importantly sustainable when this kind of graft and corruption happens in New Zealand and it is impossible to get lawyers to act in the correct manner? The central government washes their hands of it, the corrupt Local Government dissuades experts from scrutiny and involvement. But most importantly the News Media purposely ignore it.

What has happened here is like one of those cowboy movies with corrupt governance where everybody gangs up against any opposition to the heavy handed master. This sounds very similar to the way totalitarian regimes operate

This is not acceptable in a western democracy and if it exists it is the responsibility of the other democracies to expose and high light it. So when people in other countries are considering buying New Zealand products they are fully aware these products are sourced from a corrupt and heavy handed society which denies it citizens one of the basics of fundamental human rights which is access to fair and equitable justice. Maybe if the extent of corruption in New Zealand is shown even the Chinese consumers will abstain from buying our products.

My brother and I fundamentally became prisoners on our own farm, the SDC decided when and if we could safely train our horses. So we had to truck our horses to another track to ensure they could be safely exercised. There was no end in sight of this situation and these lawyers advised us in writing, that nothing could be done to stop this menace so our best option would be to sell our farm to the SDC, even while making concessions on value. Nobody else would consider buying this farm because of the overbearing and manipulative presence of Christensen and the SDC. AS well Christensen and the SDC would have prevented us from rezoning our entire farm to Industrial, as they are the referee and arbitrator as well as the opponent. As it was they underhandedly stole our existing 7500s/m of Industrial land from us by unlawfully altering the planning map so the Valuers did not include any value for this valuable portion of our property. The SDC own valuer stated this was the reason no industrial valuation for this portion of land was applicable. Yet Marshal for the SDC completely contradicts this in his sworn evidence to the Courts.  When asked through the valuation complaints board for the valuer to ratify this situation all concerned decide not to comment.

I have never in my life come across anything like this Selwyn District Council. It sums them up having Christensen in charge of anything let alone Economic development and the bevy of other portfolios he was chairman of including this Izone. The only Economic development Christensen has any interest in is his own or his close associates who include these lawyers(Fowler/Rodgers) supposed to be representing us against him.  I would be interested to know with the grossly negligent and devious advice we received from these Lawyers and the information we had and could be reasonably expected to have had. What other choice did we have?

More than anything the Corruption of process involving civil justice in this country has resulted in my brother and I ending up in the predicament we have. Resulting in not only our farm being stolen by the Government of New Zealand and consummated by a corrupt judicial system. Our horses allowed to be stolen by a bunch of complete and utter crackpots with the aid of these same Courts accompanied by the Police. Apparently aided and abetted by Harness Racing New Zealand.

This site explains what exactly happen which caused a minority of our horses to become sick due to Iron Toxicosis directly caused by the contamination of the water they were inadvertently being forced to drink.

This site is about the principles of justice, fairplay, honesty, integrity and democracy. These are not originally New Zealand principles they belong to the culture most of us have descended from. And as this site shows these values  are now sadly missing in the development of the New Zealand culture especially the judicial system (lawyers and judges),Local Government and Harness Racing.

Most of this site is about my brother John and I, Douglas John Williamson as I mention if an independent person reads this and comes of the opinion both John and I would never ever do to our horses what we have been so convincingly accused of. To the point we were getting anonymous death threats. The time effort, effort and expense has been well worth it.

Welcome to this site. I hope it makes you think. Not only about John and my predicament but how we are all responsible to ensure every single citizen in this country is afforded the full and fair process of the law. But most of all the system needs to change in civil justice. The power needs to be stripped from lawyers and their cronies and given back to the people. It needs to be recognised the huge disproportional affect large Local Government or other such corporations and their cronies have on distorting the process especially involving lawyers action and that of experts.

Corruption needs to be exposed and ruthlessly eradicated and the insidious power Oldboy Network must be destroyed. As I try to impress in this site, this is not a preference, it is an obligation but more importantly a necessity for our freedom to remain sustainable. The Judges I have come before in this matter concerning the consummate theft of our farm, what they do, is disgust me. And just like the cheats John and I have been competing against in Harness racing for the last 30 years, and Harness Racing New Zealand, the Statutory body responsible for preventing this situation. They expect me to accept this situation like a frightened rabbit. Maybe all concerned have got some surprises coming to them, if this is their opinion of me.

It is very easy to validate my toxic opinion of the Judges in this country by reading Mr Glasson’s report Who was a completely independent observer personally familiar with the situation and the individuals involved .

Then comparing this report with the rulings of the Courts involved in Summary judgement (a process which has been described by some learned British judges as an aberation of Justice except in the case of simple debt or where there is no conflicting evidence at all) which were basically verbatim copies of the SDC submissions

 23} “ There was no evidence of undue influence exerted by the plaintiff in this case. Throughout the Williamsons were receiving legal advice .I accept the submission that the parties were very much in a position of equal bargaining power. It follows there was no inequality of bargaining power, nor any suggestion of improper use by plaintiff of its position.”   

 25} “There is no evidence before me that the Williamsons were in apposition of particular disadvantage, nor the plaintiff knew of this, or exploited it. To the contrary, they were represented through out by Anthony Harper. The evidence shows that firm acted as strong advocates for the Williamson’s.” 

It is significant that through out these judgement these Judges never actually mention the connection between Fowler/Rodgers and Christensen and do not mention the partner in charge Rodgers at all. For one I was not aware of the close personal association between Rodgers/Fowler/Christensen until I received Mr Glasson’s report. In their Summary judgement  evidence(that can not be cross examined) to these Courts Christensen and Marshal for the SDC only referred to Christensen’s connection to the firm Anthony Harper there was no mention at all of the true and correct association between Fowler/Rodgers and Christensen thus the SDC.

What is most unbelievable about this whole matter is Parliament has put in place the necessary checks and balances to prevent what happened to John and I occurring. The first lawyers we engaged distorted and misrepresented the law to Christensen’s and the SDC advantage. The second set of lawyers treacherously conspired to defraud us in favour of our opponents. And these dishonest corrupt Judges clearly distorting the facts of the situation under Summary Judgement, to make the matter seem completely different from what it actually was, legitimising and consummating this whole matter.

But most importantly we were denied the basic fundamental of a trial to enable the SDC evidence to be tested and cross-examined by which Christensen and Marshal could have been questioned under oath and exposed for the liars in which they are which would have exposed their perjury.

Summary Judgement requires only for us to present 1 piece of conflicting evidence and but one arguable point for it to be dismissed. If you can take the time to read this site please decide for your self if we met this low ambiguous thresh hold and ask your self how you would like your life’s work taken by a corrupt Local Government in tow with crony property developers in collusion with dishonest lawyers and Judges.

The Summary judgement hearing was  in order for the SDC to evict us and our horses  from this property after the occupation  agreement had expired. This was after the SDC along with the lawyers supposed to be representing us had suggested that should the need arise, we along with our horses could stay in occupation of that farm on a commercial lease arrangement.This proposition was in line with the same parties insistence they had nocommercial motives or intentions for our property in the short,medium or long term. The contention for any future industrial use or subdivision of our property was put in the context of future generations thus they wrongly stipulated, adding no value what so ever to this property under our ownership or any sale we were negotiating.

Obviously this was manifestly incorrect and a deliberate, gross and unlawful misrepresentation which with the benefit of hindsight in any normal functioning democracy the SDC as well as the lawyers who issued this advice which left us with no place to house our horses, would be held accountable and criminally culpable.

It is interesting again to compare the theme of the Attorney General speaking of property rights and access to justice .In New Zealand; integrity of process, truth, honesty and access to justice does not exist (let alone apply) for non Maori, non politically connected small civil litigants. In fact the opposite is the case, property rights and access to the process of justice are actively distorted,misrepresented and denied.

Thank you  for your consideration

                                                                                           Doug Williamson          

 In the name of Parliamentary democracy and the will of this  truly great institution of governance.

 

1)Introduction

i)This site relates to the action taken and the false, erroneous misleading comments by the SPCA and news media (TV3, The Press and Selwyn Times) about the conditions of the horses owned by us, Doug (writer) and John Williamson. It touches on the basis and possible motives for this whole unbelievable situation transpiring.  But most importantly explains the cause of this devastation to a minority of our horses with scientific proof and validation to corroborate these reasons

ii)As well it explains and exposes the gross abuse of process with the dishonesty by the Selwyn District Council, the Commercial property developer Councillor Jens Christensen and all the lawyers involved Chris Fowler and Paul Rodgers of the lawfirm Anthony Harperthat resulted in the pressured hugely undervalued sale of our farm.

Then combined with the corruption, collusion and conspiracy of the subsequent lawyers we engaged;

Dean Russ of Russ and Associates

and Grant Cameron of G.C.A.

iii)It shows the motives and rationale of all the other lawyers and RMA experts I approached who refused to stand up in this matter including the Community Law Office in Christchurch. All the RMA consultants I contacted which would number more than 5 who never even did me the courtesy of a reply. I say they all are gutless and or corrupt.

iv) It clearly shows the corruption of the will of Parliament by the New Zealand Courts;

The High Court assistant Judge Christiansen

Court of Appeal; Young P, Glazebrook and Baragwanath JJ

The Supreme Court Blanchard, McGrath and Wilson JJ

 

v)And highlights the ‘washing of hands’ acquiescence and subterfuge of the appropriate NZ Government Departments to investigate and prosecute recalcitrant and corrupt Government officials plus highlight and expose the abuse, manipulation and distortion of correct and due process

The Ombudsman

The Office of the Auditor General

vi)It shows the manipulation, dishonesty and circumspect  appeasement by the News media in New Zealand is just a disgrace. I recently heard a talk by an imminent English astronomer who bottom rated journalists together with bankers and car salesmen. So obviously the traits of this profession are not only confined to New Zealand like the Judges and lawyers obviously are. But I disagree with this, everybody knows where they stand with car salesmen and bankers, they are not hypocrites like bottom feeding journalists who masquerade as the defenders of free speech and virtuous principle in the name of doing their job. These people are lowlife, I have through circumstance needed to deal with a lot of bottom feeders in my life so have no problem recognising them. (Property developers like Christensen are another type). These are the antithesis of the type of people I later mention, journalists from other cultures who get assassinated. These journalist from other countries who get and risk assassination by corrupt politicians, judges, police, organised crime and other criminals. I bow to such men and woman and walk in their shadow.  

vii) It demonstrates the cumulative affects of the original institutional graft and dishonesty inflicted on us when we were so unready and unaware of its intensity, directly related to our horses being placed in this predicament.

viii)For me this web site is the culmination of a watershed of identity in my opinion and vision of our society in New Zealand.

ix)Before I experienced this situation I like most all of us believed that all forms of our Governance   to be true and correct. Lawyers to be honourable and the Courts and Judges to be fair and just in the traditions of this institution and the values inherited from England.

x)I speak in detail about Harness Racing New Zealand (HRNZ) as the breeding and racing of harness horses has been so much a huge part of my brother John and my lives. Since my first encounter with HRNZ (or it predecessor), as a teenager I have always thought harness racing to be corrupt but never believed until I researched in detail the situation concerning drug cheating, it could be so corrupt or allowed to be so by the New Zealand government. I always believed the corruption and abuse of process in Harness racing that has allowed this situation to develop and perpetuate was an aberration to New Zealand society. Caused mainly by the low quality of people Harness racing attracts and fosters.

xii) But since spending most of the last 7or 8 years embroiled in this dispute with the NZ Government and its agents. Which is clearly due to the abuse and manipulation of process, by the Selwyn District Council combined with underhand and deceitful dealing, by the then Councillor Jens Christensen and pure dishonesty by the lawyers. This corruption is rife and symptomatic of the most important process in New Zealand society. As I mention if crime and corruption can pay it multiplies which is clearly becoming the situation in New Zealand.

xiii) Corruption like all vice in society is a human condition like gravity does to water it flows to the easiest simple route by nature. Endemic corruption is easily prevented like most bacterial diseases can be with antibiotics .It is only inevitable when the conditions are conducive for it to incubate and develop. Once established corruption is a parasitic with the end results to society at large are that of malign cancer

xiv)The degree corruption manifests itself and multiplies is solely proportional to the lack of constraints which are placed upon by the chances of success and benefit from it. Corruption would not exist if the benefits and chances of apprehension were outweighed by the penalty. This is the nature of the calculating cunning of corrupt people. Local Government would not abuse and manipulate the process nor lie deceive and perjure them selves if they could not get away with it.   Lawyers would not do the same as well as would not doctor files and forge emails if they were all not sure they could get away with it. Judges would always consistently apply the law if they could be held accountable for not doing this. Horse trainers and drivers would not cheat if there were even a 50% chance of being caught (anybody familiar with harness racing knows that the drug cheating is only a small part of their repertoire and my analysis should be compared with the way the Australian authorities make Australian trainers and drivers accountable to the betting public for obvious and blatant inconsistency). So when any kind of corrupt organisation is exposed the blame always lays with the controlling authority. This is why it is always best not to expose the corruption, as the body responsible for doing the exposing is the same body held responsible for its degree and escalation. In our case the NZ Government, Courts and Harness Racing New Zealand   

xv)After this experience with first our farm and then our horses being stolen by institutional corruption. If I did not suffer so badly from homesickness I would permanently leave this country. Not only is the political fabric of governmental process riddled with corruption and control by the likes of property developers, moneylenders and legal drug dealers our society is plagued with thieves and other two legged vermin, which the police allow to enrich and ingratiate illegal drug dealing organised crime.

xvi)The New Zealand Government refunds the failed investment ($1.6b) of people who decided to freely invest in a loan shark finance company to reap the associated higher interest rate to help fund their own extravagant lifestyle choices. Yet the same government allows our roads to deteriorate past that of a third world country our health and education standards to stagnate and crime to escalate to the point the police are no longer or lack the resources to be interested in solving or preventing fraud, property theft or the trade of stolen goods. Yet the same Government allows the Selwyn district Council to steal my brother’s and my farm in action and behaviour completely contrary to what the Local Government Act permits. The SPCA with the aid of the Courts and Police, steal our horses in contradiction to the provisions of the Animal welfare Act which gives nobody the right to take so many perfectly healthy horses then portray them as all malnourished in a serious condition. As well as not allow anybody to verify or photo this condition release immediately after seizure. TV3 is allowed to produce and broadcast a completely false and deceitful version of the situation and we have no chance to give our side of it except by me constructing this web site.

xvii)It is important at this point to define corruption .for this purpose it is an easy to use the Collins dictionarydefinition “lacking in integrity” integrity is defined by the same Dictionary as “adherence to moral principles, honesty .The quality of being unimpaired” By virtue of these definitions it is not difficult to define Harness Racing as being corrupt. This should be distinguished between judging an individual as corrupt obviously not all individuals in HR are dishonest and lack integrity but by far the overwhelming majority are I would say more than 95%. Allowed so by HRNZ. Just as obviously not all members of HRNZ are dishonest, some people who work there I consider very nice and good people but I am not judging them individually nor holding them accountable for what they are not involved in. None of the important people in that organisation to do with governance and policing integrity have demonstrated in my opinion the behaviour anything other to be than liars and dishonest.

xviii)As for the Judges in this country, the main problem without a doubt is the fact they were lawyers. I think once a lawyer always a lawyer. Lawyers in New Zealand I would rate together with Harness Racing again the same situation applies not all lawyers are corrupt and I have not had an enough experience with these people to give any kind of indication as to the degree.

Judges is a conundrum up until my experience with the Supreme Court I would not have classified this group as corrupt because it is the sum total of the lower participants compared to the final Court of appeal which defines the definition. For instance because the High Court Judge and Court of Appeal gave corrupt decisions. If the Supreme Court corrected this, the institution as a whole cannot be defined as corrupt.

xix)It is important to define what I consider correct in the context of Summary judgement. In that we only had to produce one arguable point and/or show there was conflicting evidence for the Summary judgement to be overturned and this matter go to trial.

xx)This is an extremely low threshold and the points or evidence can be ambiguous or vague open to any degree of interpretation. This is specifically defined by the use of the word arguable by other court decisions It is not myinterpretation of the threshold, it is the process’s. As well the high threshold of adherence required by the SDC to the Local Government Act in the manner in which such a local authority must conduct its business (open, transparent and democratically accountable) further compounds this and exacerbates the contempt these Courts have shown not only to my brother and myself but more importantly to Parliament and our system of justice.

xxi)Not withstanding the screeds of evidence and submissions I put before the Supreme Court. The one page of email and 5-page independent RMA expert report is more than enough to satisfy these requirements for dismissal of Summary Judgement let alone leave to appeal it. The reason I must give the lower Courts the benefit of the doubt. Is as I latter explain due to the deceit and treachery of the subsequent lawyers involved Russ and Cameron. Not only did they with hold the contents of this report to me they actually grossly misrepresented the substance of it. So I did not have this evidence to put before these lower Courts and did not receive it until mid 2008.

xxii)For the ½ page reason, 30% of which was substantially wrong and later changed on my reply. I received this½ page reason in reply to the nearly 1000 pages of evidence and submissions .It is my honest held opinion that these Supreme Court Judges did not even bother to read my submissions let alone attempt to understand or rationalise the situation. Not only does this lack adherence to moral principles and honesty. It certainly does not demonstrate the quality of being unimpaired. Thus defines this court and subsequently the lower Courts I appeared before as corrupt. If they did not or were not prepared to read, understand and at least partially reply to the substance of the material I put before them. These judges should have been honest and stated this. It is notsufficient to state, and expect credibility let alone anything but disrespect “even in the light of the further material submitted by the applicant, lacked merit.” Again this statement needs to be examined in the light of the extremely low ambiguous threshold not only to have the Summary Judgement dismissed but also to show the SDC have acted contrary to the Local Government Act. Which would not only immediately dismiss this Summary judgement. But also render the contract in the sale and purchase of our farm, null en void under the Illegal Contracts Act.

xxiii) From this analysis, and the benefit of hindsight I am left with no option but to state in certain circumstances New Zealand Courts along with their Judges are grossly corrupt.

xxiv)These judges have a rather efficient means of dealing with people such as my self under the provisions of contempt. Which results in prison and the imposition of and huge costs against. As they did to an American man, Mr Vince Siemer who incurred the wrath of these Judges embroiled in a similar situation of Oldboy undisclosed conflict of interest. As can be explained on his web site ‘kiwifirst.org’.

xxv)As I mention, Churchill states “courage is the human condition I admire most as it guarantees the presence of all others” from what I have read and understand of the situation Mr Siemer does not lack courage and not only of his convictions. Taking the prison sentence these corrupt judges dished out rather than retract the comments from his web site. Simply by identifying some of the individuals and their actions these Judges refuse to send to prison, qualifies this analysis. The State should not send honest people to prison. Who have done no physical harm to anybody nor present any possible threat, on the basis of a perceived version of contempt. How many innocent people have been and will be killed by recalcitrant drunk drivers, because of the inability of these Judges or Politicians to deal with this matter. Yet speak against corruption of these Judges and they cherry pick any possible reason to impose a prison sentence.

xxvi)There still is hope in the form of Parliament. New Zealand Parliamentarians in a larger general context are notcorrupt. I base this assertion on the healthy and sometimes intense animosity that exists both between them and the media and amongst themselves. It is indeed reassuring to note that they get exposed for all manner of indiscretions some resulting in career ending consequences and even prison. Parliamentarians and the integrity of the institution they preside over, is the one and only hope I see for the future of New Zealand’s political sustainability. But this intuition must assert its authority and demand its will and intention is obeyed, decreed and prosecuted by the Courts in a consistent unquestionable manner. As I state what kind of madness would result if the NZ Armed forces just decided to do what they like when they like as do these Judges.

xxvii)The problem is that Parliamentarians, the only people now who have any significant ability to curb what appears unlimited usurped old boy net work power of these unelected and unaccountable Lawyer Judges in this country.(Previously to early 2004, the Privy Council in England was a Court all of us could appeal to and was a counter to the incestuous clandestine Old boys network corruption these lawyers and judges are entwined and have developed in this country.)    These Parliamentarians’s   are apparently mesmerised, hypnotised or intimidated by these Lawyer Judges (this situation is not mutual as can be seen when any Parliamentarians, especially a layman or non Oldboy Parliamentarian, come before these Judges for sentence) .As well as far too many parliamentarians are lawyers. I will take moneylenders, welfare beneficiaries, poofters and transvestites even journalists and car dealers over New Zealand lawyers any day.

xxviii)I hope my opinion and appraisal of lawyers only applies to New Zealand, which is plausible it would. Because only in this country would the Judges be allowed to act, behave and think the way they do. Of this I am undoubted.

xxix)I would never ever have believed I would have ever written such a thing about Lawyers let alone Judges in New Zealand but as I state in this site I am of predominantly Scottish decent all my grandparents were immigrants to this country with my father’s family clan, Gunn originating from the very north of Scotland. As stubborn and pigheaded as Scottish people are they are pragmatic and creative and not only will they change for the better they will look to the future for the better. It is not an exaggeration nor bias to credit people of Scottish decent like my self with most of the significant advances in technological inventions up to and since the Industrial revolution.(the Scottish as a race are no better than anybody else but they are certainly no worse except in the case of soccer and the creative arts)  This is striving for improvement and futuristic pragmatic thought is why English not Gaelic is the language of Scotland.

xxx)Although my heritage is dear to me I have absolutely no interest in the Celtic Gaelic language and only know the meaning of my name Douglas being ‘black forest’ or ‘blackwater’ depending on what Gaelic word is translated and the clan name Gunn means ‘war’. I have absolutely no intent or interest to learn any more of this language. As it would serve absolutely no purpose to me or anybody else to spend time learning this insignificant and extinct language. I am much much more interested in the science and technology of renewable energy, the language of my ancestors is absolutely of no account to me, as is the case of most like me.

xxxi)My opinions are strong and outspoken but not whimsical or fancifully based. That is why I state them with conviction unconcerned with or of any consequences.

So if I see and am certain something is corrupt I will say it and take the consequences.

xxxii) Just as it is vitally important we preserve and nurture the environment both physically and aesthetically of this beautiful country, New Zealand, for future generations. We must defend the integrity of our governance and political infrastructure in order that we pass on to the same future generations, a sustainable working democracy free of graft, corruption without the manipulation of the vital processes for specific individual ingratiation, which always ensues and is synonymous with such systemic corruption. Just as we received from previous generations a free and fair society the standard of living was built up and produced by people who produced a product and other people who processed that product .We have no right as a society to squander this legacy and encumbering future generations with debt mountains. We must produce good quality product that the world wants to buy at a reasonable price. Part of the impediment to this is the latent corruption which is insidiously eating away at the well being of our society masked by escalating Government borrowing.

xxxiii)The Green party and lobby amuse me. 40,000 people demonstrate against the intent of the Government to consider mining in National parks or some such land. Obviously this mining would have been carefully preformed and presumably the land returned to near its original state minus the valuable minerals. I have no opinion on this policy but I am certainly not dogmatic but pragmatic and realise in order to fund our welfare state. We have to figure out some way to ensure it is sustainable, with minium guaranteed enfranchisement to all .Not just the upper and middle class who seem most concerned about mining.   But due to the public outcry re the mining the government did an about face. But what this Green lobby neglect to understand that if the process that enables their voices and concerns to be heard is compromised and defeated it would not matter if 2 individuals or 2 million people demonstrate. The Government will just do what suits the individuals in charge and bevy of cronies attached.

xxxiv)Fear is a strange but powerful emotion and the most useful tool of governments with any intent of control with many demonic allies at the expense of consensus and compromise Democratic process and fear are mutually exclusive .If we in this country lose our democratic process as is now starting to happen due to the insidious erosion and disregard of our values and principles. In future, as with other societies that have adopted demonic philosophies and ideals, there will be no free speech or demonstrations as fear will be the constraint and totalitarianism the winner. As is said and aptly applicable to the sustenance and preservation of democracy.  “The only thing to fear is fear it self”

xxxv)The German Kaiser with his millions of soldiers could not achieve this on our culture or society. Hitler with his fanatical legions; brainwashing and brutality could neither Stalin, Mao nor any other fanatics young and old have come close to achieving what these Lawyers, Judges and malcontent property developer cronies have already achieved to the political structural and decay of due process in New Zealand. Judge’s in New Zealand are already using this manifest of fear to impose their will by abuse of the contempt provision in imposing prison sentences. But as I show nobody or no institution has more contempt for the will of Parliament or the process of Justice than these Judges them selves. Where will it stop?      

 

xxxvi) A New Zealand Supreme Court Judge adjudicates over a case involving his close associate and business partner as the barrister. The Court he is involved in found in favour of this Judge’s associate’s case and nobody cares.  This action has eroded the very fundamentals of the adversary justice system. But worse still, instead of this Judge accepting he has erred, he conceitedly and defiantly challenges any reprimand.

xxxvii)What this Judge and his associate lawyer business partner have done is indefensible and his subsequent arrogance and defiance characterises the very basis of contempt these Judges and lawyers have for the fundamentals of the system. . Yet nobody especially anybody from this Green lobby who put so much effort into demonstrating about environmental issues, cares less.

xxxviii)What happen to my brother and myself in regard to the dispute concerning our farm is also indefensible but instead of accepting it and having the matter put right. These lawyers and local Government officials have lied, cheated and perjured them selves backed up and condoned by these Courts.

xxxix)Who would ever suggest that we were not entitled to be informed fully initially of the association between the lawyers we unwittingly chose to protect and promote our interests and the chairman and chief negotiator  in an aggressive and dynamic adversary dispute we were personally against. Then after this matter is completed with a disastrous settlement for us achieved solely due to this Local Government manipulation and abuse of process. Combined with the lawyers’ concerned collusion and conspiracy to deny and misrepresent vital and pertinent advice and information. Who would suggest so strongly as have these Courts, Government officials and subsequent lawyers, contrary to the will of parliament. We are not entitled to have this whole matter examined in the correct forum of a trial. In light of the true correct information we should have received and the legally correct process and protections we should have been afforded with the right to and ability to participate in. These Courts and the Judges I have named above do, most strongly.

xxxx)Who would suggest that if the SPCA can seize our horses with the power of the Court and Police, on the basis of untested and undisclosed affidavit evidence from a hostile Vet? But most importantly, we were notallowed or entitled to the verification of immediate expert opinion and photographic evidence to ascertain the true and correct condition of all these horses. The SPCA do and no doubt this will be backed up and authenticated by these same Courts responsible for consummating the theft of our farm.

xxxxi)Who would ever suggest that a TV station could produce and broadcast two malicious and devious programs that completely misrepresent the true and correct condition of the vast majority of our horses bases on the lies and twisted subjective opinions of uneducated itinerate trailer trash vagabonds. Who are now nowhere to be seen, to be held accountable for their statements, propositioned and deviously modified by moron TV3 New presenter, Campbell. Obviously the New Zealand Government does through it agent the Broadcasting Standards Authority which will no doubt be endorsed by the High Court when I put it is before them.

xxxxiiWho would suggest that denial of and perverting the basic and fundament access to the process of Justice as has happened to my brother and my self, is not an abuse of human rights. To suggest other wise would affirm the process of Justice in this country does not resemble that of the British model nor conform to those countries that speak the same language we do.

xxxxiii)I have learnt from my experience in Harness racing the sustainability of anything that is not run and controlled by good and virtuous people without constraints and control’s that only ensures the values of such people are promoted and dominate, is bound to descend to that of the lowest common denominator and eventually  fail.

 

xxxxiv)Harness racing in its present context not only should fail it deserves to fail by virtue of not only the actions of the quality of people involved more important the lack of quality and integrity of the people that control it. We in New Zealand cannot let our processes of democracy fail. It is multitudes more important than the condition or aesthetics’ of the environment because the quality of democratic process ensures the sustainability and survival of everything else. .

xxxxv)Other English speaking countries with which we have not only a shared heritage but shared common values should not allow practices, which bring into jeopardy the sustainability of our democracy in New Zealand, to propagate and perpetuate. Because much too much dues been paid.

 

xxxxvi)As I have mentioned, I comment much about the situation in harness racing. I don’t like much about harness racing and the feeling I am sure is mutual. I don’t like cheats, I don’t like bullies and I don’t like corrupt officials but most of all I despise class distinction, nepotism and lack of democratic governance and representation which characterises and ingratiates the perfect conditions for the cheats in Harness Racing to thrive, flourish and multiply.

xxxxvii) But I love harness horses with a passion, they are honest, durable and brave but most importantly if never abused, predictable they have no baggage and they are not concerned about any either. I much prefer the contact of these animals to that of people. Anybody who states I have ever purposely abused a horse or any animal is a liar. If I can establish that fact, even if the Government and these lawyers and Courts can take everything off me. The huge effort and time it has taken to construct this site has been well worth it.

1.1) The SPCA seized these horses on what we believe false and misleading evidence put to the Court, to obtain the warrant from the District Court issued by a Justice of Peace. Which I assume, alludes to the fact that all our horses were “malnourished” and in a “serious condition” I quote the article or description of all our horses, in the Press News paper by the SPCA at the time.

TV3 ran an extremely dishonest and deceitful two articles, which are the subject of a complaint to the broadcasting standards authority. (Subsequently dismissed now subject to a High Court Appeal)) The program  ‘Campbell live’ used still photos of only our sick horses in the late winter/ early spring and home video of thesame sick horses from sometime in the winter and superimposing these to give the impression all our horses are in this condition at the time of the program. These tactics obviously right out of the book of the Nazi propaganda Minister, Joseph Gobles, school of deceit, intrigue and deception. By the vitriol and hateful comments on the TV3 web site about my brother and myself and the actions of all of our family except my sister. These tactics have most certainly worked.

1.2)The best way this can be settled is by photos of our horses. In three separate time frames Nov/Dec 09 when the SPCA first became involved, March 2010 my brother John took many more photos in March 2010 but we are unable to access most of them from his mobile phone and April 10/2010 after seizure despite repeated requests, the first opportunity we were allowed an independent Vet to inspect and photo these horses. This was10 days after they were seized. I have repeatedly requested the photos and condition scores of the horses taken on the day of seizure by the SPCA, but like all our requests to this organization, this has been completely ignored. As I latter mention we also requested other experts inspect these horses with this Vet but the SPCA adamantly and strongly denied this.

Click Pictures to see full sized

Photo 1) Road Machine Mare Nov/Dec 09 please note the condition of the pasture by no measure does this pasture show any affects or signs of over grazing 

 

2) same mare March2010  again note condition of pasture . I say this mare is exceptional condition or maybe too fat. This photo is significant as the initial stipulations by the SPCA of hay to these horses (2 conventional slabs) was not enough but the message was that the strong horses were getting all the hay at the expense of the sick horses. This was not the case but to alleviate this perception we placed these big bales (10 at a time) strategically around the whole area so each horse could have unfettered access to this hay. This hay would usually last about a week before it was replaced. That equates to these horses eating 3.5 to 4ton or about of hay per week or about 100 kgs per horse per week or 15kgs per day Which is purely unbelievable but these are the facts and can be proven by the records of the hay we purchased. Also note in each one of these photos there are only 3 horses in the picture. If the situation was correct what is being portrayed there would be 31 starving horses milling around hoping to get some hay. 

 

3) Same mare after seizure in the SPCA custody The condition of this mare is consistent with the sequence of the other photos

Photo 4)Man around town mare Nov/Dec09

 

5)same mare March 10  again only 3 horses in this photo taken the same time as photo 2.My brother took many more photos at this time but they were lost on the mobile phone. Obviously we were not aware of the importance of keeping photographic record as we did not anticipate this situation occurring.

 

 6) after seizure April10 again this mare’s condition is consistent with the  previous photos  4,5, This mare is a good example of why the SPCA  tried so hard to prevent anybody not associated with this dishonest organisation from viewing and photographically recording the true condition. Who in their right mind would state publicly as the News media and the SPCA that horses in this condition are “Starving”, “malnourished and in a serious condition”. This mare for a Standardbred is just plain exceptional. Some people like cars or boats John and I just like horses in this condition. That is why this whole thing has been so devastating and disingenuous. That hateful piece of trash neighbour involved in this matter in Halswell stated these horses were on a starvation diet and this was pushed and portrayed with a complete distortion of the actual situation by all the news media concerned.   

 

Photo 7) Sundon mare Nov/Dec 09 

                                        

8) after seizure April 10

 

Photo9) Knightly Urge mare with foal Nov/Dec 09 background This mare is in good condition at the time of this photo The condition of this lactating mare  is a good litmus test as she is feeding the foal as can be seen. If there is any form of malnutrition in a group of mares a mare lactating mare will be  the first to show it. Evidence of horses free access to grazing photo 18,19&20 can been seen in this photo’s background  

 

10) same mare after seizure lost condition from time of seizure due to poor grazing and no evidence of access to unlimited hay as we were feeding. Mares with foal will lose condition very quickly under these conditions as can been seen

               

photo11)DannyB mare Nov09   this mare is in good condition

12) same mare after seizure  notice swollen leg caused in SPCA care .

 

photo 13) Danny B gelding Nov 09  excellent condition

 

14)grazing Kirwee 

              

14a) Day of seizure excellent condition

 

photo 15 )Man Around town mare Nov 09)

                                       

16) After seizure excellent condition

 

photo17) DannyB Gelding I consider this horse just average but it one of the horses posted on the still photos taken earlier in the year. Clearly it has improved as we hoped all would do.  About 11 horses were bad to poor condition the same number were excellent or exceptional. The rest about 12 or 13 were in the similar condition to this horse. About average by my standards I do not consider good enough but who in this country is responsible for the apparently clean water coming out of the ground they were forced to drink.

 

photo18,19 20 unrestricted grazing(horses had free access to)in Halswell Nov/Dec 09 no sign of over grazing  please compare with photo of  other horses grazing in unknown paddock in Mt Sommers area with everybody unconcerned about including the SPCA.

 

Photo 20a Grass at new place in Kirwee 40 acre paddock of this stated as no food by TV3 reporter see photo 14

 

photo 21) Sundon mare after seizure again this mare became sick when first arriving at this paddock  I call the condition of this mare excellent one grade below  mare in photo 5.

 

photo22)Danny B mare after seizure This mare got really bad skin diseases which is a stated symptom of Iron Toxicosis, after arrived obviously she improved as we hoped all would I call the condition of this mare very good

 

photo23) same mare as 15,16

 

photo24) same mare as 4,5&6  please note grazing compare to halswell18,19&20 and compare to Kirwee14&21 with green undergrowth These fanatics unlawfully stole our horses and took them to some place in Weedons to vastly inferior grazing from that of Kirwee and Halswell as well as no sign of any supplementary hay like we were feeding consequently the mare and foal condition has slipped. The photos of these horses will show from the day of seizure clear evidence of the condition downgrade put on this rabbit land in Weedons. It also appears there is no running water from evidence of the horses drinking water out of small buckets in he photos and the eclectic nature of the baths scatter around.

 

Photo 25) Sundon Gelding at Kirwee, day of seizure I call this horse average 

2)What caused this nightmare Despite everybody’s adamant and bitter accusations we always strongly believed this situation concerning the 25-30% of our horses, was not caused by any malnutrition or neglect of our horses. Until we were evicted off our farm at Rolleston most of these horses were hard (grain) fed every day of their lives after weaning. Before weaning they and their mothers were hard fed and were in immaculate condition in accordance with these photos With much effort and expense put into training and preparing them(photo26&27) of horses we own and (now seized) on walker at our ex farm these photos are significant as one was an extremely talented but unsound horse (26) and the other comparatively no account (27) both had just been trained, swum and walking to cool out for about 30 minutes. (One Internet posting so called neighbour has rated our horses on this farm as poor condition and showing no signs of being wormed.) All the horses we have are owned by our sister or us and all are treated the same no matter what. It is significant to note that this photo (27) horse would never have had a brush or groomed in anyway except for being washed and rubbed with towel. Its vitality in the coat comes from the inner health and well being which is the way horses should be and the way my brother and I prided ourselves in producing our horse for the last 30 years I defy anybody who knows to dispute the condition of these photos is not indicative of the horses we have produced to race and trial in the last 30 years prior to this eviction from our farm. But we have never had toxic waterto deal with before)

2.1)Why on earth would we want some of them including the stallion to end up in such poor and apparently disgraceful condition if it could be in anyway avoided? Though, until we were in a position whereby we could give these horse unlimited access to good hay like they had for the last 6-8 weeks. I was not 100% sure of my suspicion extra food would not improve the situation for the sick horses, though we always strongly suspected something else was causing this condition.

2.3)In a situation where a group of horses are malnourished there is not such a disparity from the best to the worst. All horses would be on a much lower plain of condition as the SPCA and these other Halswell pony observers, have falsely tried to portray or   ‘pretend’(please refer Dave Seniors comment in Press article “The SPCA are not trying to pretend all the horses are in poor condition”). It was not a matter such as everybody has suggested that the strong horses were getting any food at the expense of the weak. As all horses had access to as much hay as they could eat unhindered and the sick horses made absolutely no progress while the majority of other horses thrived.

2.4)Originally I thought all the young horses, the stallion and the small % of others affected were allergic to something in the soil or grass. So we made the area smaller and as already mentioned provided unlimited hay for them. It was an enormous amount of good quality hay they were eating (approximately 15kg for each and every horses each day) but still the poor horses did not improve. (photo35,36&37 of truck with load of hay delivered weekly, this is a incredible amount of hay these horses were eating every week. In the winter we could not provide this much hay but were providing enough. Geoff Sutton for the SPCA states publicly in November 09 (suburban newspaper)  we were doing as instructed then states publicly on March30 citing 21 malnourished horses  “the horses were in a serious condition and had deteriorated in the past 3 or 4 weeks “ that is despite this enormous amount of good quality hay they had access to. Obviously Suttons statement and The Press’s article of March30 is false and defamatory)

 

2.5)So we then realised the only solution was to move to another place as mentioned in the description of the litigation concerning our ex farm up until the 23rd of Feb 2010.We had hopes of being able to re occupy this property in Rolleston. As well the SPCA were fully informed and advised about the property in Templeton we were trying to lease and finally they were aware we had finally found a place to move our horses to. And did infact move 12 before this unlawful seizure was commenced. Once we found this new place we were not concerned with what the problem was we just wanted to get away from Halswell.

2.6)After the SPCA seizure I had many sleepless nights and remember that one horse lost all its body hair and recalled that this is a symptom of arsenic or heavy metal poisoning. I thought this could come from was the water. But I had previously discounted the water being a factor as I had drunk a lot of the water with out any obvious effects. I had only sampled the water out of the well not the tank which obviously the horses were drinking. The water was crystal clear from a well and I thought if it had a problem in it would affect all the horses in a certain way. Plus the water did not seem to have any adverse affect on the grass when run on it.

2.7)On April 1st 2010 appendix1 I tested the water it from the drinking tank and the well It showed no signs of heavy metals but extremely high in E coli bacteria. This E Coli reading seemed strange. As the water in the tank was crystal clear with out even a hint of algae or other organic matter, which could account for E coli I then retested for evidence of nitrates, which usually explains the presence of Ecoli, with my neutral neighbour a witness on April 10th 2010 appendix2. This time it was entirely out of the well. This test showed no sign of E Coli or nitrates but showed significant large amounts of Iron 0.46 g/m/3. The test read “Iron was found in the water at a significant level.”     

 

2.8)I then did some research and found that the effects and symptoms of Iron Toxicosis in horses are exactlywhat we had experienced. It effects mostly young horses or older and can be fatal. Iron toxicosis results in anorexia, listlessness and the predominance of bacterial infections and skin diseases. Also the excess of Iron in the blood could promote the infestation of parasites as they use the surplus Iron as a booster feed and develop exponentially. Excess iron can also result in kidney and liver failure and collapse of the cardio vascular system. That is according to “Feed and care of the horse” Lon D Lewis DVM PhD.

2.9)But that means nothing to those Halswell pony trailer trash as I am sure most of them cannot read or have not read a real book with more words than pictures. The only writing we have witnessed from this collection of facebook gutter-dwellers is a tirade of texted version profanity That SPCA; they act like organizations who burn books that don’t follow the party line. As for those Vets from Canterbury Equine Clinic their motives are explained latter. Obviously they unlike most of those toxic Halswell hate clubbers are not illiterate just it seems singled mindedly fanatical to the point of gross negligence.

2.10)I then retested the water out of the tank the horses were drinking from and it came back with a significant e coli reading and even higher reading for Iron 0.62. (Appendix 3)      As stated later the international Upper Safe Limit (USL) for Iron (in drinking water is 0.3 g/m3 more than 50% less and the recommended Maximum Guideline Level in New Zealand is 0.2 g/m3 70% less

2.11)On reflection with the benefit of hindsight I am certain now this water out of this well was causing this sickness to these horses. No body (SPCA vet) instructed us to test this water or take blood tests of these horses. None of the latter blood tests suggested a toxicosis of Iron as the cause of the problem. This Vet fromCanterbury Equine Clinic was so obsessed and antagonistic towards us he completely missed the sole cause of this devastation. If anybody is culpable and liable for this situation, it is these Canterbury Equine Vets As they should have been alive to the cause and the symptoms of this situation. I have never heard of horses being poisoned by Iron, let alone so badly, by the Iron in the water. Over the years we would have spent $1000’s to purchase this element as a tonic supplement. It is significant to note that we were giving our horses Iron along with regular Selenium when drenching while they were at Halswell and obviously we were drenching the sicker horse more often. I was fully aware Selenium is toxic overdosed but not Iron Another strange thing I noticed was the horses never licked the mineral salt blocks in the paddock. Something I have never seen before, but the water had no traces of salt in it. We met a vet over another matter who is an immigrant from India and he straightaway recognised the symptoms and the problem and advised us to move the horses away from this waterimmediately.

2.12)For any fair minded person please check the symptoms of Iron Toxicosis and then compare it to the home photos and videos of those horses which are falsely used by TV3 to represent the condition of all our horses. Then look at the photos of our healthy horses, which had access to the same amount and quality of food. Though some of the sick horses we isolated and fed grain to during the winter. This made absolutely no difference    

 

2.13)Obviously those nasty and vindictive Halswell septic tanks of repulsive pony people will scoff at this claim that the problem was caused by something other than their false assertions of malnutrition or our neglect. . I just cannot believe they got on the TV stating we only fed these horses now and again when they must have seen the truckload after truckload of hay we delivered to this paddock, every week. Obviously we have the evidence of the purchase of this huge amount of hay. A good test for them would be to put their own horses in that paddock drinking only that water and see how good they do. I am not abetting man but I will bet this assembly of trailer trash headed by that poxy profusion of profanity effusing   lowlife, know-all pony garbage neighbour, that has had so much to say about John and I. Will pass on this test for her horses. Because that water bore was right on her boundary, it is likely she knew all along that it was this water destroying our horses. This is the first time ever in my life I have abused a woman in such away. We have ignored the constant steam of abusive and disgusting texts of profanity she continued to send since we first moved to that place. But what has happened to us here caused by these despicable individuals makes us way past angry. Especially considering she could have been fully aware of the real problem that was doing this to our horses and has lied and deceived with the aid of TV3 to make out we are some kind of perverse masochists   getting some kind of pleasure out of witnessing the suffering of our horses through not feeding them. Or we were total oblivious and flippant towards the poor condition of some of them. Nothing but nothing could be further from the truth. Some of those horses (especially The Stallion) in such terrible condition completely gutted John and I (bare in mind all of them used to resemble photo 26&27). More especially now to think that it could have been so easily avoided. The deterioration of some of those horses since moving to that property after my brother John and I have devoted so much of our lives to keep our horses in such good condition is something I will never ever get over.

2.14)This group has done an excellent job of character assassination because most everybody we know, including our relations believed this TV3 show, to be a true and correct account of the situation. This perception could notbe further from the truth on all counts. That is the reason for this web site. What people think of me now I don’t really care but we should have a chance to give our side of this matter. But most importantly I just want our horses back. So we can have them grazing someplace with pure non-toxic water. But if so much effort has gone into falsely denigrating our character and we have unequivocal scientific evidence that the condition of the 25-30 % of our horses was unavoidable with access to the information we had and were given at the time. We should have access to the same forum at the same time to defend these slanderous, malicious and destructive allegations

2.15)FACT 1. The water ALL those horses were drinking was hugely contaminated with excess IRON more thandouble the internationally accredited Upper safe Limit and 3 times the Maximum Guide line value in New Zealand.

FACT 2   It is an established scientific fact this will cause IRON TOXICOSIS, which will demonstrate exactly the same symptoms as our sick horses possessed. This toxicosis is especially prevalent and fatal in young horses and older (the Stallion is 20 years old)

FACT 3 Horses have no way of excreting Iron so when forced to constantly consume it eventually for horses not tolerant to it will most certainly result in Iron Toxicosis and liver failure which is exactly the symptoms these sick horses exhibited. It appears this is not the same situation with humans but this is not the same with Manganese Horses are not affected by it but it can be toxic to humans. Obviously it is a matter of degree some horses will not absorb as much Iron as others and maybe humans have adapted to excrete Iron before it can build up to a toxic concentration in the blood. This is not a difficult concept.

FACT 4 Most of these horses eventually showed absolutely no affects to this toxicity. In fact many bloomed (same number as we chronically ill) This is a well know phenomena of toxicosis and is exhibited from sun light; sunburn –skin cancer to pollen- hay fever.

FACT 5 Nobody told nor suggested us to have the water chemically analysed for this problem or any other problem

FACT 6. Initially we did everything stipulated by the SPCA and over exceeded the amount of hay provided to the horses. When this did not improve the condition of the sick horses. This aggressive and antagonistic Vet from Canterbury Equine Clinic (who’s owner and principle I have a personal grievance with) Started coming with all kinds of pedantic requirements, which had absolutely nothing to do with what was really affecting our horses and causing this nightmare.

FAC T 7 These Vets (both Canterbury Equine Clinic and Dave Senior) have not mentioned any clinical signs of Iron Toxicosis from the blood tests or   autopsy.

FACT 8 I am not sure what has upset me more Our horses being seized and our name being made mud by these SPCAzi’s and TV3, along with the written publications including Harness Racing New Zealand’s inference and innuendo. Or the thought of damaging these horses so much, by allowing them to drink this water. This is incorrect, these horses sick, out ways everything else.

FACT 9 My brother and I had a legitimate expectation that when we saw clean, clear, fresh and odourless water coming out of the ground in Canterbury. That I had sampled a lot of (by drinking), it would not cause such a devastating affect as it has.

FACT 10.Somebody is liable for the hygienic integrity of such water coming out of the ground in Canterbury. If such wells potentially can produce water so potent and toxic . Either Ecan or the Council are responsible and should vigorously advertise this fact

FACT 11 TV 3 could not have so falsely produced a more fictitious gross and despicable depiction of my brother John and myself if we had paid them any amount of money to do so. Using these hateful obsessed girls speaking such rubbish and the SPCA pure lies must be wrong and actionable.

FACT12 The condition and situation of our horses was nothing to do with any malnutrition or otherwise neglect by John and I We are going to get our horses back and one day we will be training and driving them in races.

2.16) Report of Vet commissioned on our behalf to inspect these horses.appendix4 We received a report from Dr David Senior dated 14th May 2010 Stating he and Dr Lucia Tucker inspected these horses and took many of the photos documented on this site. It is significant to note that we first engaged Dave Senior to do this on the morning of Mach 30th. But the SPCA strongly and adamantly disallowed any inspection of our healthy horses. And we were not able to secure limited access for him (our representative) until the said afternoon of 8th April. This (10-day) delay was solely due to the SPCA’s denial, delaying and stalling tactics. It is also worthy of mention that as well as Dave Senior, 2 Stud masters and a Harness Racing bloodstock agent were available to inspect the horses. But this oddball SPCA organisation, with no reason forthcoming, emphatically disallowed this. It should be questioned in the interests of the working of justice why this denial of experts to inspect our healthy horses was so strongly and ultimately successfully pressed.

2.17) The report states 5 mares were fenced of separately in a ‘quite acceptable condition’ assuming the these include photo’s 3,6,8,11,16,21,22 include these quite acceptable horses. I feel this description of ‘quite acceptable’ is not becoming of these horses. As I latter mention it is at odds with Dave Seniors earlier (7days as they say a weeks along time in politics) description in a telephone message. I have shown these photos to other experienced horses trainers and breeders and they have used adjectives such as immaculate and exceptional of the photos of the horses seized by the SPCA that were supposedly malnourished in a serious condition..  None of these photos mentioned above taken by Dave Senior are from the 12 horses taken from Kirwee and it is significant despite constant requests, the SPCA will not produce the photos and performance scores on the day of seizure. It should be noted, for some reason although obviously it was assumed somewritten report of our horses would be forth coming. After we finally arranged access for him Dave Senior was somewhat reticent and reluctant in supplying any kind of written report on the true condition of these horses. This is an extremely disturbing aspect of the whole affair. Initially I was impressed with Dave Senior’s willingness to inspect all the horses and obviously document and photograph their condition. This seemed common sense and a realistic expectation it would be done. As I mention as time passed Dave Senior became more and more reluctant to do this and it took much correspondence with him from both my sister and my self to convince him to do this. It is significant that he stressed their was no need for us to photo these horses as the SPCA would have a documented record and photo of each horses seized on the day. Maybe that is correct but for some reason the SPCA is extremely reluctant to release these. Maybe Doctor Senior can comment why.  With out these photos taken by Dave Senior after seizure due to the consummate nature of these deceit and lies of all concerned plus the power of the TV3 programmes. My brother and I would be dead ducks based on completely false evidence and assertions

According to Dr Senior’s Report concerning our horses’ appendix4  “The blood results all showed changes in keeping with sever worm burdens ….It would be our concern that there has been a breakdown in the worming program for these horses which has led to poor feed conversion. Heavy worm burdens in horses cause a consistent drain in energy and protein reserves causing chronic ill thrift and shunted development in young horses. Blood changes in chronically starved horses described in Current Therapy in Equine practice (Volume 6) such as hypomagnesemia (low magnesium) and hypophosphatemia (low blood phosphorus) were not present in these horses.” (emphasis added)

2.18) Obviously this is scientific evidence to verify that the 25-30% of our horses adversely affected was notcaused in anyway by malnourishment. Dr Senior is suggesting the worm burden was the cause. Obviously we were regularly worming our horses (except for the 5 young horses we could not catch and handle). We were using 2 products, Bomatak and Ivermectin injectable (dispensed orally) We used these two products simultaneously and have had this process for many years .We have never had a problem with worms. It is my contention worms are not toxic to spelling horses getting unlimited good quality hay, it is only when they become overloaded combined with some other burden like work (training) or sickness it will drain the horse resources sufficiently to make any discernable difference. My brother and I have been involved with Harness racing horses since we were young children I have never seen a situation whereby horses will develop skin diseases, completely lose all of their hair (this is a well known sign of toxicosis) and go so poorly caused by worms with the amount and quality of food these horses were getting. Yet other horses with access to exactly the same food, same water, sameworming (some actually much less) and same grazing actually bloom in condition.

2.19) It is also not logical that some horses will do so well and some so poorly if tolerance to the wormer we were using was the reason. It would be fair to assume that the worms would react the same way to the wormer being applied. Although some horses would be better able adapt to the escalation of worms It is unlikely they would bloom as had some of our horses and just as unlikely others would show symptoms of poisoning or organ failure as some also did. This has all the indications of toxicosis and/or metal poisoning. This is backed up by research;

Dr Dan Moore ‘The Natural Vet” “It should go without saying the healthier your horse the less likely they will have worms. As a caution if you find your horse has constant problems with parasites or if it seems less than par, consider a hair analysis to rule out mineral deficiencies or imbalance or even the presence of toxic metals

I can’t believe how much aluminium toxicity I am finding .My gut feeling is a lot of the EPM like symptoms currently being seen are due to this metal either coming from the water or polluted air.

 One tablespoon of mane hair could save your horses life at the very least prevent a lot of un necessary medication..

Parasites simply shouldn’t be a problem in a healthy horse.”  Emphasis added It is significant as I mention the Vet commissioned by the SPCA did not instruct or request us to do any tests for anything INCLUDING WORM INFESTATION.

2.20  The grazing these horses were in before we decided to confine our horse to prevent them from eating grass .Did not show signs of overgrazing that could contribute to high parasite infestation This can be seen from the photos of this property in Halswell(photo18,19,20) and compare to the photo of other horses owned by different people, grazing close to our paddock at Mt Sommers(photo38,39,40).

2.21) Usually we would worm horses every 5 or 6 weeks but obviously the stallion and the sick horses we could catch and handle were wormed more often 10 –14 days. When these sick horses and the stallion made absolutely no progress from this intensive worming procedure we discounted the fact that high infestation of worms was the problem It is just not logical to buy so much food for horses and not worm them. It is significant that there is no mention of any Iron Toxicosis in the blood tests that would have alerted us to this problem. When clearly the water tests show Iron present in the water in significant amounts. The series of tests required authenticating this presence of Iron (as obviously we were not aware of the Iron presence before we started or even remotely suspected Iron would cause such devastating symptoms) cost over $700 but no sign or mentioning in the 4 blood tests, done by the Vet, which cost $720 did not suggest the presence of the toxic Iron..

2.22) The situation concerning the worming should be compared to the horses seized by the SPCA from Mt Sommers. The last time I saw these 4 horses 3 were immaculate condition one good (being a old naturally thin horse) and we only wormed them many months prior. The SPCA described these horse’s conditions as ‘reasonable’ by which the adjective used must be considered in its context, of the way this dishonest organization operates. Yet it is most significant although not wormed nearly as often these horses were notsubjected to this toxic water. Except after they first arrived at Mt Somers which would account for them doing so poorly in this period. It also significant that all these horses were moved to Mt Sommers from that paddock in Halswell about 12 months prior so would have been subject to the same degree of worm larvae infestation on the grass. So therefore if the breakdown in the worming process is the culprit for this situation at least one of the horses from Mt Sommers should show the same symptoms of the sick horses, as they certainly were not wormed any differently.

2.23) It was something much worse than worm burden, which caused this catastrophe for 25-30% of our horses. The condition more closely aligns the symptoms of some major organ failure or disease   I do not dispute some of the horses may of had a high worm burden but except for the 5 horses we could not catch this can noway be attributed to neglect. It is my contention that the toxicosis caused by the water was directly or indirectly the cause of the worm burden as well as the other signs of Toxicosis, which are well documented by eminent authorities.(As documented above by Dr Moore) Had the matter been  solely caused by resistance to the wormer we were using I feel it would not have occurred so suddenly with such dramatic and enigmatic results. With the benefit of hindsight these results and affects are in direct correlation with the access to that water well. As for the first 3 or 4 monthsthe horses were on that property in Halswell we were sourcing their water from a different well and all the horses were fine. But due to the lowering of the water table in the summer this water source ceased. I then started carting the water from my home, which was city supply. I then found an old well in a bush and uncapped it with what appeared clean fresh running water flowing out. Not long after this the problems started. This matter can easily be verified, simply by exposing some horses to this Iron Toxic water under Veterinary supervision with access to unlimited food and all the worming anthelmintics available. This will solve this matter once and for all but is something that I will not do for obvious reasons. That would be tantamount to torture. Let our accusers do this with their horses. If they feel they are so right and we are so wrong.

 

2.24) Water test drinking tank April 10 2010  Iron 0.62 Ecoli 5  Appendix 3

 

2.25) Scientific Analysis  Dr Lewis ; Feeding and Care of the Horse table 1-3 Recommended Upper Safe Level  of Water Contaminants. Iron is 0.3g/m3 as can be show the analysis out of the top of the well was 0.46  and out of the only tank the horses were drinking out of 0.62  over double the USL.       It should also be considered we were drenching the sick horses with supplemental Iron and Selenium every 2 weeks.

 

2.26) There is another matter concerning this iron I noticed on the Internet concerning (in water) this appears to manifests its self in worms. On close examination the water tank contains small insects swimming around then they change (metamorphose) to mini tadpoles. I had ancillary bathes and plastic containers beside this tank and when the water was emptied quite large like thin earthworm like things would develop in these containers. Maybe this process is occurring in the horses, which is the result of the huge worm burden. As I mentioned this water does not produce algae, which is unusual. These observations are there in the water for any and everybody to see. Why was the Canterbury Equine Vet not alive to this?  As I state, I had completely discounted the water, as the cause of this problem for a number of reasons, which are plausible and reasonable. Most notably I had drunk a lot of this water out of the well. Obviously I am not a Vet and have limited ability or knowledge in scientific matters.

2.27)Though I am 100% sure this problem is solely due to the exclusive access of our horses to this water. This is due to reflective analysis after the other source of water ceased and they started drinking this water. I am not 100% sure it is solely due to the high Iron content of the water so far as well as Iron (twice) we have tested. Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Boron, Calcium, Copper, Magnesium, Manganese, Potassium, Sodium, Zinc, Chloride, Nitrate, Sulphate, Ecoli (3times) also ph, Alkalinity, Carbon dioxide, hardness, Conductivity, dissolved salts (All these tests were conducted on an urgent basis in the attempt to get our horses rightfully returned) It is interesting from these tests except for the heavy metals Arsenic, Cadmium and Chromium everything registers some reading except for Zinc and Copper. This is significant because the existence of Iron in high concentrations will deny the horse these 2 elements and one of the symptoms of deficiency in these elements is loss of body hair, which happened to the sickliest older horse. The other symptoms being anorexia, dull coat and listlessness, which is what these sick horses, demonstrated.

2.26) Over loaded with worms will not cause this total loss of body hair. Many of the symptoms of the 25-30% of sick horses can also be attribute to deficiency in these 2 elements, which would be caused by the constant exclusive provision of this Iron toxic water. Nor will it cause this excessive sunburn like symptoms which were prevalent in many of our sick horses being a symptom of liver failure caused by Iron toxicosis or other metal poisoning I will test the water again for any other known toxic metals and if necessary and possible get hair samples done of the sick horses.

2.27) As I mention a simple and cheap way to establish beyond any doubt the water was the problem is simply expose some healthy horses especially young horses to sole access of this water and monitor the deterioration in a controlled situation. But even though it is the cheapest method and will unequivocally clear and exonerate John and I from any allegation of neglect I am loathed to do it. On reflection I just will not do this but our accusers should be prepared to do this or accept this scientific evidence as the cause of the situation. As I explain latter.

2.28) I contacted a Professor in Toxicology at Lincoln University, Professor Ravi Gooneratne originally from Sri Lanka.

Initially this professor did not reply to my request for ratification of this matter. I then asked the person who recommended me contact him to contact him. Professor Gooneratne then sent me an e-mail stating he was agreeable to scrutinize our situation but was leaving the country for about 5 weeks and not due to return until around June 17th 2010.

Soon after this date I then e mailed Professor Gooneratne twice requesting an appointment and he did not reply to these. So I telephoned a number of times before I managed to speak to him He then agreed to meet me on Wed 7th July 2010.

During this meeting this professor seemed more concerned about the fact we did not engage a vet for our horses that were doing poorly than the actual situation involving the water. It is significant that these horses were under the supervision of the SPCA and the Canterbury Equine Clinic Vet and we did everything possible they suggested and more concerning the provision of sustenance to these horses Most importantly we found another suitable place to move them all to. As mention this Vet did not instruct us to test the water did not instruct us to do blood tests, did not instruct us to do hair sample tests, did not instruct us to use a different wormer. So apart from wasting vital money that we chose to spend on food for these horses I am not exactly sure what another Vet could have done or achieved.

2.29)He stated that there were no definitive studies on Iron Toxicosis in horses. I do not agree with this as there is clear and unambiguous expert literature that this Iron Toxicosis displays exactly the same symptoms as these horse on this property exhibited.

appendix .From the Merck veterinary manual .Chemical and Drug related causes of Toxic  Hepatopathy.

“In foals, acute Iron toxicity is commonly fatal. In adult horses although less commonly a problem, it causes enteric irritation and cardio vascular collapse with sudden death. Signs of more chronic hepatic failure include weight loss, icterus (jaundice) and depression, may be seen with repeated oral administration of Iron. Possible sources of excessive iron include in appropriate supplementations, forages high in Iron, injectable Iron and leaching of Iron into the water…” emphasis added

2.30)As there is no mechanism whereby the horse can excrete ingested Iron. If the sole drinking source of water is contaminated with Iron it is inevitable that eventually Iron Toxicosis will certainly result Unless the horses for some reason are tolerant or become tolerant to this constant ingestion of Iron toxic water which obviously humans are.. This is not rocket science it is common sense yet a Professor at Lincoln University does not see it or want to acknowledge it.

Horse City.com  “Iron toxicity due to over supplementation is most commonly seen in foals but can be seen in mature horses. Iron toxicity in horses can be difficult to treat especially if liver failure is already present …..The most common signs of liver failure in horses are anorexia, weight loss and jaundice. Horses with liver failure can also show signs of neurotic disease, photosensitization (similar to sever sunburn )and colic.”

2.31) This symptom of the sever sunburn is most significant, as most of our badly affected horses had this and can be seen from photographic evidence’s I have never seen this before in horses. This is not a symptom of sever worm infestation nor malnutrition which can already scientifically and positively discounted by the evidence of the amount of food these horses were getting and the presence of normal blood reading of Magnesium and Phosphorus not attributable to starved horses..    There is unequivocal evidence that the sole source of the water these horses were drinking “had significant amounts of Iron in it.”  This will eventually result in Iron toxicosis, which will lead to failure of the liver, which exhibits exactly the same symptoms as these sick horses possessed.

2.32) There is scientific evidence these horses were not being mal nourished. With the only possible contention the horse had become tolerant to the wormers being used. Yet how does that explain the horses in the Mt Sommers paddock, which were all in good condition with out being wormed to the same degree as these horses in Halswell but obviously not being forced to drink toxic water. And how does infestation of worms explain for the 10% of these horses that bloomed. (See photos and then register what liars these people are.)  Worms will notmake any horses bloom but a disproportionate supplementation of a mineral or element will This is exactly the situation with Arsenic some horse will get very sick and some will bloom at exactly the same doses per/kg.

2.32) As my parting comment to the Professor I stated that if I put horses back in this paddock with some subject to this water and others drinking non-toxic water it would conclusively clear this matter up. He stated, “You will not be allowed to do that” If the water is not the sole cause of this condition of our horses as is being suggested by all concerned including this professor. What would be the problem   with clarifying it in a controlled scientific experiment situation?  Obviously such an experiment is

inhumane, that is why I will not do it, but would clearly show it was the toxicity of the water that caused this nightmare for us. But I am puzzled that despite expert literature and definitive lab tests on the state of the water, this Professor will not correlate the 2. But is obviously weary of any horses being put back in the same situation (subject to the same water) as our horses were experiencing before this seizure .The Professor’s reluctance to ratify the affect of the water and his warning of reintroducing horses to this water is inconsistent and counter intuitive.

2.32)In this country all citizens used to be innocent until they were proven guilty. And the benefit of the doubtis given to the accused. I am not exactly sure how it works in the country this Professor originates from but I suspect they also have a British based justice system with the same basics tenets It is for the SPCA, the Vets and the Government to prove that that already proven horse toxic water did not cause our horses sickness not for us to prove it did. But according to the Professor the prosecutors will not be allowed to do this and rightly so. So it needs to be accepted. It’s the Government’s responsibility to ensure the clean fresh water coming out of the ground does not have minerals in it to a toxicity of double the USL or 3 times the MGV and if there is a possibility of this occurring .It is the Government’s responsibility to fully inform the citizens of such a possibility.

2..32) It is significant that UNIFCEF put down many drinking wells in Bangladesh but it was 3 years before it was discovered the water in them was toxic. We are being destroyed because we did not become aware of this insidious peril until about 14 months after our horses were exposed to clean, clear, fresh running water coming out of the ground in Canterbury. Though we were aware there was some problem way before 14months and had resigned to move all our horses away.

2.33) I can prove the food we were providing was well in excess the requirements of all our horses’ .I can prove we were regularly worming these horses. I can prove we were complying as best we could with the pertinent conditions of the SPCA and Vet they engaged. Whose stipulations had become unreasonable with no tangible connection to the real problem. I can prove the sole source of drinking water was contaminated with Iron and some of our horses exhibited exactly the same symptoms of Iron toxicosis as stated by imminent international authorities on the subject. I can prove that we were trying to find another suitable place to put all our horses andactually did before this seizure was enacted and the SPCA knew that.

3.0)What can the SPCA, TV3,Canterbury Equine Clinic and the Government prove in regard to the 38 horses plus the stallion . That has enabled them to seize all our horses, destroy 6 of them and destroy our lives?

3.1)They can prove we did not seek Veterinary opinion when our horses showed signs of this sickness in the winter of 2009.As can be seen the cost of the blood tests and other matters is well over $1000 the cost of the water tests was about the same. At this time we just could not afford this as all our money was being used to purchase food for these horses. But most importantly this would have not solved the real problem of the horses drinking that water as the blood tests did not show up any signs of toxicosis I would not have suspected therefore tested the water. Unless I had known the symptoms of liver failure as I do now I would have never ever suspected this.

 

3.2)Obviously all these Vet involved are not familiar with these symptoms as none of them have recognised or mentioned this as a matter of concern Contacting a Vet in the first instance only would have absolved us it most certainly would not have solved it. After the SPCA vet became involved there was little point of engaging another Vet. This Canterbury/Equine Clinic Vet didn’t even remotely come close to the source of the real problem as was so obsessed and completely pre occupied with the wrong fact our sick horses were so because of malnutrition. Throughout this period due to our ignorance of the cause of the problem and no constructive advice as to how it could be solve our main priority was trying to find another place for our horses. 

 

3.3) The SPCA can prove I did not have the stallion in a yard and were not fulling his box with sawdust after cleaning it. That is all

As I latter fully explain.  Had I had my chance again I would have done things completely different, which would have most likely ended in him being destroyed.(situation concerning our stallion) But who is responsible for the integrity of the water coming out of the ground in Canterbury, which caused a minority of our horses including this Stallion to become so sick. This horse received and ate more good quality hay than any horse I have ever seen.

 

 3.3)Who is responsible for integrity of the Local government process and the action of lawyers as well as the procedure of the Court, which has resulted in the pressured sale of our farm? Who is responsible for a corrupt justice system in this country when we spend so much time, effort and money fighting this situation concerning our farm it is dismissed with these Courts not even allowing us a right to trial plus huge costs awarded against us for this dishonest Local Government. Which I latter explain, this Local government has acted deceitfully and illegally the lawyers have acted with the epitome of dishonesty and these same Courts have lauded praised and endorsed this behaviour. What I am guilty of I was forced into because I could not bring myself to destroy this horse due to the situation we ended up in because of the unlawful behaviour these institutions and Lawyers chose to engage in so strongly sanitised and legitimised by the Courts. Had the Court of Appeal over turned the clearly flawed High Court judgement of Summary Judgement or the Supreme Court acted correctly by allowing us leave to appeal and these matters tested at trial, granting us back possession of our farm until this had been done. Obviously our stallion would not have been in this situation. But I am conscious this was not his problem it was mine. I do not absolve my self of guilt over this matter state only that I was doing my very best faced with the problems I had to deal with at the time. The fear of him escaping into the paddock, the not unlikely thought that the grass was creating his sickness. Combined with the unruly behaviour he had exhibited the last two times I had let him out in a yard. Meant I chose to leave him confined rather than risk the inevitable consequences of him escaping.   Like I say I will answer to the horse over this matter. I just could not bring my self to destroy this horse  or risk him putting himself in a position where he had to be destroyed But looking back I did not try hard enough to find a suitable place for him the only excuse I can offer is my brain was way overloaded with the problems I had and I became desensitised to his situation. Evidently he is fine now and that is good.  As I will not stop campaigning, lobbying and appealing   until I regain possession of him. Nor will I ever stop in litigation against any and everybody who has stated his poor condition was caused by malnutrition or starvation.     

3.4)We are confronting a problem concerning the verification of this evidence of Iron Toxicosis known as a phenomenon; common in the New Zealand Justice system “Closing ranks” It started with Doctor David Senior and finished with Professor Ravi Gooneratne. This can be no better demonstrated by the actions and comments by the Vet Dave Senior who we engaged to inspect these horses and quantify their condition.

3.5)Initially the day after the seizure Dave Senior was enthusiastic to inspect these horses. We had tried to engage him to inspect them during the seizure but he could not come at a moments notice. But as already acknowledged the SPCA would not allow anybody to inspect the vast majority of healthy horses immediately after seizure. Even though the document presented to me states we are entitled to have a vet or livestock consultant inspect these horses at any time. Shortly after the seizure Dave Senior managed to inspect the photos and reported back leaving a message of his interpretation of the condition of these horses. Including such comments as

3.6)…DAVE SENIORS COMMENTS FROM TRANSCRIPT

3.7)As time went on Dave Senior became more and more reluctant to inspect these horses and even after he did inspect them even more reluctant to provide any written report. It was only at the constant urging of John my Sister and I as can be seen from the e-mail correspondence (Appendix 5a  email correspondence Dave Senior) did Dave Senior finally furnish a report. Stating that the blood results were not consistent with mineral imbalances of starved horses. Stating that the condition of the sick horses was due to a break down in the worming procedure. It is significant to note there is no mention of the signs of Iron toxicosis in the blood tests consistent with the water these horses were forced to drink and the clinical symptoms these sick horses showed some of which are not associated with worm infestation but liver failure caused by Iron toxicosis. The results of Iron toxicosis would not be conspicuous unless it was specifically looked for which obviously these Vets did not do. By comparing the contents of the transcript of Dave Seniors initial report of the horses and the comments in the paper and the final report. It is clear that there is a contrast of opinion by the same Vet in a relatively short period of time.

3.8) This is obviously one of the reasons the SPCA resisted and delayed Dave Senior inspecting these horses in the first instance in order that compromising influences could come into play to distort the truth. Without a doubt time was our enemy in this matter and the SPCA used it and manipulated the dishonest and deceitful delay well in order that Dave Senior could re evaluate his priorities. Which by the time he made the final report had substantially altered from the first telephone message he left us. Dave Senior is a person John and I have never disliked nor had a bad word to say about before this matter. Fundamentally my opinion is he is a good and honest person but I have serious doubts about the integrity of many of his horsetrainer clients and associates including those who train his horses.  John and I deserved better from him than this. If Dave Senior did not wish to photograph our horses or give a true and correct account of the condition of all of them, he should have stated this right from the start. Instead of inferring and letting us assume the opposite. . Even heinous criminals in our society deserve to be judged by the truth and the truth alone.

3.9)This whole matter of political interference, undue influence and sway on expert opinion by the stronger party on the weaker is a matter which needs to be urgently rectified in our Justice system in New Zealand I should not have to beg people like Dave Senior to give a true and correct version of the condition of our horses. And organisations like the SPCA should not be able to use their disproportional, inordinate power and resources to pervert and prevent the course of justice as they have done in this case. That is rudimentary and fundamental.

3.10)So we are seeking overseas ratification

1) It is irrefutable   the existence of a   significant amount of Iron in the only source of water the horses were forced to drink

2)The fact that once ingested the horse has no way to rid or excrete the iron out of it system thus it is cumulative pertaining to the liver. In such a situation unless a tolerance exists or is developed it is not a matter of if this results but when. It is significant to note humans do not seem so adversely affected by Iron. Manganese was found in the water at low level. Horses appears are not affected by any concentration of Manganese at any level but humans will be. It is significant as well as worming these sick horses every 10-14 days we were supplementing Iron and Selenium As mentioned they made no improvement and might have even got worse.  Which again could be tested by the SPCA/Canterbury Equine clinic and Government to torture the horses even more under a controlled situation with access to only this water by supplementing these otherwise vital nutrients.

3)This Iron toxicosis will eventually cause liver failure

4)These sick horses showed symptoms of liver failure some specifically bad sunburn peeling, which I have never ever seen on a horse before.

5)It is a well-known characteristic of toxicosis that it affects different horses in different ways but this Iron Toxicosis is lethal to young horses and old. Which are clearly the most affected in our situation. With all our young horses and the stallion showing symptoms consistent with it.

6)With all these facts at the expert’s disposal combined with the scientific evidence that this matter was not caused by malnutrition. I would have thought properly ratifying these matters was a matter of simple arithmetic.

3.11) Not withstanding the Iron Toxicosis there is expert evidence malnutrition was not the cause but suggestion the sick horses were subject to a break down in the worming procedure. I strongly dispute this on the basis of the condition of our horses seized at another property which had be grazing there for over a year free of the Iron toxic water. We discounted worms or other parasites were the problem when the sick aged horses were wormed and drenched so often and actually got worse. As it transpired this was correct and the drenching with Iron and Selenium would have exacerbated the already horse toxic level of Iron in the water.

3.12) Even if this contention of Dr Senior’s on the worming is correct this cannot warrant the draconian action of the SPCA and the NZ Government on the basis of the evidence that all our horses were malnourished in a serious condition. Obviously we would not purposely or negligently give these horses wormer they were tolerant too, this is madness to suggest.

3.13) Worm infestation did not cause the symptoms exhibited in the 25-30% of horse including our stallion, which are exactly the symptoms of Iron toxicosis. Significantly high levels of Iron in the water, even higher levels of Iron in the tank these horses were drink exacerbated by me supplementing Iron and Selenium to these horses as well as the stallion every 10-14 days I was feeding them.

3.14) Conversely worm infestation did and will not cause the 25-30% of these horses to bloom and thrive like I have never seen horses do so well with exactly the same access to, food, water and worming as the others. An inverse reaction to the toxic Iron caused this, as is exactly the same situation with arsenic. This is obviously due to the stimulus of appetite this caused all these horses but the horses that bloomed were obviously tolerant to adverse and toxic effects. This also is commonsense not rocket science.

3.15) One thing that is for certain is malnutrition was no part of this problem as any lack of food will not cause any horses to thrive and bloom let alone 25-30% as did ours. This is adolescent logic, significant rationale grades below even common sense.

 

4.0)  THE  SPCA

The SPCA it seems, is run by a bunch of tyrannical fanatics who fly all over the country and arrive at their destination with a singled minded obsession equal to that of any totalitarian despots this world has ever seen.   They take and act on advice from people demonstrating such ingrained prejudice and bigotry they would be expelled by and from the KKK or any other hate fuelled organizations for undue extremist, uncompromising views and opinions. These people who have been driving this, especially the Halswell cess pit et al, and that nasty, in all manner deprived individual from Lincoln with his deficient associate from Springston, they would out-hate the klan by open lengths going away 

 

4.1) We never really had any dealing with the SPCA until we got evicted from our farm in Rolleston. In the effort to keep our horses while we were litigating this matter with the Selwyn District Council, concerning our farm in Rolleston. We found some nice paddocks to put   3 or 4 of them in each. One such paddock was in Diamond harbour and a neighbour who wanted the use of the paddock for her sheep complained to this SPCA. And sure enough we got all these stipulations for the horses including killing the mare in photo’s 4,5 and 6. From memory I think because it was fatally lame according to some no name supplied Vet. Also the irony of the situation was the water trough had algae in it, like most do and the SPCA would not stop raving on about it, till I got a large handful of this water and drunk it in front of them. As mentioned I have never seen one bit of algae or otherwise discolouring agent in this water the horses were drinking out of in Halswell.(there is a good lesson in life there. I saw a article about drug dealing in aboriginal neighbourhoods the drug dealers houses were spotlessly immaculate) The SPCA’s initial complaint about the water at Halswell was the stainless steel tank (500lts) was not big enough so we replaced it with a large 4-5000lts open tank steel tank. Then this escalated to increase the number of troughs, which we were in the process of doing. But would have made absolutely no difference had the horses been drinking the same toxic Iron water.

4.2) It always intrigues me when these people come along and in the name of doing “God’s work” advocate that horses should be killed or in our case confiscated from the owner. Then tell lies, exaggerate and embellish the evidence to justify their slanted beliefs But realistically nobody will care for all those horses, as will we, when given access to chemically clean, toxic free water. So the vast majority will end up killed, who has this right, have they asked these horses? Logically had we gone out and had killed every horse including the stallion as soon as they were being affected by that water obviously we would have avoided all this and we would have 50-70% less horses as most showed some affects to a greater or lesser degree. Killing these horses in this situation to me that truly would have been failure.

4.3) Many of these horse a showed a varying degree of affect to this and seemed to become tolerant to it that is why we were hoping they all would do Photo 17 is an example of this. This horse in the winter was sick as any which were destroyed this photo taken in Nov 09 would suggest it has improved I consider the condition of this horse to be average and not acceptable as compared to photos 13.14 and 14a which this horse also showed initial signs of this toxicity but obviously overcame it and like many of the mares actually bloomed under these conditions again this is an example of a metal or heavy metal supplementations. Worm infestation will not make horses bloom as did some of our horses even which can be seen of the photo evidence of some of our horses. (This apparent tolerance would also discount worms as the cause). As I explained to that “airhead” TV3 reporter Uttering, John and I did our very best for those horses In spite of being so financially strapped and putting all my efforts into this litigation process, through no fault of our own.

4.4) We became obsessed at trying to get more food for them   Every spare bit of money (plus some) we had, we spent on trying to sustain them and keep these horses healthy In hindsight had they had access to healthy drinking water or had we known or been advised of the situation concerning the drinking water despite the hurdles and unbelievable bad whammies we had to over come we would have done it to an acceptable standard. We never ever gave up and went without everything in order an acceptable amount of food could be provided for them at all times. Which can be clearly seen from the photos of all the horses for some reason notaffected by this Iron Toxicosis. It is significant none of the mid age broodmares who had previously had foals are affected (this would suggest some hormone change prevented the effects of it). The stallion and 3 young colts were badly affected and some of the maiden (never had a foal) mares (3) quite badly as well as all the young horses

4.5) The SPCA shot that young horse and killed the other 5 to justify their fanaticism in this matter. They turned these young horses into martyrs for the SPCA and these Halswell pony cesspits, obsessive and extremist desires, but obviously they could not ask the horses if they wanted to die for such a cause   The Vet who inspected theses horses on our behalf stated they were all salvageable. Had these horses, killed by the SPCA been given access to the grazing we had found, free of the toxic water. They may well have been fine. I cannot guarantee this as some of them may have suffered permanent kidney or liver damage from drinking that water. But at the very least after what they had been through they deserved a chance to live.  With respect to the horse shot on the property, despite numerous requests, the SPCA has not produced any evidence or explanation of why it didn’t comply with the section 138 of Animal Welfare Act by contacting us first. The first time the SPCA contacted my brother John was when I was with them obviously by now the horse had been shot. I have also requested copies of the photos of the horse alive supposedly on the ground, again to no avail. The SPCA and the Canterbury equine Vet with John inspected all these horses .3 days before this operation and there was nomention of any of them that where in such a degree of suffering they needed to be destroyed.

4.6) The head of this operation was one, Charles Codwopter  (or something like that) I note he is English, based in Auckland. He and some other fanatics (The SPCA Flying Squad) flew down from Auckland especially to mount this assault on my brother John’s and my democratic rights and with the help of the Courts and Police, steal our horses. On the basis of a Court order granted on undisclosed, untested affidavit evidence supported by the authority of multiple Police accompanying presence [still many months after our horses have been stolen we have not been able to see or be informed of this affidavit evidence or its contents] This Clodhopper geezer was running round dishing out orders like General Montgomery, John Boyd the brander was badly kicked by these so-called malnourished horses that were according to the SPCA, in a serious condition. The only thing in any kind serious condition in this whole affair was Boyd (hospitalised) after he had been kicked. The day before Boyd was hospitalised by a kick one of these SPCA officers was completely trampled again by a so-called malnourished horse.  But Clodhopper, he was too cunning to get anywhere near where he was likely to get hurt. He resembled the British Generals of Black Adder’s depiction in WW1 rather than Montgomery in WW2.

4.7) I mention Codwater is English, because the English are a race of people I have developed a huge amount of respect for. Although no part of my ancestry belongs to any descendent from England .In the future the English will be remembered and honoured by history as the saviours of democracy and freedom in Europe.

Unlike the other protagonist of the Nazi’s, the English had a choice not to fight Hitler.  Because of the ingrained sense of justice, equity and fairness in the development of the English culture and society, the reality was they had no choice but to fight something so abhorrent to the values this country’s people have, developed, professed and promulgated and holds so dearly. Making the consequences of this confrontation, win or die. English society developed a process of justice and representation. A language of consensus and compromise and most important justice and equity enunciated the culture and ethos of such. As opposed to the culture I descend from which were fundamentally a bunch of Warlords who main thought process went into deceit, vengeance, fighting and making then drinking of whiskey. It is not a mistake of history that the English language does dominate the world while Celtic/Gaelic (my family’s native language) will become dead and extinct.

4.8)Yet what is so amazing is this same English race of people send ‘non accounters’ and ‘no nothings’ from their own country (like Clodwater and his ilk) to the former colonies, with cultures and people who share the same values. Then these English ex pats get in position of petty official power and demonstrate behaviour, which is the complete antithesis of the principles and values of the English culture. Cakewalker and his type render the status of the non-English inhabitants (John and I) of these immigrants’s new home as that of beneath peasants. No doubt this kind of behaviour and attitude, by the likes of Codwaper and his ilk was responsible for the American Revolution and the atrocities committed by the English in Ireland and Scotland in times past.

4.9)In the many discussions my sister had with Codwoper in trying only to secure access by somebody not employed by, or connected to the SPCA, to photo and objectively assess the condition of all our horses straight after the seizure. Codwater’s reply to my sister was that, John and I have no rights and the SPCA can do as they like with these horses. Hey Charlie, in this country everybody has rights, even the most heinous criminals and suspected Arab terrorists who not only are afforded all the rights and privileges of our British based justice system the but government goes on to laud more than $million in legal aid on. All we wanted was the opportunity for the condition of all our horses to be photographed and properly assessed by a group of experts not associated with the SPCA. In denying this SPCA were preventing and perverting the course of Justice.

4.10) It is irrefutable that it was denied and we needed to engage a lawyer to secure it. I also contacted the office of the Minister of Agriculture David Carter in attempt to derive some sanity from this madness, of denial of access for independent evaluation of the true condition of our horses. I have to say this office was not helpful stating that as the SPCA would lay charges, this Cabinet Ministers office could not get involved against these apparent backwoods dement fanatics. This SPCA certainly has a lot of power that the Ministry of agriculture in New Zealand will not intervene to ensure the process and procedure of justice are not abused.  Our request of political intervention by this Ministry was not to secure the return of our perfectly healthy horses in accordance with the Animal Welfare Act. But merely to influence the situation to access these horses so they could be inspected with the true condition verified and photographically recorded. This was not an unreasonable request and no other reason but deceit and defiance of fair judicial process can be attributed to the SPCA ‘s denial of such a request.

4.11) Then once this partial access was secured with Cadwater and his associates, by now back in Auckland. The Canterbury manager (Sutton) still denied access on the day it was agreed and arranged, 2days after the seizure. We then had to contact a lawyer again to re gain this access, which was achieved, but by now the Vet who was the only person allowed by this organisation to assess these horses. Had other commitments so it was postponed until immediately after Easter. On the Tuesday after Easter the SPCA again postponed this till the coming Thursday. As some other petty official needed to fly down from Auckland to be in attendance. (Please note that not all English officials in this country resemble Capwalter in anyway. I had dealings with a Englishman in the Christchurch City Council and an English immigrant Policeman, and it would be hard to find a more fair and reasonable people There are many New Zealand officials who act just the same way as Clodhopper but the English that come here and choose to act like this, they should know better and seem to enjoy and relish their role of dominant bully authority. No doubt because the no account achievement in their own country)

4.12) We requested as well the Vet, 2 prominent Harness racing stud masters a harness racing bloodstock agent and a stipendiary steward from Harness Racing New Zealand. For the avoidance of doubt Harness Racing New Zealand declined the opportunity to inspect these horses. Stating as John and I were not at the time licensed so this matter was not with in their (HRNZ) juristiction I find this confusing, as all of these horses are branded and blood typed and by far the majority are registered (those that are not is only due to names not being forwarded) which obviously will be done in due course. Because of the vast amount of fees paid to this organization to comply these horses I am perplexed why HRNZ declined the opportunity to inspect them when they were seized.

4.13)As well, John and I have been licensed by HRNZ and obviously intend to renew our licenses again in the near future. It would be in HRNZ interests of fairness as well as justice, to view these horses to make a fair and objective assessment as to our suitability to be re licensed. But as I later explain the interests of fairness and justice are very low priorities in the ethos and actions of this seemingly corrupt organisation with its unbelievably vindictive officials. This matter with HRNZ and their involvement has taken an interesting twist with HRNZ specifically Mr Rennell the CEO and Mr Kitto mentioned and implicated in an article on a prominent Industry web site, Harness Link, as the main drivers in instating the seizure. Surely on one hand HRNZ cannot absolve them from inspecting these horses by stating it is beyond their jurisdiction and on the other hand become involved in this very process from an antagonist position. The woman I spoke to a Ms Hearn first denied categorically any involvement by HRNZ in the matter then her written response was some what ambiguous. Then when challenged as to why they were not concerned at the comment of direct and specific involvement by the CEO and Racecourse detective on this prominent and accepted as credible website. She stated she was not concerned about what is put on other websites and if I have a problem with what is on this web site I should contact them before this woman eventually putting the phone down on me It is not general opinion what this website is suggesting but authenticated and specific that these senior officials of HRNZ were responsible for it appears the seizure of our supposedly starved stallion. The heading of the website article is self explanatory “Stallion rescued from starvation” and the article directly implicates and supposedly credits Rennell and Kitto to be the saviours of this supposedly starving horse.  This along with most every other thing involved in this matter is just incredible that it would happen in a supposedly democratic country. In some things involving some people New Zealand has about as much adherence to democratic process as North Korea. But be a criminal that steals from or hurts innocent people the system will bend over backwards to accommodate, rationalise and excuse such evil villains

4.14) During the denial of access by the SPCA to independent assessors as well as contacting our member of Parliament and Minister of Agriculture, I contacted the CEO of this SPCA, some woman called Kipping. In all my life I have never been so abused anything like it. In the phone conversation, which I chose not to engage in anyway aggressively, she purveyed a raft and litany of insult and abuse towards me unmatched and unheard in my entire life. And Ms Kipping was adamant that the Vet the SPCA had engaged (who obviously had never heard of Iron Toxicosis and wasn’t sufficiently interested to find out) was the only expert allowed to view these horses Then Ms Kipping repeated that she had viewed the TV3 video reiterating this point interspersed with a spiel of more insult and false derogatory references to and about me, as well as constantly telling me to look in the mirror, before way past rudely, slamming the phone down.

4.15)  I thought if this is the way the CEO carries on “what kind of nutters organization am I involved in here, this lot appear more weird than something out of the backwoods American TV show who are sure Elvis is not dead, drink moonshine whiskey that would power a rocket to the moon, speak English only they can understand, frequently, brothers marry sisters and still they still are certain, the civil war is and will not be lost”

4.15) The behaviour of the SPCA in this matter would make such a caricature seem the embodiment of a diverse, vibrant, tolerant and broadminded society.

4.16) As for Clodhopper, who ever the immigration official is who lets such people into this country, his/her duties and performance should be strictly and meticulously audited for evidence of unauthorised inducement. Because I am of the opinion, nobody running legal would let such an idiot into this country. I am of the honest opinion Charlie Clodwopper must have agreed to paint the immigration officers fence or mow their lawns and do their garden twice a week for life. What other possible reason could there be to let such an obviously devious and deficiently demented imbecile into this country.

4.17) This SPCA had zero compliance to our democratic values and even less regard to any due process. They constantly stated that all our horses were mal nourished and in a serious condition. But did everything to stall and delay anybody not employed by this apparently, demonic, fanatic and plainly twisted organization from viewing assessing and photographing our horses. Then were adamant only one person representing us could inspect these horses.  On critical examination of the grazing these horses were put in by the SPCA, it is understandable they did not want anybody to see it. (Please refer photos page 25)

4.18) The SPCA have constantly flaunted and ignored many of their obligations under the Animal Welfare Actand they are bullies who pick their victims to ostracise and destroy people who do not deserve this. One of the motives for this sensationalism seems to be to accrue more funding by way of donations to fund the jet set and irrational lifestyle of the managers and petty officials like Codwalker and the other woman who specially needed to fly back from Auckland .to be in attendance while the Vet inspected our horses.

4.19) What the SPCA has done here is, if a farmer has for some unknown reason something, which was affecting25 –30% of his animals. The SPCA on the basis of false and misleading evidence and an antagonistic Vet with a connection of personal grievance, gone to the Court to get a court order then accompanied with the authority of multiple police presence Come and seize all the farmers animals even though the other 75% of animals are fine with the same % that are sick are in immaculate condition. They then also go to another property and seize animals that are under the supervision of somebody else, some animals of which are owned by another person. They do this when with the benefit of hindsight it is shown the transfer to another property would have completely solved the mysterious problem.

The SPCA then issue statements to the media all of these animals are malnourished in a serious condition and this is the sole reason for the seizure as well as wrongly stating the owner had not co operated or complied with the instruction to try and remedy the problem.

4.20) The SPCA then deny access to independently assess the condition of all these animals so the owner has to initiate legal proceedings in order to seek this access to justice to defend these false assertions, allegations and claims. Finally this limited access (only one of the owner’s representative is allowed when 5 were requested.) is obtained 10 days after the seizure when the owner’s representative was denied access on the morning of the very first day after the seizure. Even though it is professionally established only a small % of the animals are effected The SPCA giveaway all the animals to a multiple of undisclosed carers How long would this kind of behaviour last in the agricultural industry? This would not happen in China or Russia more like behaviour associated with Mugabe controlled Zimbabwe.

4.21) We enacted a process, which would have solved this problem by finding another place for our horses. The SPCA was fully aware of this before they executed the warrants to seize all our horses. The SPCA with the full authority of the Government New Zealand along with Joseph Gobles protégés (Campbell live) have dishonestly and disingenuously destroyed my brother John an my lives. Based purely on lies as can be seen from the true condition of the majority of our horses.

4.22) It is very easy to explain what this apparently dishonest and deceitful organization (SPCA) was trying to do by denying access after seizure, in our case. Apart from the compromising affect it obviously had on Dave Senior’s judgement. The longer they could keep those horses with out any outside scrutiny, added credence to the false and slanderous claims of all these horse condition being so poor at the time of the seizure. As obviously the TV3 programme did an excellent job at falsely establishing that all these horses conformed with the article in the Press Newspaper of being in a serious condition of malnutrition..  Then these disgusting and deceitful liars backed up by the NZ Police and District Court could falsely claim any perceived improvement has been due to the SPCA’s care. How is an honest citizen who tries to obey not only the law but also the moral and social conventions of our society supposed to deal with this? The problem with this is how could the SPCA explain or account for the horses that were still in poor condition at the time of inspection, why haven’t they produced the evidence of the photos taken and condition scores taken at the time of seizure. How does the SPCA account for levels of Iron in the water these horse were drinking being more than twice the USL(upper safe limit) and 3 times theMGV(maximum guideline value)  which would account for Iron toxicosis and consistent with the symptoms which about 25-30 % of these horses exhibited.

4.23) Judges in this country only listen to or acknowledge what suits their own personal agenda and after the experience of the litigation with the Selwyn District Council concerning our farm. I have about as much confidence in these people acting fairly as attending a free concert of Elvis Presley preforming live with the Beetles in Hagley Park at Christmas time.    How does the SPCA account for the Magnesium and Potassium levels of these horsesnot resembling that of starved (malnourished) horses (Obviously we would not have this crucial evidence had my sister, John and my self not pushed so hard for the access to our horses the SPCA were so successfully and strongly denying) Why was the Vet the SPCA chose as sole judge and arbitrator of the condition of all of these horses, not alive to this condition of Iron Toxicosis, making the drinking water the sole cause of the problem.

4.24) We had 4 other horses grazing in a 3ha paddock, which we own. We relied on local residents to keep an eye on them and inform us of any problems (which they had agreed to do). I have a dispute with one of the neighbours as if we don’t graze our land he puts his animals in it stating it is a fire danger and as it transpires the boundary fence the neighbour erected is wrong taking about 1 ha of our property. This neighbour is constantly complaining to the SPCA and I had an altercation with one of these officers who wrongly believed he could prevent me from entering my own property .As it transpires I remember reading an article about this SPCA individual, something to do with not being able to gain full status to the SPCA in regards to connection with receiving a stolen motorbike. Such people will not prevent me from entering my own property.

 

4.25) So we had not heard from the nearby residents concerning our horses in this paddock so on Sunday 8th May visited there with some large bales of hay for them. We found the fence cut and these 4 horses gone with a 2 faded notices on the gate One of inspection on April 7th stating “4 horses in “reasonable” condition with virtually no grazing”. There is either grazing or not. And considering these SPCA stated the condition of the horses in the photo’s I have posted was malnourished it is far to assume these other 4 must be an improvement on them.

4.26) We were relying on the residents to inform us of the situation the last time we visited these horses there was plenty of grazing. Had we be informed differently we would have either delivered some hay or moved these horses But as can be expected we had a lot on our mind at this time so waited for advice from the residents.

This is obviously a different situation than Halswell. As these 4 horses were not being exposed to toxic water their condition was fine but the SPCA has just decided without any notification or consultation, to take them anyway.

4.27) Sutton (SPCA manager) has our telephone number and they are fully aware of our residential address but like all bullies these SPCA individual are cowards. So they just decided to do this and leave a notice on the gate. There are many paddocks in the area with much less grazing and many more animals’ p/sm     but nobody seems concerned, especially so this SPCA. (Photo’s 36,37&37a) of paddock horse are grazing adjacent to where our horses were put by seizure of SPCA)

(Photo38, 39,40 of horses grazing in a paddock close to our place at Mt Sommers please compare to photos 18,19,20 which even though a different season still produced sick anorexic horses obviously overgrazing was not causing this situation nor was it malnutrition)

4.28) Part of the driver for this excessive SPCA heavy handed attitude and motive can be deduced from the District Court Judges comments in the Press of Thursday May 20th 2010 eluding to the lack of any reactive action by the SPCA in the Emerald Lodge case “ If they had gone there they would have realised that the complaints were well founded, The Judge said” This SPCA organisation was never ever off our back and completely failed along with their Vet in tow to recognise or inform us of the real problem (toxic water) nor inform us of any other method to test and verify this situation. Had they let the matter take its due course all of our horses would have been removed from that property, too much more suitable grazing, despite TV3 falsely stating, no water, access to toxic free water. The Judge goes on.

“ The claim of right was a genuine belief that the act was lawful

She had legal advice and it was more than reasonable for her to assume the horses should stay with her after the inaction by the SPCA over several months, even with pressing evidence the horses were in poor condition.”

4.29)  This claim of right endorsed by a District Court Judge is an interesting concept. It is allowing somebody to take the law in to their own hands as did the protester who vandalised the USA communications base.  .By virtue of the same common law principle that could date back as far as or beyond this legal system its self, which is about 700years.(It may well be a statute I am not sure) Well before there were any such things as Police or Court orders. As it is now established that only 25-30% of the horses were anyway below acceptable condition and scientific evidence quantifies this condition was not attributed to the stated theme of mal nutrition or neglect. As the SPCA will not produce the evidence used to access the Court Order for all these horse’s seizure (counting the75% past acceptable including at least 25% immaculate) As we are the owners of these horses which it is reasonable to assume have been seized on false and misleading evidence and contrary to the will of Parliament. It is not unreasonable for us to endeavour to take them back as ‘a claim of right’. What is the point of the process if this rubbish is allowed, tolerated and endorsed by the Courts?

4.30) These New Zealand Judges have usurped way too much discretionary power. Claim of right, sounds like something ‘Merlin the Magician and King Arthur’ would rely onObviously this ‘Claim of Right’ concept had no meaning in the times of Robin of Locksley and his Merry men in Sherwood Forest. Otherwise instead of ‘Robin Hood’ he would be known as ‘Robin Right’.  I could think of no more a worthy recipients of this ancient Common Law principle, than so. The Judge refers to the pressing evidence of the poor condition of these horses (Emerald Lodge), may be the same District Court Judge can view the photos of all our horses and give her opinion. I don’t understand why the SPCA in the situation with the Emerald lodge horses, didn’t get a Court Order from a Justice of Peace to forcibly seize the horses back from Subrensky . With the police presence as in our case and then there would be no issue of theft. This SPCA as well as being abhorrent and an aberration to the method and process of Justice acts like an extremely dishonest and disingenuous organisation.

 

5.0) COURT PROCESS.

These horses were seized on the basis of a warrant issued by a Justice of the Peace on SPCA, unseen by us, Affidavit evidence to the District Court

Which I believe was based on false and misleading information.

It is significant that despite enquiries at the District Court and requests to the SPCA under the Official Information Act.  Copy of request under Official Information Act. Appendix 6) [Copy of request for second opinion concerning conditions of our horses Appendix 6a)] We have not yet been able to see a copy of the of the Affidavit evidence that the Court used to issue an order resulting in the seizure of all our horses. Or any kind of summary of the theme and main points and substance of evidence used by the Courts to enact this seizure of our horses. Or the photo’s and condition scores of the horses seized on the day. What possibly could be the justification of denial of us seeing the affidavit evidence, which has resulted in the seizure of these, our horses. Or these courts provide a summary of the substance of the evidence. Including the main points justifying it and a detailed description of how our horses are described and what if any is the reason for this condition. This request to the SPCA and the New Zealand courts is not unreasonable nor an unrealistic expectation

5.1) Neither I, nor the lawyer we have engaged can see anywhere, Parliament has given authority to anyone let alone a charade of backwoods apparently dishonest fanatics like this SPCA. To seize any animal not destined for destruction or to mitigate pain and in need of Veterinary supervision.

5.2) When some officer turns up with an order authorised by the Court .I and everybody else needs to abide by it as if the general population did not there would be anarchy. The SPCA seemed disappointed that along with their Police reinforcements, I did not physically resist this seizure.  It would not have mattered if a little old lady had arrived with a Court order. We would not have resisted as compared to anybody at all trying to take our horses or prevent us from entering our land without a Court Order or the authority of Parliament. This is why the integrity of process, which involves the Court, is so important.  It is my strong contention the SPCA has purposely abused this. If so, the Court is culpable for the apparent acquiesce and failure to ratify this situation after I especially twice made the effort to contact the District Court in a civil and rational way to explain our concerns.

5.3) If this Court Order has such serious and onerous ramifications that enables outfits like the SPCA to seize all our horses on the basis of the opinion of a hostile Vet. Who is obviously remiss and negligent in his professional role, at not recognising the real problem with the minority of these horses. As well as dishonestlymisrepresenting the true condition of the majority of our horses. As did TV3, so deviously cunningly and effectively. As well this Vet was antagonistically deceitful and malicious, at purposely neglecting to inform us of this fundamental and serious toxicosis.  Being possibly, strongly motivated by the personal grievance I have with his employer. Because of the unique and subjective circumstances of this situation. We should have immediate access to that evidence and if necessary immediate access to the means and machinery to facilitate a just and fair result. Which can only start with the immediate return of all our horses.

If as the District Court described. The only challenge we have is by way of High Court Judicial review, a complicated, technical and expensive legal process. If this is the only means of challenging this situation and securing the immediate return of our horses, under these circumstances, it is all kinds of wrong.

5.4) We are extremely concerned that our horses have been dispersed to all manner of places and people with out anybody having any kind of responsibility for them. I have instructed the SPCA I will hold the officials concerned personally culpable and liable for the safe return of each and every one of the remaining 28 horses plus the 4 from Mt Sommers..

5.5) The SPCA was required under the Animal Welfare Act to furnish us with a list of all the horses taken within 10 working days of the seizure. This like many other requirements to abide by this legislation in relation to communicating or informing us of the situation with our horses has been ignored.

5.6) Under the Official Information Act we have requested a copy of this Affidavit Evidence and some other information but as per usual the SPCA has purposely ignored this request and flaunted the law. But it does appear that affidavits concerning search warrants are not subject to this OIA. These organisations like the SPCA and the Courts use the law when it suits them and ignore the law when it doesn’t suit them. This can be no better demonstrated by the actions and behaviour of the Supreme Court of New Zealand   where one of these Judges sat on cases where his business partner in another venture was counsel appearing before him. They have come up with some vague concept similar to this claim of right nonsense to justify this absurd situation. In so doing completely ignoring the fundamental principles of our Justice system that the appearance of objectivity is just as important as actual objectivity. But most of all this Court system including the Supreme Court of New Zealand ignores and disregards plain common sense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.0) THE SITUATION  CONCERNING OUR STALLION

.This matter concerns me most, as although I could not have changed the poor condition he was in due to the affects of that water. I could of, with a bit more thought and foresight greatly improved the perception of the situation he was in.

6.1)We purchased this horse in 2003 from the USA he is extremely well bred but a ‘journeyman’ type of racehorse but obviously honest and sound (injury free) to have been able to race so many times, about 300 and win or placed 150. His sire Albatross was a champion racehorse in the USA and up until the emergence of Abercrombie was touted as the most dominant and successful sire of any breed of racehorse in the world. His dam by Tyler B was a world record holder and champion juvenile (2 year old) and the family, they trace from (the Old Maid) is the leading family in the USA a leading source of champions stallions in New Zealand including Light Brigade and Bachelor Hanover.

6.2) His sire Albatross was the sire of 3 of the best sires in New Zealand recent history; Vance Hanover, Soky Atom and Holmes Hanover (prior to the emergence of  ‘In the Pocket’ and his son ‘Christen Cullen’). Unfortunately Danny B progeny on the racetrack have disappointed and been well below expectations. Though the ones we were training (which include many of horses that were seized) until such time as we needed to stop training them because these litigation matters involving our farm. We were extremely happy with. As well we had invested a huge amount of time, money and effort into these horses to see some of them descend to such poor condition, was heartbreaking and soul destroying.

6.3) The stallion himself is a lovely horse except when he gets in a bad temper. This is very rarely and only when he is out in a yard. Then he is uncontrollable especially if he is in proximately to another horses.

6.4) Twice he nearly killed me when he would not be caught due to his bad temper. As well he straddled a rail whereby we had to cut the fence with a chain saw to get him off So after the second display of bad temper when he wouldn’t be caught I decided for his own good I would not put him back out in a yard unless he could be residentially supervised and there was some means of herding him into a box to catch him. Plus I would have to be certain no other horses especially mares could get anywhere near him.  As I explained to the TV3, he was in the box for his own good. Because American racehorses spend all their time in boxes for some reason he was much better behaved and compliant when in a box then if he was let out in a yard.

6.5) I will be surprised if he does not exhibit this behaviour in his new environment but it should be remembered he is 20, which is equal to about 70 years in human age, and obviously he was affected by this Iron toxicosis as well.

6.6) Like everything in that TV3 programme the situation was manipulated to portray us in the worse possible light. There were 5 boxes he was using and usually every 2 or 3 days I would move him to a clean out box I couldn’t do this every day as we had to barricade the door to stop him getting over it. Providing he had plenty to eat and drink every day and a wall to kick occasionally He seemed contented.

6.7) During March for the first time in about 20 years I was bedridden with extremely bad flu for about 2 or 3 weeks but still this horse was religiously fed every day. Some days he would eat a conventional bale of hay a day most days about ¾ of a bale. I have never seen a horse eat so much hay let alone eat it and be in such poor condition. I did not know what to do with him as obviously we did not wish to breed any more horses at this time, so none of our mares were in foal. But like most all people who breed racehorses, we had an eternally optimistic belief next year would be better.

6.8) I did not want to feed him grain as thought he would kick the wall harder and increase the risk of breaking his back leg. That horse must have bones harder than steel originally we would put wooden pallets there for him to kick and he would just destroy them but because those boxes were wood and eventually destined for demolition Hopefully kicking those walls did not cause anybody any concern. Despite the perception created he was never angry or agitated for being in those boxes. If he was out in a yard and there was a wall to kick he would walk over to the wall and stand there kicking it. His sire did exactly the same thing.

6.9) I had made a yard lined with electric fence restraint which was about 2 metres high but I was hesitant to put him in this as I still thought maybe the grass was causing the horse’s sickness, him as well, as I had previously spent many hours cutting grass for him to eat. This ailment concerning reaction to the grass is called rye grass stagers and is common and prevalent in this situation.

6.10) According to Wikapedia “Neotyphodiumum coenophial is a systemic and seed transmissible (endophyte) a grass endemic to Eurasia and North Africa but widely naturalised in North America, Australia and New Zealand. The endophyte has been identified as a “fescue toxicosis” syndrome sometime suffered by livestock that graze the N coenophial grass.

Possible symptoms include poor weight gain, rough hair coat and lameness as well as reproductive complaints.”

6.11) Some years ago we received a mare back from a reputable stud close to the vicinity in Halswell, after grazing there for about 6 weeks. This mare was in as bad or worse condition as any of these horses we had. The reason the stud gave us was ‘grass staggers’ this horse died soon after we received her back. From this experience I thought the reason for the poor condition of some of our horse was the sick ones were affected the same way. For this reason I did not want to expose the stallion to any more grass on this property in Halswell.

6.12) As we had seen a perfect situation to make a yard at the new place in Kirwee we intended to move all our horses to I preferred not to take the risk of him getting out in the paddock with the other horses and more than likely he would have got completely off the property. As if that happened the only way he could have been prevented from causing unbelievable destruction and havoc was a bullet. I was just was not prepared to risk that and standing there eating copious amounts of good hay, which the evidence of in the shed beside his area. Including used conventional bale strings, was plain for all to see with the shed still half full of conventional bales of hay.

6.13) What I did choose was instead of spending money on sawdust I chose to buy hay for all our horses. The condition of most of the horses shown in the photos is testament to this. Due to the problem caused by the toxic level of Iron in the water. We were required to buy much more hay than would have been otherwise necessary. I considered sawdust for him a luxury as contrast to hay for all the horses. As my brother and I had no luxuries over the past 3 years I felt he could do with out luxuries also in order that money could be used to buy food for all the horses. Obviously now I regret this choice.

6.14) Clearly I have let my brother John, my sister Desiree and myself down on this matter. But most of all I have let the horse down. I qualify this by stating had he not demonstrated such crazy behaviour when he had previously been in a yard obviously he would have been in one. But I should have put more thought into the situation and found a place we could permanently leave him in a yard safely. One person I later mention that John and I helped immeasurably had a perfect place the stallion could have stayed as did our parents eldest son. Obviously these two individuals have a reason for leaving us in this predicament when they could have so easily alleviated it.

6.15)   I prioritise things and had never been faced with a situation whereby anything like so many of our horses had been in such poor condition and unable to rectify it. After some time I became desensitised to this and just became single minded in trying to provided as much food as possible to all those horses. Which John and I achieved despite the false and misleading statements to the contrary. I challenge anybody (normal) to look at the condition of the broodmares and state how anybody would have broodmares in such good condition and not do their very best to care for the stallion. It is not logical to neglect or has been stated abuse the stallion and have fat healthy brood mares unless something else is cause the problem with the stallion. The cruel irony of this situation is now our business situation has changed for the better as well as finding a perfect place we could afford to rent for our horses We could obviously have afforded the load of sawdust now.

6.16) Had I had a suitable yard for this stallion or been putting sawdust in his boxes after cleaning. It would have changed the perception of his situation. But while he was drinking that water nothing but nothing would have changed his physical condition or well-being. Somebody is responsible for the hygienic integrity of clean, clear water coming out of the ground in Canterbury. Who ever it is, along with that aggressively, antagonist obnoxious, apparently grossly negligent, deficiently professional, incompetent Vet from Canterbury Equine Clinic, (the symptoms of Iron toxicosis are on the internet and in Vet books for all see.) One would expect a Vet to know what is written in Vet books. I’m a truck and machinery Importer by occupation I need to and do understand the nuances of strengths weakness and vulnerabilities of Japanese trucks and machinery much better than the people who use them everyday. Infact we sold some 4wds to this Canterbury Equine Clinic I don’t remember any complaints from Bill Bishop the principle.

6.17) I have never heard of Iron in water let alone dreamt it could have such a toxic effect on horse’s liver to cause failure.  Yet I still managed to figure out the problem from the symptoms and resources apparent. Maybe if this Vet had shown a bit more professional objectivity and less preponderance for subjective aggression, insults and character assassination. This matter and the condition of these horses would have been improved in a civilised manner.   The person responsible for, or not informing us of the possibility of such water being toxic to horses which includes the SPCA and this Vet are completely responsible for this situation and the condition of these horses.

6.18) The only thing I am guilty of is being afraid to leave this Stallion in a yard and not buying sawdust for him. The evidence of his yard being cleaned out regularly is there for anybody to see. With large pile of fresh manure which was conveniently ignored by all concerned .Not only is this pile evidence of the stallions boxes being cleaned out it is obviously evidence of the amount of food this horse was not only being feed but also eating. But I certainly regret this situation and if I had my choice over would have obviously done something different for this horse.

6.19) Since getting into the litigation with the Selwyn District Council which I latter explain and has basically be the cause of us not only losing our farm but the dire financial situation we found ourselves in. I have lost complete confidence in the legal process of this country and the ability of these Courts to act fairly and justly in following the laws made in Parliament. But we do not deserve to lose our horses over this matter.

6.20) I don’t care what it takes I will not stop until these horses are rightfully returned to us including the stallion. That Stallion is my friend; I like the horse very much. The courage and will power he must have had to front up behind the mobile barrier over 300 times I truly admire. I like the way he has so much fight and rage in him but 99% of the time is mild, trustworthy and friendly I hope he has not sustained any serious damage from being given this water and I look forward to meeting him again. I will answer to him over this matter. If the reason he looked so bad was that we had not been feeding him or purposely abusing him (which has been stated) for whatever or any reason, maybe we would deserve the wrath this matter has brought on us. But this horse was getting more quality hay than any horse I have ever known to eat.  That is what is so weird about this, usually if a horse is sick they do not eat. After I stopped picking the grass for him in large quantities and his condition did not improve I suspected he might have had cancer because of his age. The only saving grace for him was that he was consuming so much food and previously he had lost condition in the summer though not to such a degree and regained that condition in the winter. Plus he was not overly lethargic or otherwise    Had these factors not been in evidence we would have had no choice but to destroy him. For anybody that understands Harness Racing and understand how hard it would be for a horse to front up behind the mobile more than 300 times would understand my reluctance to destroy him cheaply. Obviously the horse deserved better than the box he was in but he didn’t deserve to be destroyed either.

6.21) It is not fanciful that I spent hour’s specially cutting long lush grass with a knife from the side of the road for this horse and climbing up on my car to collect willow for him I am sure these same hateful neighbours in Halswell would have seen this and no doubt mocked me for it. But people who spend this amount of time picking grass and willows for their horses don’t abuse them.

6.22)It is significant to note that we purchased this horse in 2003. I did not become aware or the degree of drug cheating in Harness Racing until 2004(which I latter speak of). Obviously had I been aware of the true situation We would never remotely entertained the possibility of importing a stallion into New Zealand and would have completely scaled down our horse breeding and training activities. Before I became aware of what was actually happening I had no opinion of drug cheating in Harness Racing and basically refused to listen or acknowledge the opinions of others professing this matter. I did not deny it the situation just did not register and ignored any suggestion of it. This is the way my brain thinks.

7.0) MEDIA COVERAGE

Originally I declined from participating in this as I suspected because of the way this reporter was acting she would sensationalise and distort this whole affair. (Though I never dreamed that TV 3 would be so deceitful and dishonest). But then I thought that we have done our very best on this matter and by far the majority of our horses were in better than good condition. The reporter assured me she would produce a fair and balanced account of the situation and feature a proportional account of the healthy horses along with the sick ones. This sheguaranteed to do. As it transpired the still photos and home video on that Campbell show noway was representative of the horses on that property on that day. Campbell ‘Fair and Balanced’ did not mention this to the viewers nor did the reporter show me these photos or home videos to give me a chance to verify and or comment on them Most of the horses in those still photos presented as representative of our horses have dramatically improved. Comparisons of different photos more than anything show the degree of improvement most horses exhibited and dispels any notion of the cause of this being neglect.

7.1)      I have difficulty in seeing what this nationwide media coverage has achieved except that of denigrating and destroying John and my reputation’s and our relationship with our family accept our sister.

7.2) It is interesting some Comedian can be accused of raping a little girl but his identity is kept secret. If he is innocent I certainly can understand the reason for this. After our experience to the reaction this affair has brought on us. If he is found guilty nothing but nothing can justify this suppression.

7.3) A married 51-year-old male teacher can become involved with a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old girl pupil, but his name is suppressed. Obviously this teacher chose to become involved in such a relationship with the pupil. Something I consider abhorrent

7.4) A man can leave a little child in a car in the small hours of the morning to go to a strip club/brothel and he is still given his chance to state his side of the story unaltered un manipulated and unedited. This man chose to leave his child in the car while attending a strip club

7.5) 250 people are arrested in a huge drug sting and not one of them is put on TV let alone falsely misrepresented and demonised. These people chose to become involved in a business supplying cannabis. Just as some harness racing trainers have done.

7.6) We did not choose for our horses to drink toxic water. Given this choice or had we be informed of the possibility of it we obviously would have prevented it at all costs.

7.7) That is why I was prepared to front up on TV3 as I expected at least I would be treated fairly

7.8) The Christchurch Press at least gave me a chance to state my side (I had to make the effort to contact themafter they ran the false and misleading story) I would have been happier had they been more decisive in retracting the statement that all our horse were malnourished and in a serious condition. As I showed them some of the correct photos and they spoke to the Vet Dave Senior

7.9) Now I am certain of the cause of this situation I will recontact them on the basis of the information these horses were poisoned by the clean, fresh water coming out of the ground in Canterbury. I will also expect a statement to be published from Ecan and the City Council. On who is exactly responsible for informing the citizens of the dangers and potential for damage of this type of clean fresh water? Plus I will expect the SPCA to be pressed as to why they were adamant and still maintain all the horses were seriously malnourished and they so strongly denied independent experts to assess this crucial evidence in the true context, which is undoubtedly, false and erroneous. Then we will at least expect the Press to print a full retraction of the story on the basis of all our horses being malnourished in a serious condition and the other false erroneous and slanderous statements of the SPCA echoed by this paper.

7.10) John and I have been the subject of an invasive, insidious and unusual freak of nature concerning the impurity of the water our horses were forced to drink.  A pack of nasty vindictive hateful pony girls, aggressively antagonistic and subjectively motivated Vets from a company I have a personal grievance with the owner. Twisted, frustrated and demented old men as I discuss later, for some unknown or distorted reason have chosen to underhandedly target John and I Unbelievable abuse and disregard of legal and constitutional process by the SPCA relying on the obviously negligent opinions of the above-mentioned Vets. Combined with the dishonesty and deceit of TV3. Plus what I consider, a way too lenient and remiss District Court process in allowing a Justice of the Peace to issue these orders with out us even being able to know the evidence used, let alone defend our selves against it.

7.11) Yet we are denied the same opportunity to defend ourselves in the media, as the guy who left a little child in the car to visit a strip club/Brothel in the middle of the night nor the same presumption afforded to the comedian alleged child rapist and all the 250 employees of the Hydroponic ‘drugmart’ AKA the happy garden shop. Plus not only have we been ostracised on nationwide TV unlike the teacher in the clearly inappropriate relationship with a pupil. This has been achieved on the basis of lies and deceit, done so well I don’t know anybody that has not witnessed the way we care for our horses except my sister that does not believe it.

7.12) If I say this once I will a million times, those images on the TV noway represented the condition of the vast majority of our horses seized, the photos I have posted represent this.

7.13)  I do not know the situation at Emerald lodge and do not know the people involved obviously like us they fell on hard times financially but what it is not, is crime to be poor. But people whom breed and work with horses’ everyday, do not purposely chose to neglect or malnourish them. Maybe if all our horses were in the situation of neglect with no reasonable chance of improvement the SPCA is justified in taking them. Despite the concerted attempt of all concerned including the SPCA, Canterbury Equine Clinic Vet, TV3,The Press , The Star,(the only significant media which stayed out of this beat up was TVNZ and Radio NZ I am not sure why but I thank them for there tolerance and restraint from acting like a pack of dogs like others I mention) the toxic Halswell pony club tarts, this Subrensky individual and most significantly the District Court of New Zealand. This condition of all our horses depicted by these liars was not remotely close to the situation in our case (as the photo’s clearly show). We have produced scientific evidence that the condition of the 25-30% sick horses including the Stallion was nothing to do with the reasons and presumptions the SPCA are using to justify such a brutal and draconian abuse of process in seizing and dispersing all our horses including the vast majority of perfectly healthy ones.

7.14) It is interesting to note that the woman involved in the charges of theft from Emerald lodge; N Subrensky if one of the hateful drivers behind the Internet campaign against John and I. The people at Emerald lodge were responsible employers trying under very difficult times to make a go of a business to keep being an employer. I understand their situation and predicament and empathise with them.  Conversely the people like Subrensky, arenothing, they have never been anything more and all they can ever dream of is to be nothing. She calls her self a horse trainer, what horse has she ever trained? They get their power and gratification by being some kind of roving evangelist for the good of the un named so called abused horse and they cheat, lie and connive in order to attain this status just like the lowlife trailer trash from Halswell involved in this matter against us. Who will also end up in Court for slander and defamation as regards to the lies they told on the TV program and the gutterbook site and TV3 chat site concerning the allegations against us for allegedly non-feeding of our horses. So easily, quickly and thoroughly believed and despite our strong protestations and evidence to the contrary, broadcast by ‘TV3 Campbell Lies’

7.15) This has changed John and I, most things will never ever be the same again. MaybeTV3, the SPCA, this Subrensky, the Halswell trailer trash, HRNZ or the District Court Judge with her ‘claim of right’, can definitively explain to me. At what point in time do we kill these horses rather than try and work through this process and give them a chance to live.  TV 3 should save its dishonest deceitful tactics for individuals who deserve it. Like drug dealers and corrupt Local government officials in tow with property developers and other such criminals that I latter mention. But that might do some good and the likes of this Campbell and this ‘airhead’ reporter may risk a bit of their own back. It is easy and safe to pick on and sensationalise honourable people down on their luck that’s why cowards and bullies like Campbell do this.

7.16) I am quite interested in a fascinated by the history of the Scottish highland clans considering my grandparents were from Scotland and my Fathers family originate in the very North of Scotland. I am a descendent of William Gunn (Williamson) somehow, sometime, some place in Caithness. Campbell obviously also is a prominent Scottish clan and it is significant to mention the Campbell’s were responsible for one of the most brutal and treacherous massacres in all Scottish history. Known as the Massacre of Glencoe 13 Feb 1692. This was referred to as a murder under trust and caused an outrage through out all of Europe. The Campbell’s doing the work of the English, visited the Mac Donald’s. Feasting on the Mac Donald’s;(not junk) food, drink and generous hospitality for 10 days until given the word sent by the English and then cowardly set on all the Mac Donalds in the middle of the night slaughtering men, woman and children alike. I remember reading the comment of an ancestor of these Campbell’s stating they were only doing their job.

According to the Mc Donnell of Leinster Association  the Campbell were well known for treachery and deceit “Meanwhile, Gilleasbuig Gruamach (Grim Archibald), the 8th Campbell Earl of Argyll, had carried out the final massacre of MacDonalds on Rathlin Island. Shortly after General Alexander Leslie, The Earl of Leven, took over command of Protestant forces in Ulster in August, 1642, Campbell, seeking his own benefit as usual, took advantage of Sir Felim ÓNeill’s reverses and ordered the raid on Rathlin Island in which the MacDonnell inhabitants were massacred. 1600 Campbells invaded the island and, once again, literally swept it bare of every living thing. According to local tradition, a battle took place at “Lag an Bhriste Mhór” (Hollow of the Great Defeat). There is a hill to the east of the battle site called “Cnoc na Sgreadailaine” (Hill of the Screaming), where it is said that the women of the island watched the battle. Having disposed of the badly outnumbered MacDonnell warriors, Argyll’s men then drove the women and children over the cliffs at a place since called “Sloc na Cailleach” (Chasm of the Old Women). This marked the end of the MacDonnells’ long occupation of the island, which was then uninhabited for some time. Although there is a possibility of some confusion of this event with earlier atrocities, there is no conflicting evidence and this massacre is quite consistent with contemporary Campbell decisions, such as Glencoe, fifty years later.”

 This Moronic Johnny Boy Campbell would proudly wear the colour of a campbell in any era of history. But as I  have not a trace of Campbell in me  it must be pointed out this account of this massacre on Rathlin Island is written by the victims who have a long and deep seated hatred of the Campbells, but I can see no countering opinion to it.And as I mention and is mentioned in this article there is no dispute of the veracity of the massacre of Glencoe this became international news and exposed the Campbells on the world stage for what they really are.
Also used as a reference is “Royle Trevor (2004) Civil War .The Wars of Three Kindoms 1638-1660″ Which can be deemed an independent account.

The Campbel’ls motto:
Rent a massacre we are unbeaten for ruthless treachery especially against women,children and old men, we will fight men but only at odds of 10-1 for and if we can start it in the middle of the night when our opponents have our trust and are sound asleep.”

Obviously this New Zealand Campbell could be a perfect descendant DNA match for his namesakes in Scotland, who perpetrated and executed such heinous and demonstrable treachery in the name of doing their job for the English. These Campbells in Scotland involved in this massacre and including their namesake in New Zealand along with the ‘Airhead’ reporter, Uttering had/have a strange sense of job satisfaction. ‘Campbell lies’ deceit and treachery live should be the name of his show. And it would be well named in all respects in true Campbell tradition. With respect to this TV3 ‘foghorn’ of a News presenter, the saying “a leopard never changes its spots” is certainly applicable in the Campbell practice and historical custom. Getting an actor to pose as an honest thief certainly is in the mode of Campbellness, as we in touch with our Scottish heritage have come to know and believe. How stupid was that, who has ever heard of an honest thief such an individual is about as common as a honourable Campbell.

7.16)        No wonder Scottish families have hated one another for generations as even when they come to New Zealand their descendants never lose the deceitfulness, it is so genetically ingrained and obviously the individuals like me never forget dishonest and dishonourable behaviour from the above mentioned.

7.17)        This could be interpreted as attacking the messenger rather than the message but due to Campbell’s dishonest and devious slant and tricks used he is responsible for the message

7.18)        Obviously there has been a strong driver in this situation for TV3 so blatantly corrupt this story and portrayal of the situation

7.19)  On showing the photos of the true condition of the majority of our horses to independent people (some we have never met before) some of them commented we have obviously annoyed some important and powerful people.

.

8.0)My strong views and opinions that have upset so many

This is indeed correct I have strong views I am prepared to back them up and walk the walk with them and I put my name to everything I do or say. Most prominent of these strong and contentious opinions and lobbying concern;

8.1)Drug cheating in harness racing. I have been extremely outspoken about the endemic use but much worse, lack of detection of illegal performance enhancing drugs in Harness racing. In 2004 I became personally aware with what was going on .In respect to how horses performance could be so greatly altered. It concerned a horse that was resident at our farm as the owner of the horse asked me he could board it there for swimming. After about 3months this horse was sold to a high profile owner and went to the trainer latter disqualified for originally 3 years for drug cheating this was reduced to 18 months on appeal and later reduced again by the same judge for good behaviour or some such reason. (It is significant that this Judge now retired (District Court and or Family Court) doing all this constant reducing of this, a high quality cheat, liar and thief’s sentence. Has a significant relationship involving a minimum of Resource Management submissions It appears connected to and involving the huge West Melton property development of a family associated to the fraternal family this drug cheat was educated and trained by. Also this convicted drug cheat was previous resident at the same West Melton establishment, thus long-term tenant of the owner the learned Judge is involved in RMA submissions with.

 

8.1.1) I also appeared before this same Judge (subsequent to my outspoken opinion of this convicted drug cheating individual) concerning an appeal of a careless driving charge (of a horse in a race) it is significant that not only was the appeal dismissed (I feel wrongly, I have asked all concerned to produce a precedent of such a similar situation whereby a careless driving charge has been laid let alone held, but they are also reluctant to do so. Maybe somebody else will be able to produce a case where the driver has been convicted of careless driving when the horse that the alleged offence has been committed against is acknowledged to be already unsteady in its gait before I made my legitimate and required, under the rules, outward movement (if I had not made this move I could have been charged for incompetence and severely suspended))

 

8.1.2) I think the JCA originally stated I should have been aware of the horses bad gaited at the time and been more careful in my movement. This is in the last 300 metres of the race.(This is ridiculous and anybody who drives in races knows that there is only a split second of time to make judgement at this stage of the race If my horse is in front of the other I am entitled to push out. If the horse being pushed out is not maintaining its gait before I move that is that horses driver’s problem and responsibility not mine.(obviously I was not aware of the horse’s compromised gait and nor am I required to be.)

 

8.1.2) I have asked under the Official Information act(OIA)for both HRNZ and or the JCA producing precedent of similar charges laid in similar conditions and analysing the result can settle this matter. I have looked through every case on the Internet and I cannot see anything close to a driver found guilty of careless driving or even charged in such a situation.

 

8.1.3) That OIA   is not even useful as toilet paper as far as I am concerned, as I have never had one of these statutory bodies reply to it. In the only case, which was the Selwyn District Council, the information was about as much use as the comic strip ‘Goofy goes to Hollywood’ citing commercial consideration as why the actual information was not produced.  There should be some process that can be enacted once no reply has been received in order to force the statutory body to abide by it. One thing that amazes me in this country is what little respect Governmental and statutory bodies have for the law. This is maybe why we live in such dishonest, dishonourable and corrupt community where thieves, bludgers, fraudsters’ insider traders, loan sharks, cheats and drug dealers seem the most affluent and successful as well it appears the most respected.

 

8.1.4) The costs awarded against us+ deposit= $950 +(original fine of $200) where way out of proportion to the costs awarded in any other similar cases usual cost for this type of appeal is 0.   The most total costs I can see for a careless driving appeal; Higgs, in NZ Cup $500. In my complaint to the Judicial Control Authority( JCA) I complained that it is not acceptable for a Judge with such an association to be adjudicating in Harness racing. As usual these complaints were dismissed with contempt and derision.

 

8.1.5) As well my father had a bitter and acrimonious court case with the high profile Harness racing license holder and participant that this same Judge is involved in resource management submissions with. I also think if people wish to become Judges they should stay out of Resource Management matters, which concern property development especially when they are on the side of the property developer whereby huge profits will be made.   If such a person is judging me,(an associate of a historical adversary and hostile opponent connection, which actually protracts back 3 generations) the minimum requirement wouldbe  full disclosure of this relationship.

 

 8.1.6)The JCA has an excellent website relating to the requirements and the perception of fairness and transparency in the functioning and decision making process. Due to their reply at being made to appear before this Judge who in perception could easily be shown to have his objectivity swayed, even subconsciously. Plus the out of proportion costs this Judge awarded against me. Obvious the contents of that truly outstanding JCA website regarding transparency and fairness of process, are lip service and platitudes. But as can be seen from the ordeal my brother and I have become involved both concerning the pressured sale of our farm and the SPCA’s seizure of our horses These platitudes and lip services    are indicative and common place of the justice process in this country for the unselected and adversely connected)

8.1.7) Most Standardbred horses are like the subject horse that was boarding on our farm, which highlighted the performance enhancing abuse to me. That is, they are honest and willing but can only sprint hard, once. If tested or asked to sprint hard more than once they will get the stich and usually stop quickly. I am well versed to speak on this type horse as I have had a lot of experience with such over my more than 30-year serious involvement in Harness Racing. Any horse cannot continue to run after it has reached its limit, due to oxygen debt and the tiring affects of lactic acid. No matter what form of encouragement is used. Obviously this is the reason carnivores can get a feed in nature. I contend that if wild herbivores such as horses and antelope in nature had access to the quality of performance enhancing substances being used in Horse racing plain and simple carnivores would go hungry,. As have very few honest horsetrainers at the expense of the cheats promoted and promulgated by the media and HRNZ. This would not be the case with Baking Soda and Caffeine, (the only substance of performance enhancement HRNZ has detected) honest trainers can compete against these two products and the would not save any wild animals from their fate.

8.1.8) I have my doubts about the actual tangible performance benefits of caffeine it is more an appetite stimulant to a horse rather than actual performance enhancer. Obviously I have never tried this substance in competition it is just based on my observations of the behaviour of horses during competition. Most of them don’t need and would not benefit from the minor degree of stimulation caffeine provide for the short intense time period the performance equates to a result. As an appetite stimulant like molasses caffeine is really good but not worth the risk of mistaken administration and all the connotations such an innocent mistake would bring with it.

8.1.9) From what I have read about cocaine and those strong amphetamines like P and that Elephant (juice) tranquillizer this stimulant effect and benefit would be a different story but anybody that would consciously give that stuff to a horse deserves to be attacked with an axe. As for baking soda obviously we have never tried this in the so call required doses but I am sure from the research I have done that it has no more affect than caffeine. The science of Baking soda’s performance enhancing potential does not add up and as I mention I know of no human competition where these athletes have a tube stuck down their throat with copious quantities of baking soda dispensed into their stomachs. In small quantities Baking Soda like Cider vinegar is a really good supplement to give horses. I used to think that about Iron to.

8.1.10) When horses are driven it is easy to feel once they are tired. After this point under no circumstances should they be whipped. Before this point most horses don’t mind being whip and a driver can feel them improve once they stop improving the whipping should stop. What makes legitimate champion horses is they have a much higher Cardio Vascular capacity combined with other favourable attributes to utilise this innate and vital ability. But if a horse has every other attributes, such as gait, temperament and natural high speed without Cardio Vascular capacity it will always be found wanting. Cardio vascular capacity is everything in horse racing as it also is in cycling.    EPO or its derivatives are Cardio Vascular capacity as they alleviate this weakness of so quickly tiring after entering Oxygen debt. That is why this drug is perfect for increasing the performance of racehorses and impossible for honest trainers to compete against

8.1.11) After this horse was in the care of the above-mentioned trainer and new (high profile) owner for about a week it started at Dunedin. I watched this horse with interest and was stunned so see it sprint not once, not twice but 3 times in the race. Then I realised what was going on in Harness Racing. I thought if this is what these people can do to an average horse what on earth can they do to a naturally more gifted horse the thought was staggering and mind blowing and all I could think of was all the time, effort, money and we had wasted trying to compete honestly. As I later mention, “if you can’t beat them join them did not apply” So I researched the illegal performance enhancing drugs and watched all races with concerted interest. I looked for any connection between this trainer and other trainers whose horses showed the ability to reel of multiple intense sprinting repetitions during the race, especially at the start (as this would normally put the horse into Oxygen debt. It is important to note that the overall time does not have a lot to do with the evidence of EPO. It is how the race is run which is most significant and the existence or lack of multiple sprinting repetitions by the winner or placegetters. Other prime signs are horses that work hard to the lead early then proceed to run the other horses into the ground. As well horses that make a 3 or 4 wide sprint from the 900m down the back straight at Addington without cover and continue on to win or place. Obviously this is relative to the opposition the horses are racing.

 

8.1.12) As well as because EPO thickens the horses blood and due to the process know as ‘dumping the spleen’ a horse naturally has an ability to load extra red blood cells into the blood therefore physically thickening the blood. For some horses this will become too much a strain on their hearts and they will suffer cardiac arrest.

 

8.1.13) Also the intravenous injection of anything other than antibiotics can easily introduce viruses and deadly bacteria directly to the organs of the horse by passing the natural defence mechanisms. This will result in serious and sometime fatal illness for these otherwise healthy horses. IV injections should only be done in any horse as a last resort

    

8.1.14) When honest authorities notice these driving tactics described at Premier meetings. And stables with a disproportionate amount of young horses suddenly chronically ill and dieing, they should be alive to the possibility these horses are being illegally enhanced)

8.1.15) The notable connections I noticed from my scrutiny, were the fraternity and family, which this trainer was associated to and emerged from, a prominent owner who purchased this horse and most importantly the Vet who treated all these horses. This Vet who I knew as a serious and committed gambler and was a Vet of the other notable trainer ousted for drug cheating. When like the other mentioned trainer, caught using a Bronchial Dilator. This Blue Magic bronchial dilator scam was a clever ploy to invoke the defence of ignorance used by both these trainers plus creating the perception HRNZ is doing something against the endemic use of illegal performance enhancing drugs. The Vet concerned gave evidence for the first trainer and still has a close association with him. HRNZ’s previous long-term Veterinary consultant who I speak of latter also gave evidence for this cheat.

8.1.16) My contention is the Vet was the most important as these true performance-altering substances were of high technology and could not be easily obtained or made for the uninitiated. (Unlike Baking Soda and caffeine)   I then started to closely scrutinise and analyse the clients and associates of this Vet and watched these trainers horses (especially those of the corresponding owners) racing over and over watching how they were driven and if they showed the normal affects of lactic acid tiring like our horses do if driven in a similar way. It should not be underestimated the method and intensity I put into this research. Then I compared this information to other trainer’s horses, which were driven in a similar manner, from a different area this Vet was not servicing. Then sought out the information as to who their Vet was. As it transpired this Vet, a very amicable man who also I suspect liked to bet.(It was not Dave Senior or anybody in anyway associated with him)

8.1.17) As part of my research I requested from HRNZ (under the Official Information Act) produce the historical references to the testing of EPO and Human Growth Hormone. First they agreed to provide this information then changed their minds. I have great difficulty understanding how this historical information can be justifiably withheld unless HRNZ have something to hide. This EPO is an important human therapy drug used in treatment and rehabilitations with all and every ailment likely to cause or result in anaemia. It is easily and readily available to health professionals. No doubt it or a derivative can be used as a therapy for horses to and therefore readily available to Vets. If HRNZ have not or could not test for this wonder drug which has been readily available since the 60’s and this same stuff is a therapeutic drug. What is to stop these vets and trainers giving the therapy to a horse with a perceived kidney complaint at the appropriate time before the race? No doubt the vast majority of harness racing trainers had these phantom kidney complaints before the testing for EPO became more definitive (if it actually has, the problem with testing EPO is that this product only facilitates the extra production of red blood cells which enables multiple higher amounts of Oxygen to get from the lungs to the muscles. EPO is not the product that carries the 0xygen to the muscles. So therefore there is only a small window of opportunity when this product can be detected in the body anyway because long after EPO has been naturally excreted the red blood cells will still be doing their work winning races for these cheats. What is now being done with the endurance sports in the winter Olympics is the blood is tested for the concentration of red blood cells if it is higher than a certain limit the competitor is not allowed to start Similar to the TCO3 test for Bi-carb.     I note there is drug cyclists take which counteracts and masks the presence of artificial testosterone (Human Growth Hormone). One thing is for sure anything a cyclist has, the cheating horsetrainers have double of). Just like the stomach ulcers scam, to supposedly justify the use of the Bronchial dilators   As for that Growth Hormone, anybody with the knowledge can get it off the Internet. ThisHuman Growth Hormone (testosterone), doesn’t turn boys into men it turns them into warrior men. No drugs could ever be more perfect for the development and racing of young horses, which is where the most affluent and well connected concentrate their efforts in horse racing.

(This should not be mistaken for the use of what used to be legally allowed anabolic steroids, in horse racing which we like many other people used. These were banned in (I think) the late 90’s or early 2000’s but we stopped using them before the ban due to the results not warranting the cost Obviously Growth Hormone is not considered of such limited use as a performance enhancer because to my knowledge it was never ever allowed. But as like EPO it was intestable, who would ever know who was using it. Obviously this is an assumption as we have never seen or used EPO or Growth Hormone but cycling is a good litmus test for illegal performance drugs in Harness Racing and they don’t seem to be deterred by any cost limitation plus I have never known of cyclists getting a tube put into their stomach with copious amounts of baking soda infused through it)

8.1.17) Reaping the benefits of what I consider ill requested/gotten Poker machine proceeds (which I later comment about). As I have stated I am and have been diagnosed severely dyslexic in certain situations I have heard people speak of their own dyslexia as a gift, I never experienced any positive aspects of this as I worked so hard to try and complete an acceptable standard of education. Dyslexia like many things is very hard to understand or justify to those that do not experience it. As a young child I was constantly being castigated for being careless as I became older I was judged as illiterate by one of my university lecturers.  Straight after that assessment I gave up formal education. It was one of the best decisions I ever made. As can be seen from this web site, a computer can spell better than any human but no computer can think individually or creatively.

8.1.18) With respect to my thought process, I don’t believe in coincidence and I have an acute sense of perception when focused on or motivated by a particular subject. It is almost psychotic, in the difference in being intensely focused and motivated compared to uninterested, unprovoked or stressed whereby my spelling, reading and comprehension standard would be less than a 10 year old.  What I lose in hand writing, spelling and reading comprehension, I more than make up for in a certain type of perception. Sometimes I am wrong but if I am wrong and I have made my thoughts public, for usually another reason I am not concerned.

8.1.19)  My reasoning and public statements on this drug cheating are not such a situation. I am positive I am right and have absolutely no other reason to cast aspersions on many of the people I have. In fact the contrary is the case, some of people in harness racing who I consider drug cheats I liked very much. But will never acknowledge them or in any way engage again with them as long as I live. I think the feeling is mutual, so be it. The converse is not the case there are some people in Harness racing I still like very much and I still consider them drug cheats. But this demonstrates the insidious nature of any kind of corruption on an activity where by otherwise honest and hardworking people depend upon getting tangible results to make a living and pay the mortgage, feed their family and pay the staff wages. Sometimes these otherwise honest people are forced to cheat to compete. It is the responsibility of the governing body (HRNZ) and ultimately the Government to see such a situation does never eventuate or worse still escalate and perpetuate. Clearly these institutions have been remiss in this responsibility. Harness racing demonstrates if crime is allowed to pay it multiplies the same can be attributed to unchecked corruption.

It is difficult to fully explain the research I did on this drug cheating matter but I would state not only my life but also my brother John’s life I am right on this (the same applies to the water causing the small percentage of our horses sickness). As mentioned I like every body else am human and can be wrong but I am not wrong on these two matters.

8.1.19) If I am wrong on this matter why does HRNZ not give me the historical data on testing analysis on EPO and HGH? Why doesn’t the Trainers/driver Association and the Vets come out and categorically and unambiguously state that there was/is no use of these products or derivatives in New Zealand harness racing. Even though these products would be way out of proportionally beneficial to this activity, the prevalence of illegal use is undeniable in other similar cardio vascular dominated activity. Many of the Harness Racing participants are convicts associated with all manner of dishonesty offences and I would consider them the most dishonest and dishonourable group of people known to Western civilisation.

8.1.20) The way many of these Harness Racing participants conduct their lives and the low level of morality and family values they adopt and actually aspire to. Is a good indicator as to what they would do if not impaired buy a correct and proper controlling authority, unchecked and untested. The Harness racing trainer who wrote the slanderously article on the Harness link website titled “Stallion saved from starvation sires a winner” is a good example As to this author, Dolan who would knows how many winners he may have sired especially with other men’s wives.   Yet I am expected to believe what is being so strongly portrayed by all concerned including HRNZ that these people in competition against us were not using Human Growth Hormone and EPO (or other such illegal performance substances) because as HRNZ CEO stated when I put a question to him at a Public meeting as to why nobody had be caught with these products  “Maybe all HR trainers on the level” May be pigs could fly also but we all know at the moment they can’t and it is extremely unlikely they ever will be able to.

8.1.21) If the truth be know and admitted by HRNZ that they were unable to test for these substances for so long and did nothing else to expose their abuse. HRNZ and the Government of this country owe honest HR participants such as John and myself much more than an apology. Sooner or later the New Zealand Government will need to compel HRNZ to be open and transparent on this matter or be held internationally accountable.

8.1.22)i)  If I am so wrong, why hasn’t one of these so-called ‘good trainers’ fronted me like a man instead all other forms of character assassination. Including stating and believing I was standing outside one of these cheats home with a placard and a mask on. Not withstanding I was not even in the country at the time of this solo protest. Standing outside a mans family home intimidating his wife and family is not my go and even in the almost impossible event that I did such a stupid thing I would not have a mask on. (On reflection I would under no circumstance do this if I had a so much a problem with the man I would say it to his face (like I did to McGrath) I would not involve his wife and family at their home. It is purely unbelievable that people I have well known so long would think I would do such a disgusting thing but this matter of accusations of starving and malnourishing our horses is no different.)    Unlike these drugs cheats in Harness racing and the lawyers and Selwyn District Council property developers I later mention and describe, I have honour. There are something’s nobody can take from me including my name, my heritage and my nationality but that of my honour and honesty is the most important.

8.1.22)ii) Every single one of these cowards in Harness Racing that thought and spread the malicious rumour that I would do such a thing as intimidate a mans wife and family outside their home rendered me such an extreme insult. As usual not one person would tell me about this to give me a chance to defend myself. As it transpired my brother John’s long time friend informed him of this and I contacted the person who told John’s friend.

8.1.23) When I was speaking to this person, somebody I did not dislike, he asked me if I was sure it wasn’t me standing outside this drug cheats home with a mask on. My reply was yes I was sure only because I was in Japan. Obviously I was being sarcastic. Of course I would be sure wether or not I was outside somebodies home with a placard and a mask. I then contacted the person who was spreading this malicious rumour a (at the time) Cop, by the name of Woodfield, a person I did/do not like. Woodfield would not believe me and wanted evidence of my being out of the country. I actually wasn’t sure if he was serious or not but when I asked him were did he get the information, this masked protester was me .He would not tell me, stating, “It came from somebody that would know.”

8.1.23.i) Woodfield’s informant sounds like an extremely smart person that they would know I was outside somebody else’s house in Yaldhurst with a mask on, when actually I was in Japan.   Eventually the real masked protester was uncovered (I think the cheat Purdon’s mother in law drove at him with her car) so obviouslyit wasn’t me but not a word of retraction or apology from anybody. It seems just as my brother and I are not worthy of access to due process in this country we are also not worthy of an apology when wronged or gratitude when we help people.

8.1.24) As to the last matter, somebody should ask Marree Price (another piece of trailer trash) who it was that lifted her horse back over the front bar of her horse float when stuck in the middle of Blenheim road and if this woman appreciated it. Everybody was spreading the false malicious rumours about me being the masked protester out side Purdon’s home but nobody seems to know about me single handed getting this woman’s horse out of the float when nobody else seemed able to all the cops could do was continually demanding a vet be called because this situation caused a traffic jam over 2km’s back on the main arterial route into Christchurch. These lowlife Harness Racing participants most of whom I have never met are constant spreading rumours I am mad or some kind nutcase. The few very people, who know me, know this to be totally unfounded unless I am purposely abused by a male in a particular situation. But when I put my mind to it or motivated in certain situations I can be quite strong both physically and mentally this is why I could lift this horse back over the float bar and none of theses scum lowlife cheats will ever face me at any odds. Instead resort to this dirty underhand character assassination they are so good at. I will give it to Cheat’s Incorporated they are cunning by attacking my credibility the distort my message. They have been well taught as well they influence the media.

8.1.25) I find it also difficult to understand why I have become so angry over this matter concerning the drug cheating. But when I think back at the time, expense, effort just John and I (not counting my father) put in and devoted to breeding preparing and training horses for the last 30+ years to race against horses with such a unrealistic, unfair and substantial advantage. It has warped me towards these people it is fair to say there is no love lost between me and most all of the Harness Racing community (now this will never change) but instead of registering their grievance with me in a normal way like I have to them, by openly, publicly and strongly speaking out against it. They resort to what they are good at, underhand, two-faced deceit and spreading of malicious rumours to denigrate my character.

8.1.26)  It is significant also that Harness Racing New Zealand by its subterfuge in not only failing to stop this scourge which reached endemic proportions but failing to properly honestly and transparently addressing and identifying the problem. HRNZ and the New Zealand Government have denied honest owners and trainers such as my brother John and I, the benefit of being a victim. Instead Harness Racing has become similar to Nazi Germany or other demonic totalitarian regimes where the good are deemed bad and destructive, with the bad being praised as heroes.

8.1.27) For a start why hasn’t there been any clinical studies done on the affects of these illegal enhancing substances on Harness horses, the main substances (EPO blood boosting products and Human Growth Hormone) are readily available and not illegal in society.

8.1.28) Maybe the fact HRNZ’s previous long time veterinary consultant who had a long, significant and close associate with the family this individual who highlighted the situation to me, was protégé of. This same (now deceased) Vet gave evidence in support of this individual when the trainer admitted he obtained this bronchial dilutor using a false medical prescription, making the tablets into a solution. Injecting the horse in the vein with this un sterile solution for in his own words “to obtain a edge”

 

8.1.29) Who in their right mind would suggest such an individual would not use any and everything possible to obtain the same kind of edge or as it happens a much better or sharper edge. Which would obviously include the likes EPO, Growth Hormone and other more ominous ubiquitous illegal stimulants and painkillers. But most significantly this HRNZ consultant Vet raced a horse driven by a member of this family and obviously had a close and long term association with the patriarch of the family and this cheat I speak of’ mentor.

8.1.30) With the benefit of hindsight this particular horse the HRNZ consultant Vet owned and trained, on honest reflection from twenty-five years ago. Looked like it was sweating more cardio vascular capacity than possessed by all our horses put together. What an apparent coincidence this HRNZ consultant Vet owning and training this horse that raced so successfully like this when in its early racing career, certainly lacked genuine speed or any other signs of the ability needed to reach such heights of achievements. We had a horse, which raced against this horse through the grades. The improvement HRNZ’s consultant Vet’s horse made to become an iconic trotting mare absolutely astounded and astonished me 25 years ago. With more benefit of hindsight I understand now why this horse’s performance was so inconsistent in anything but important races where it time and again raced like a machine. I know this because I was driving in many of these important races with our horse attempting to follow or keep up to this Vet’s horse. Yet in the lower grades before this HRNZ Consultant Vet became involved as trainer our horse had no problem consistently defeating it. I think the HRNZ consultant Vet put the disparity of performance down to seasonal problem’s for the mare. Something I foolishly believed.   That is one of the problems with being young and naïve.

8.1.31) Naivety is not denying something is happening it is being completely unaware or amenable of its possibility or potentiality and thoughtlessly believing anything put forward to rationalise the improbable occurrence. Young and stupid is another maybe more apt description of this state of mind. Which applies to my whole 30+ of honestly trying to compete in Harness Racing

8.1.32) A post note to this endemic performance-enhancing situation. Through my research and with the help of two of my Japanese friends who are chemists I have become aware of the future of drug cheating. A new drug is or has been developed in the USA to treat muscular dystrophy. What it does it changes the DNA composition of the muscle. Disproportionably increasing the strength of the muscle with out any discernable difference in shape or size, similar to heat tempering steel, or strengthening steel with the addition of carbon and tungsten during the smelting process.  It is estimated it will propel human runners from 9-10sec 100m to 7-8 seconds for the same distance. This will finish the concept of horse racing as we know it and if accessed will enable average harness horses to sprint 400 m in 24-25 seconds instead of 28-29 These average horses with exclusive access to this drug will then win every race they enter until the use of this product becomes widespread then the honest trainers who obey the rules will not only win nothing or almost nothing they will become consigned to an expectation of not even figuring in a place chance. As can be seen with the evolution of, the prevalence and escalation of EPO, Growth Hormone and the illegal painkillers and stimulants used by these cheats. What happens with drug cheating in horseracing that when a new product that comes available only a select few will have access to it as with EPO and Growth Hormone in the 60’s and 70’s. But obviously as time goes on more and more participants gain access to it to disproportional detriment the very few actual honest participants.

8.1.33) This DNA manipulating substance will change that in that every /and anybody who doesn’t or can’t gain access to it will have absolutely no chance. Like nuclear proliferation has done in modern warfare but when a nuclear device has detonated it is pretty hard to disguise the difference between it and a conventional weapon. With this product apart from the result, which could be otherwise deemed exceptionally conventional, there is no discernable difference in the appearance of the horse or the way it would run.

8.1.34)Also there is more to make this new wonder muscle drug so enticing to the cheats and HRNZ officials a like. As it is not metabolised obviously there is no metabolite to test. The only possible way to test for it presence is a biopsy which would involve dissecting part of the horses muscle Which in a race horse is just not practicable nor sustainable that of course if the biopsy is actually testable. Historical analysis of HRNZ and the New Zealand government’s record at identifying prosecuting and preventing much less scientifically advance substances, which results amount to zero does not bode well with these enforcement agencies even tackling this problem let alone preventing it. What is much easier for these bodies is to tackle and attack people like me who speak out against this situation.

8.1.35) As far as HRNZ and the NZ Government is concerned so long as nobody speaks out against drug cheating and they continue to catch nobody with these advanced substances even including 60’s retro substances such as EPO, HGH and amphetamines like Ritalin, there is no problem. That is the way demonic, dictatorial regimes operate that prohibit and prevent criticism and free speech like avoiding a hole in the head.

8.1.36) Honest horsetrainers (which by the dearth of people who have spoken out against this scourge, there cannot be many) have/had as much chance of competing against blood boosting agents like EPO and growth hormones, as a person who decides to take up bodybuilding using only meat and vegetables (vitels) with vitamins bought at the supermarket and thinking they can ever match those monsters with 8 sets of muscles on top of each other, where normal humans are lucky to have one set.

8.1.37) For me once I came to the realisation what was happening in Harness Racing it was not a matter of “if we can’t beat them join them”. For a number

of reasons. I honestly believe that the statutory body empowered to control Harness Racing is corrupt so there is little point complaining to them so I was confused who to complain to. But after the matter concerning the Blue magic came to pass with the Police involvement I sent a written account of my research to the Police involved.

8.1.38) The connection for the Vet associated with these drug cheats I am taking about involved with and giving evidence for these same drug cheats. And the vindictive apparently incompetent Vet who on behalf of the SPCA is the professional responsible what I believe to be for the false and misleading evidence (which still we have not been able to see), which enabled this organisation to illegally, seize our horses. Is, he is an employee of the Vet I made a complaint to the police about allegedly being prominently involved in drug cheating.

8.1.39) So the Veterinary practice who provided the evidence for the seizure of all our horses in Halswell and Kirwee, Canterbury Equine Clinic. Is I believe owned and run by the same person I made a formal complaint to the police about involving drug cheating, Bill Bishop.(It should be noted this is the first time I have ever made a complaint to the police or any body of authority about anybody personally. It was a watershed for me and something I found difficult. But as I latter explain Harness Racing was my brother John’s and my life to have any chance of success stolen from us not only by these cheats but also the relevant authorities empowered to stop it is something I am having difficulty dealing or coming to terms with.)  Obviously Bishop or anybody else should not have become aware of the fact I made a complaint about him (Though I have no problem with him or anybody else in fact I am glad) but the ease of and obviousness of this transparency could be brought to pass by studying the membership of the Masonic lodge. Of which the late apparent Godfather and patriarch of trotting and mentor of the individual who pointed out this situation to me, was a prominent member as well as many   Policeman in the same area.

8.1.40) The USA brought in a law to counter the Mafia. It was the Rico Act enacted October1970 Standing for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisation (sounds a good description of Harness racing in New Zealand), which banned the meeting and association of more than a certain number of men in any particular place at the same time.

8.1.41)This RICO principal also should apply to the Masons because the subject and product of these individual’s incestuous fraternal networking and potential corruption, which ensues. Is no less destructive to our society than the Mafia. At least everybody, as well as any honest politicians knows where they stand with the Mafia but no doubt many important Government officials and other’s in positions of power and consequence are also inductees of the Masonic Lodge. It should be a requirement of all and anybody in all public office to make full public disclosure of any fraternal associations the individuals concerned are involved in including Old Boys associations, Institute of Directors, sporting clubs and religious affiliations. New Zealand is just too small to rely on any other means of preventing systemic institutional corruption that these conflicting alliances produce.

8.1.42) There has been all kinds of rhetoric levelled about my outspoken views concerning this drug cheating (yetnot one person has faced me) including 1) jealousy, 2) innocent until proven guilty and 3) the need for hard evidence.

1)      For some reason jealousy is not a trait I have I am lucky in this respect as if I was concerned about other people just because they are better off than me or in anyway better than me. I would have a pretty miserable life, because most people in this country are in this position.

2)       Innocent until proven guilty obviously does not apply to John and I with regard to the alleged malnourishing and neglecting our horses. This is a legal presumption. Nothing holds individuals should be restrained from an honestly held opinion based on well-researched evidence to substantiate a suspicion. But when specific allegations are made based on assumption as have been made against John and I this accounts to defamation with out sufficient and documented proof. Whereby that evidence has been subject to due process. I have only ever specifically mentioned the two convicted drug cheats Mc Grath and Purdon I am passionate about Mc Grath as I personally experienced the huge changes he made to a horse I know full well cannot be made in such a short time by honest method. I have never publicly mentioned Bishop before and my involvement concerning him is that I made a complaint to the Police about him. Obviously the Police chose not to lay charges against him that does not make me wrong. But anybody who states or infers our horses were starved or malnourished is wrong and there is irrefutable scientific evidence to prove this.  Because something may not be able to be or is not proven beyond reasonable doubt does not necessary correlate or absolve any   degree of guilt despite what criminals and dishonest people like delude themselves of. The situation with David Bain is an apt example. As well if there is an element of doubt the system requires the defendant to have the benefit of this obviously this is another process ignored in the situation with my brother and myself. Because an individual is not proven guilty does not in general terms necessary make him/her innocent. It only means the deliberately high hurdle of proof has not been reached. This could be for a number of reasons including lack of determination and integrity of the organization empowered to investigate and gather the necessary evidence. This is evident in many fields of our society were participants self prosecute e.g. Police Complaints, Law society etc. Or it could be due to a technical breach in the prosecuting process the charges are withdrawn.

Police or any other governmental body manipulating and working the process offer a far greater threat to our democratic society that the ill gotten freedom of any criminal, no matter how repulsive this choice may be. But in HR it appears the process is being manipulated in order that the criminals and their affluent and well-connected owners are not even required to face the charges let alone stand trial.

3) As to the requirement of hard evidence. Individuals in this society are not allowed access to the means required or equipped with the ability to gain the necessary evidence and neither they should be That is for the Police or relevant controlling body who can go to the Court to have access to the necessary tools to obtain that evidence eg search warrants, surveillance orders. Like the SPCA have done to seize our horses. But when family, fraternal or other intangible influences compromise the controlling body integrity. This evidence will not be foundthis is common sense and human nature.

8.1.43) It is significant that despite the huge proven advantages in cardio vascular performance competition in human endeavours like athletics, swimming, cycling etc. There has never been one case publicly investigated or documented in Harness Racing in New Zealand of EPO Blood boosters. Growth Hormone, Insulin or the strongly prohibited painkillers and stimulants prevalent and ubiquitous in other athletic activity or Horse racing in other jurisdictions such as Australia and the USA (which have had convictions and punishment for illegal use). The only thing HRNZ can catch are either evidence of the horse been given supposedly copious amounts of baking soda. Which I actually dispute does any good. (Neither I nor John know how to stomach tube I was discouraged from learning even to legitimately saline drench a horse because of the fear of the tube going in the lungs by mistake. If any of our horses were milkshaked someone else would have needed to do it. But they weren’t so I cannot categorically state it does no good but if it is so good, why don’t human athletes do it.)    The readings of high TCO3 has more to do with the proven blood buffering affect of EPO.

8.1.44) When noted trainers had high TC03 readings and vowed and declared they hadn’t stomach tubed the horse with baking soda. More than likely they were telling the truth the high TCO3 reading was caused by EPO. But as EPO was untestable at the time the TCO3 reading was attributed to baking soda. What a joke, the only thing baking soda has a known affect on is vinegar. But it is speculated baking soda creates an excellent mask in the testing process, which is feasible and explains this product’s prevalence of use by these drug cheating trainers and wannabes

8.1.45) Harness Racing New Zealand (HRNZ) also detects failure to abide by the withholding period of controlled anti-inflammatory drugs, which in many cases are innocent mistakes. Or traces of caffeine sometimes less than in a cup of tea. Or the above mentioned Bronchial Dilators used as an excuse to lightly sanction in my honest opinion 2 of the most successful and prolific cheats in any field or endeavour this world has ever seen (and likely to ever see) in the 30,000 years of human existence as we can record it.

8.1.46) This Bronchial dilator enforcement and punishments was merely a smokescreen for complete lack of detection for true performance enhancing drugs which go completely undetected in New Zealand Harness Racing. The problem for me is not so much that these individuals in Harness Racing are using these high-powered performance-enhancing drugs. But the fact that the controlling authority’s integrity is so compromised that they do not detect but one offender and actually appear to go completely out of their way to deny the existence of any abuse of such substances. One of the most proven advantages of the performance enhancing cocktails  these people use is that because there is no need to conventionally train horses they are not nearly so prone to injury thus can race productively. Also the intelligence drug would be gold to horsetrainers in making the horse more tractable. I was always in awe of the way some trainers good get there horses so tractable at the barrier obviously this tractability came out of a bottle made in so advance laboratory like the ability to distribute disproportionate amounts of oxygen to the muscles does.

8.1.47)Who in their right mind would suggest that illicit drug dealers, convicted fraudsters, receivers of stolen property, as many high profile harness racing trainers and owners have been to prison for. Combined with compulsive gamblers. Would not use any and every illicit substance they could get away with.

8.1.48) For me to be so sure of this leaves me with only 5) options. Not including my ‘Claim of right’ to take the law into my own hands and deal with this situation on a basic and fundamental level in keeping with the timeframe of this claim of right rubbish.

1)      Completely give up Harness Racing, something I just cannot do but realistically something I should have done Harness Racing is hard enough even when the participant is of the misguided opinion, it is fair and honest, let alone being aware it is a complete wrought. Plus I do not like the culture of Harness Racing and do not like most of the people involved in it. But there is nothing I enjoy more than working with Harness horses. Horses do not care about any baggage and are very honest animals. I genuinely like them and look forward to working with them again in the future.

2)      Start to cheat in order to be able to compete on a level playing field something I have never done and will not start now. Also if humans want to give themselves this stuff, it is a different matter from humans giving it to horses and where does it stop. For me it stops with the rules, which I have scrupulously adhered to even when I don’t agree with the 7-day withholding time of anti-inflammatory drugs. I obey them

3)      Do my upmost to highlight this and complain to the relevant authorities     hoping they can exposes this cheating thus drawing attention to the government of it. Hoping the government will censure Harness Racing New Zealand for allowing it to exist and escalate. Similar to the situation that may result from the Melbourne Storm Rugby League team being exposed as salary cap cheats.

4)      Use the correct democratic channels a)On the advice of HRNZ, as how I can exercise my right to be heard on this what I consider extremely important matter of non apprehension or recognition of the use of illegal performance enhancing drug in Harness racing. I attended the annual general meeting of the Trainers and Drivers association. I was apprehensive about this as going to this meeting of these people. As it was the equivalent of attending a meeting of the mafia to speak about some how curbing organised crime. So I went to this meeting with the intention of civilly and respectfully as possible to state my concerns. To be able to do this in our society in a civilised way, with out fear or favour has been part of our culture since early Anglo Saxon times it is one of the origins of and reasons for Parliamentary access to all, as we know it. Obviously Anglo Saxon heritage and traditions have very little importance in the culture of the Mafia but unlike these Harness horse trainers. I think the Mafia are supposed to have honour. Though how anybody involved in the distribution of any kind of mind-altering destructive drug including legal can think they have honour is beyond me. But in New Zealand we Knight the alcohol barons, which either says a lot about the system of title or the attitude of our country.

b) What I was greeted with at this Trainers meeting was a tirade of aggressive profanity and personal insult. The personal insult did not particularly worry me but the aggressive profanity was another matter Especially considering it was uncensored and unrestrained by the Chair of the meeting and the CEO of HRNZ who were almost siting right beside the individual involved. I made two written complaints about this. The reply being, the individual involved was provoked. It is difficult for me to think how I could have spoken about this matter in a less provocative manner. I made a point of not replying in kind to the outburst of profanity as I am conscious of my behaviour when I become angry so I make a point of not getting angry in most all situations.(I under no circumstances get angry with the elderly, women, children, animals or in situations it is not socially acceptable to be so. Anybody that states any different is a liar like most involved in this matter) Meetings like this trainers association are circumstance that I never get angry, plus I was shocked by the behaviour of Mc Grath and more shocked by the lack of restraint or censure to it.

c)It seems strange to me than when somebody physically abuses me and my horse while driving in a race and rather than reply in kind I let loose with a tirade of abuse, threats an anger. I will be severely fined but I go to a supposedly democratic meeting to voice very real and pertinent concerns. With the perpetrators of the same kind of behaviour (verbal outbursts of profanity and abuse), almost praised and complimented by the relevant authorities.

d)A horserace is highly competitive intense event the rules of engagement are and should be different from a democratic meeting. I make no apology to the verbal abuse I have metered out when I have been purposely physically abused by other male drivers (I have never ever had a problem with female drivers. I have always found female drivers fair and considerate but still very competitive. If in the unlikely event I did end up with some problem I am sure it would be an accident and they would apologise, and I would acknowledge this and move one. Unlike all of those responsible for the abuse of me while driving in a race, I feel female drivers don’t have a problem or an axe to grind with me. Even if it was not an accident I adamantly refuse to engage with a female in any kind of aggression what so ever I consider such men that do for any reason, as revolting, disgusting and reprehensible. Plus I fight men, any man that in anyway abuses me in a suitable venue. I will do everything in my power to have him continue and escalate the confrontation to a physical level I am neither proud nor ashamed of this It is just the way I am. I will under no circumstances (except as a last resort in self defence or the defence of somebody else from physical abuse) will become involved in any form of aggression in any unsuitable venue such as the case at the trainers meeting or any home (including my own) or another person’s property. Nor have nor will I physically initiate physical aggression outside the confines of contact sports arena or in the circumstances if anybody says anything personally derogatory about my parents (especially my mother) my sister or either of my brothers.  I do not drink alcohol or take any illicit drugs. I do not like to go to places where New Zealand men consume large qualities of alcohol.{what is it with our culture, alcohol and  men  Japanese drink a lot of alcohol and laugh joke and sing, aggression is no part of it I really enjoy this type of social interaction, alcohol or not.}

 

e)There is a time and a place for aggression any other context it is purely destructive and completely unacceptable. From my experiences in Japan I have seen how much better society functions when aggression is taken out of the equation it is about patience and respect When I drive my car if somebody cuts me off or drives in front of me by mistake It is no big deal when I meet somebody if there is no other reason, I don’t go out of my way to have an argument most cases I go out of my way to avoid one. I have very outspoken views especially about many things including, the unfairness of the situation the USA has found its self in. And the proliferation of abuse of drugs, alcohol and gambling with the unaccountable damage it does to our society. In the case of alcohol usually death, injury or assault on innocent people, in the case of gambling usually the destruction of families. On illicit recreational Drug use, where do I start and where will this finish on the harm it is doing to our society.

 

f)It is a difficult balance to achieve by have strong outspoken views but not being unduly argumentative to people who don’t share those views.  I was recently speaking to a guy about my views on alcohol and he stated “individual” choice as a means of maintaining the status quo. But what about the individual choice of people to drive on the road without being murdered like that Harness horsetrainer Cashman did to some poor young guy driving down the road obeying the law. Hit head on by this idiot on the wrong side of the road drunk out of his brain following in the example of Harness Racing New Zealand’s Southland originated Chief stipendiary steward who not only had a huge problem with me but it appears also could not refraining from driving his car while heavily intoxicated. From what I gather it was a miracle this ex Southland originated HRNZ stipendiary steward did not as Cashman did. Murder some innocent person from the affect of this alcohol .The question has to be asked if it wasn’t for this product how many innocent people would be alive now. And what possible good does it do to the well being of our society at large.

 

g) It says a lot about the culture of HRNZ that they would appoint such an obviously irresponsible alcoholic individual in such an important job yet mount such a strong, determined prolonged attack against John and my self. Simply because I alone (John has no public opinion about this matter all he wants to do is drive our horses) dare to question the democratic accountability of this organisation, which is bound by legislations to act in accordance with stated best practice. The same organisation is clearly, neglecting, abusing and flaunting.

    

h)As to the individual choice of the prevalence of alcohol in our society, apart from being able to drive on the road with out being indiscriminately murdered, what about the individual choice of a wife or partner, of no good lowlife husbands, to carry on her and her families life with out getting constantly abused or assaulted, or spectators to attend a sporting venues with out being the subject off or listening to vile abuse.

 

i)The only individual choice that seems important in this country concerning alcohol is for the ability for anybody associated with the sale of this despicable product to make huge profits. Btw I have studied and read much about the 12 years of prohibition under the Volstead Act of 1919 I do not support prohibition, although a noble and worthy objective this created more problems for society than it could ever solve. (Though prohibition of alcohol has been successful in the Muslim world. maybe 12 years was not long enough to change a culture of 1000’s of years where alcohol had become so ingrained and accepted without the brutality associated with enforcement of Muslim law)    But I consider the present state of affairs unacceptable and unstainable. Alcohol sale and production should be nationalised, no brands, no advertising no sponsorship. Stricter (much) penalties should be imposed the use Illicit drugs such as Marijuana, P and cocaine or they should be legalised and sold on the same basis as alcohol. The organised crime structure, which is developing under the present circumstances of illicit drugs, is not acceptable. All profits from the sale, distribution and manufacture of recreational drugs including alcoholic and tobacco should be used for damage control, counselling and education so our society can at least aim to be alcohol drug dependent free, by choice.

 

j)I think people such as myself are referred to as ‘wowsers’. If any man wants to call me by any derogatory reference they should be prepared to get into the boxing ring with me. If they are not prepared to do this. I call them a coward. I take wowser, as nobody ever will call me a coward I will get in the boxing ring with any man.

            

 k)I do my very best to avoid becoming aggressive but realise in certain situations if I am being abused by a male in anyway, I cannot prevent myself becoming very angry, so I try to avoid those potential  situations.

l)I feel I need to state this about the way I conduct my life because of the total slanderous and deceitful misinformation that has constantly been spread about me mostly by people I have never met nor spoken to. It seems also I have an uncanny ability to evoke people to think the worst of me. When in reality the substance of the way I think and act, is in fact the opposite of the perception these people chose to form and spread about me. This quality must be inherent as it was also attributed to my father. He was no saint but he most certainly was not a hypocrite and had many, many good points He never ever resorted to any kind of violence and very seldom ever got angry.  He was rational and fair in his decisions as well as discipline and above all like our mum encouraged my sister and brothers to work hard and do our best especially in our education and sporting pursuits He never that I know of used profanity especially in our home. Though I know of unbelievable revolting things said about him that I know for a fact are false said by people who should know better. The only people who are entitled to judge the likes my father are those that experienced the same circumstances as he did. I fell out with my father and never reconciled with him before he died, this was my problem not his.

n) I don’t physically abuse anybody or other horses by fowl driving and I don’t tolerate any man doing it do my brother or myself.

Harness racing is not and should never ever be a contact sport. If another driver cuts me off, because they feel they have some entitlement or axe to grind. I do not do the same back, as I have nothing against the horse he is driving. (Despite the disproportional acrimonious relationships between me and other participants and the authorities. In the 30 years of driving harness horses I have only had careless or any other related driving charges laid against me. One laid, prosecuted, convicted and sentenced over 20 years ago by a known drunkard who for some reason had a serious problem with me, was dismissed under appeal. The other I mention on this site, was unfounded and unjustified and I feel wrongly upheld under Appeal I is interesting to note that in this recent charge I speak of The opposing driver who happens to have the same surname as me but this is the only thing we have in common as he is a liar, in stated my horses cart wheel hit his horses legs. The Judge despite my protestations and the lack of any corroborating evidence held this. At the time I stated it was impossible for my wheel to hit this horse’s leg by virtue of the fact the position of which I initiated the movement I was not far enough forward for this to be able to occur as the shafts of the cart protect the horses legs. This is also why the decision when to make the movement is crucial as if it is delayed the wheel will hit the other horses legs What ever people say about my driving ability I am technically a very good driver in making moves like this and finding gaps without causing interference. My record with out suspension speak for this)

m)When I played a contact sport I had no problem with being cheated against or any other kind of abuse (in fact I liked and relished it) as the matter was settled in a basic and fundamental way, which resulted in everybody being equal due to an ancient form of Claim of Right called ‘an eye for an eye’ In Harness Racing people like me can only depend on the relevant controlling body to police and enforce the rules. As mentioned I strongly believe the integrity of this controlling body is severely compromised both by perception and in reality.

o)Through out my correspondence with the relevant controlling body empowered to enforce the rules and detect and prosecute these cheats, liars and thieves. Rennell the CEO of Harness Racing New Zealand (HRNZ) constantly harps on about some expensive ($600,000) testing machine. Again this shows the deceitfulness of this organisation. If anybody thinks analytical testing will stop this scourge alone they are deranged. Any kind of testing machine will only find what it is specifically programmed to exactly test for. This is why it was so difficult and expensive to find what was/is actually toxic in the water and why it was not discovered in the blood tests.(had we been aware of the toxicity of the water  the effects on the sick horses could have been easily checked by hair samples and liver tests specifically and correlated with the obvious clinical signs of  the same problemAny test will not randomly show up the presences of Iron Toxicity in the horse or water it need to be actively programmed in and specifically looked for)

p)An example is if a machine is programmed to test for petrol it will not likely pickup a solution of petrol and methylated spirits mixed unless the specific chemical composition of that solution is programmed to be tested for (which will not be that of petrol). Not withstanding this mixture will look like, petrol, smell like petrol and most certainly function like petrol. It will not test as petrol. Unless the authorities know exactly chemically what they are looking for it will not be found by analytic testing especially if politically favourable and expedient, for such a substance not to be found. Which was obviously also the situation with these Vets testing the blood of our horses. This is also illustrates the benefit of the use of baking soda as a masking agent. Because of the organic chemical simplistic periodic formula of baking soda NaHCO3 it could freely mix with many other complex chemicals to change the chemical composition thus testability, without in anyway altering the performance enhancing function of the substance.

5)      Just continue as we have for the last 30 years being naïve and stupid enough to think we had a chance to compete against this stuff. It was not so difficult before this subject horse that was temporally on our farm showed me the light of the real situation. But to continue the same way renders my brother John and I some kind of second class peasant devoid of any rights or expectations to be able to compete successfully but just allowed to be involved in Harness Racing to make up the numbers and the cheat’s horses and drivers look good. With our ability, character and work ethic denigrated and criticised for the obviously lack of achievement. We have been raised to treat everybody honourably, with dignity and respect. This role of second class peasant is not an option for John and I. Let any man or group of men who disagrees with this, stand in front of us to press the issue and it will be evident by our response to such, why. We have sold many trucks and other vehicles to people in Harness Racing (including many people I now consider drug cheats) and the Canterbury Equine Clinic and/or its principle plus his previous business partner. We conducted this vehicle import business with everybody including these harness racing participants openly, honestly and honourably. As we have presented our horses to race against these same people’s horses. How would these cheats we have had to compete against for the last 30 years have liked it that when the put up their money to buy the vehicle they had absolutely no chance of getting what they expected and we started insulting denigrating and deriding these people when they rightly complained about this untenable situation. This is what these people have done to John and I and any other scrupulously honest Harness horse trainers, which I do not know many. I only know of one trainer to continually publicly spoke out against this situation. (I don’t like his views on many other matters but I greatly respect the courage he showed to publicly speak out against this disgraceful situation in Harness Racing) It is neither my job nor his to expose this practice in Harness racing. It has caused me untold grief and cost me many friendships with people I have had for the 30 years I have been in Harness Racing.

b) It is HRNZ and the Police’s job to deal with and eradicate this cheating and fraud, not mine. Just as it is the responsibility of journalist to expose and highlight this situation not mine But just like all thieves these HR participants have two set of values, one for stealing and another for being stolen from All and any thieves, people who function on the precept of deceit, corruption and dishonesty are beneath contempt to me but the worst are like these individuals in Harness racing who take the mantle of honest, honourable, hardworking and diligent. Where as reality would expose cheating Harness racing participants, as making Tiger Woods hypocrisy appear like a pre teen Choirboy.

 

8.2) Governance and lack of democratic process in Harness Racing

   As I have already mentioned it is my strong contention this body is corrupt in all manner of aspects. Knowing corruption exists is one thing, exposing this behaviour and culture, then proving it to the required standard is another. This is the same with my contentions on drug cheating

 

8.2.1)  If countries and societies with such endemic corruption are studied and analysed the common denominator is always a total lack of complete and universal democratic process and engagement. With the checks and balances this type of Democratic society relies on to be sustainable like an impartial, unfettered and uncompromising news media. And there is always suggestion of gratuitous corrupt rewards to an elite few at the expense of the disenfranchised, honest and unconnected (usually a peasant). This description can also be attributed to the fraternal infested corrupt (Gotham) city of Christchurch especially relating to its large lawfirms, local government and crony property developers. As is clearly shown in the connections and lawyers behaviour concerning the latter mentioned pressured sale of our farm to Selwyn District Council. .

8.2.2)This lack of suitable democratic process is part or the entire problem of Harness racing in New Zealand. Although deemed a statutory body under the Racing Act thus subject to the stipulations and obligations of the Local Government Act especially that of democratic accountability. Harness racing lacks the basic fundament processes and organizational machinery to be in anyway deemed democratic. Harness Racing is controlled and run in New Zealand by a group of Clubs, which resemble English Gentleman Clubs. These clubs deny the stakeholders (horse owners) and customers (punters) any representation or consultation unless these owners and punters care to or can join these clubs (these clubs have the power and right to deny prospective members entry. Its called Blackballing I think also there is a need for an endorsement from an existing member for any prospective member. These antiquated practices may well have ceased; I am not sure or sufficiently interested to find out.) As far as I am concerned the only satisfactory outcome concerning club control of Harness Racing is the stripping of all power from them. . These clubs have stated traditions, hierarchies and agendas not necessary consistent with the advancement of Harness Racing in general nor the democratic principles and functions of our society. If a citizen or rate payer wants to utilise his or her right to participate in the democratic process they are not required to join a Bowling Club or the Rotary Club, to rely on the elected representative of that club to express the individual democratic preference Obviously the elected representative of that club will follow the preference of the historical mandate of that club alone. So by being forced to join such a club, to participate in the process in affect denies the constituent of any other choice. It is an oligarchy, with the governance of Harness Racing in New Zealand very much reassembling that of China’s political structure with the same potential for and prevalence of corruption and cronyism. The difference being HR relies on the proceeds of poker machines to be sustainable rather than slave labour and the manipulation of the exchange rate, like China.

8.2.3) These clubs hold about 95% of the power in Harness Racing to affect any kind of positive and proactive change or conversely allow this activity to stagnate and self destruct..

8.2.4) I am, have been and will be an ardent critic of this system as it is exclusive and serves only the self-interest of those who wish to become involved in its own social order. Most of all it is not democratically accountable and they are devoid of the necessary checks and balances along with the channels of communication and consultation to see Harness racing grow and flourish. Let alone preventing corruption and the inevitable stagnation, which is beginning to manifest itself with this clandestine controlled activity. This stagnation is no more apparent that the Chairman of the Metropolitan Club statements in the Christchurch Press that the economic sustainability of Harness Racing is in jeopardy if they are not granted a gaming license for poker machines.  This sums up this whole outfit, ignore and disregard basic preferences of, or even consultation with the customer but just expect gaming machines proceeds to disguise the consequences of this elitist arrogance, with the obvious mis management and apparent lack of transparency.

8.2.5) European Harness Racing is booming and unlike the USA, which has adopted the ‘gravy train’ of juvenile racing (2 and 3 year old horse) it does not rely on poker machines to remain sustainable. Though there is an important distinction between New Zealand and the USA. The USA has a broad based egalitarian distribution of stake (prize) money whereas in NZ the stakes, subsequently the Poker Machine proceeds are disproportionably target at the rich and elite. It is the embodiment of the rich getting richer and the poor poorer, similar to the economic demographic of India. India sustains this situation in its society by religious brainwashing. New Zealand harness racing participants are selfish, apathetic and ignorant to allow this untenable governance structure to perpetuate. While I was working in the USA in the early 80’s the horseman were constantly going on strike to wrestle better stake distribution and conditions for the majority of the members. The only mention in New Zealand I have ever heard of these horsemen wanting to strike. Was in support of a lesser penalty for the cheat who highlighted the drug performance-enhancing situation to me.

8.2.6)In the USA and Australian harnessracing is designed the complete opposite from New Zealand. Harness Racing in the USA and Australia gives all participants the best opportunity to cover their costs. Constantly the people in control of New Zealand HR, retort the difference in population between these countries. To defend the inability of the stake structure in providing programming of races which enables a much larger % of participants to legitimately cover costs.. But how does this so called demographic constraint justify the huge disparity in high stakes races in New Zealand. Surely if this population factor was a significance it would manifest its self in the lower stakes for elite horses also.

8.2.7) Usually the same people involved and controlling the Club governance are the owners of these so-called elite horses. So what these people do is instigate special conditions for their own type of horses so they do not get handicapped the same as the more common horses. How weird is that, expensive higher quality horses have a handicapping advantage racing against cheaper low quality stock. It seems these individuals in control of Harness Racing can not only manipulate our societies idea of democratic governance. They can totally disregard the meaning of the English language. How possibly can that be termed a handicapping system? It should be termedanticapping because it is the anthesis of handicapping.  Obviously as these clubs decide the stake money paid. The people in control take from the lower grade horses to ingratiate the owners of the elite horse, usually already involved in the Clubs.

8.2.8) Greyhound racing operates in the same population base as harness racing. Basically they are in competition with Harness Racing. Not only for the betting customer but more importantly the owners. Not withstanding that Greyhound racing cheaply accessed the TAB facilities, which had been historically built up and created by horseracing. All credit must go to this code for the effort they have made to make it owner friendly and egalitarian.

8.2.9) This whole Club based governance structure is just the quintessence of class distinction. And now they wish to rely of poker machines, which destroy the lives of so many, weak and vulnerable in our society. To fund their surreal and unsustainable time warped hierarchy of decision-making, lack of consultation but most importantly absence of any democratic accountability. Somebody needs to inform HRNZ, that we in New Zealand society are no longer in the 1800’s.

8.2.9) The Court of Appeal instructed HRNZ in the Appeal regarding accreditation that Harness racing in New Zealand is not a private activity whom the powers that be, can exclude and deny who they wish. This was demonstrated with the unbelievable actions of the Invercargill club excluded G Small’s horses from their race meeting. How crazy was that. Small is entitled to the same access as anybody else. I make no other comment about Small.   I can assure all in sundry the illegal performance enhancing drugs I believe many of these Club and HRNZ officials’ horses were/are running on demonstrate chemical technology well into the 21st century.

8.2.10) I was stunned when reading on a Harness Racing ‘chat site’ (which I was subsequently permanently banned from) that the training partner and son of the Chairman of the Harness Racing Executive. Would contact clubs to inform them of the most suitable type of races to suit his horses he had. Presumably this is to influence the club, to program suitable races specifically for this individual’s horses. This is truly unbelievable but obviously common and allowable to all those politically connected in Harness Racing .For those that don’t understand Harness Racing, it is a huge and unfair advantage to in anyway influence the type of races programmed as obviously all horses have different preferences to increase their winning chances whether it be distance run or mode of start. Also I am extremely sceptical about the barrier draw process I feel on critical analysis, the well connected would receive vastly superior barriers draws than would otherwise occur honestly and randomly.

8.2.11) Conversely analysis of our horse’s barrier draws for certain horses just defy belief that they were not manipulated. An example being the horse in photo 26(Maybe Means No). This horse was very unsound (injury prone) but had a lot of ability. She was not a good beginner from the standing start, but if everything went right she could begin OK The commonly acknowledged worst barrier draw from the standing start is1(especially for such a horse) the best is 4-7 This horse after it demonstrated its potential got (stand) 1 then 1 again then 1 on the second line. (The actual odds of that rightly happening from 12 to 14 other numbers are astronomical.) Only when we requested her to go on the unruly list did she cease to get 1. Instead this unruly designation destined her to the very outside of the second line. Conversely the best barrier draw in mobile (moving start) events is 1-4 the worst being 6-9 or second line equivalents depending on the number of runners.  No prizes for guessing the barrier draws (MMN) drew in mobile races unless it was preferential drawn race. Which mean the lesser-assessed horse get the better barrier draw on an objective analysis of wins and money won from past performance, as a form of handicapping (this also is a misnomer as the better elite horses operate under different handicapping conditions to disproportionably benefit them). These barrier draws this horse received are a matter of fact. If the New Zealand Government is concerning about preventing corruption in Harness Racing .A start would be, the whole barrier draw process should be taken away from HRNZ and put in the hands of the internal affairs dept. With officials controlling it who have nothing what so ever to do with HR or anybody involved in it.

8.2.12) I do not deny that some of our horses would have received good barrier draws over the years but usually the barrier draw was of no consequence because the particular horse had only a runner’s chance. To this horse(MMN) mentioned the barrier draw was crucial as every race it entered it had a good chance of winning and its race opportunity was restricted being only day-to-day due to constant soreness. If the barrier draws of those with connection to the Club were analysed I am sure it could be construed that the converse situation from our horse (MMN) could be reasonably deduced.

8.2.13) I am told that I am considered a conspiracy theorist .I am not really sure if I am or not (I am positive the USA Government was aware of the impending attack on Pearl Harbour by the Japanese I could write many pages of plausible rationale to support this. Most significant that for some un unknown or never explained reason the USA navy moved all 4 of its only aircraft carriers out of Pearl harbour shortly before this attack.  I do not base my theories on anything but substantiated and thorough research.) I know my brain functions differently. I really wonder about the Police in this country when I used to ride my bicycle a lot. I could see the illegal recreation drug supply houses, as clear as day In fact there was one across the road (adjacent) from my home. After these drug houses had been in operation for many months, I would think to myself if I can recognise these why don’t the Police.

8.2.14)Yet when these same Police stop me with my truck, some Cop with the intensity of a bloodhound, gets underneath it with a torch and has a marked reluctance to get out until he has found something to put me out of business and or substantially fine me. Don’t worry about the drug houses selling drugs to children what the Police seem intent on is destroying people like myself trying to make an honest living with an old truck. I have driven a motor vehicle for over 35 years and never been close to being in any kind of accident. Yet every time a cop stops me they appear sure they have just apprehended the worlds most wanted criminal. That’s not my problem; it’s the Cops because they could not be more wrong, just like TV3’s resident moron, Campbell.

8.2.15)  If the controlling authorities displayed 10% of the proactively and ambition at stopping theft and this performance enhancing drug cheating fraud. As those ‘truck cops’ do at trying to put our truck out of business maybe our horses could compete on a fair and equal basis and I would not be a pauper reduced so by the thieves that steal everything of any value we had left. I have often wondered why Cops have such a negative opinion of me. Now I realise if everybody was like my sister, John and I these Cops would have to get a real job, so I suppose it is personal. Criminals of any kind in our society have a lot to answer for one such is the need for Cops.

8.2.16) With regard to the situation in Harness Racing, not withstanding conspiracy theory red-hearing, anybody would have to be pretty stupid to have a horses racing like I have mention and not realise something is not right. But with the benefit of hindsight anybody would have to be pretty stupid to be involved in Harness racing and be honest. There should be a warning to every new entrant in Harness Racing “ If you are considering entering Harness Racing and you are honest, honourable and believe in the values and virtues of democracy, fair play and integrity. Really you should think again as this activity will be very disappointing, expensive and you will eventually become very disillusioned and or broke.” Then when people like John and I devote so much of our time and resources to this activity. Like smokers who damage their health, we would only have our selves to blame when reality hits the fan.

8.2.17) The main income stream for Harness racing is derived from the betting public not once have I heard of anybody from these clubs going to the betting public and asking them how the product these Clubs are providing could be improved. An example is field size (number of runners), the clubs like big fields as it maximises profits for them with the minimum of expense, effort or input. Owners and trainers don’t like big field size as it creates uncertainly nobody has ever asked the customer (punter) what field size they prefer. As these Club officials and members do not care what the customer thinks. So as can be seen the customers are going elsewhere.

8.2.18) Many of these most prominent and influential Club officials are the long-term and dedicated patrons of the convicted drug cheating trainers. With the president of the Metropolitan Club (the most prominent NZ club mentioned above bemoaning the need for poker machines as a lifeline to Harness Racing falling profitability and failing sustainability), a well-known participant in and supporter of, the stable of the cheating trainer I had a personal experience with. I would not be at all surprised if leading and prominent Harness Racing Club official and administrator’s horses as well as the horse that came from our farm had a litany of phantom kidney complaints needing EPO type product treatment along with the already noted stomach ulcer syndromes to excuse and justify the use of Bronchial Dilatator.

8.2.19) Obviously the income stream from the betting public is becoming less and costs to breed race and train horses are becoming more. I feel a major reason for the abandonment of harness racing by the betting public. Is a crisis of integrity. This is all about perception. If the customers feel so strongly the product is not legitimate they stop buying or participating it, whether they are or not being cheated is of no or little consequences. What is of importance is they no longer patronise the product.

8.2.19)Firstly the drivers are too friendly with one another. They go on holiday together, socialise, in most cases exclusively together, travel to the races in each others cars and are constantly involved in conversation in the preliminary (race warm up) when they should be focusing on the job at hand. As I have discovered if anybody falls out with a small number of them basically it creates animosity with all of them. This is neither a healthy or natural, let alone transparent, for a group of humans supposed to be in individual competition against each other. This should be compared to jockeys especially in Australia who have a much more dog eat dog attitude to the responsibilities of competition and transparency to the betting public.

When Jockeys physically fight or verbally abuse each other they should be rewarded not fined as it is sending a message to the punter that there is animosity and where there is open animosity usually there is a lesser degree of conspiracy or collusion. This contrary situation with jockeys is for a number of reasons but notable is the lack of family domination and control of thorough bred racing which is so evident in Harness Racing.

8.2.20)Secondly there are too many trainers and drivers who are or closely associated with heavy gamblers. I cannot see how it is not a conflict of interests’ trainers and drivers so heavily involve in and with gambling. When the income comes from the perception of the general public gambling on this activity with a fair chance and equal expectation of success.

If people want to derive reward from providing the product are perceived to be in a position whereby they can unduly influence that expectation of the customer providing the income stream. They should be restrained from in any way being involved in betting on that same product for their own gain and reward. A good solution would be banning harness racing license holders and their spouses from gambling on Harness Racing. But what chance would that have of being enforced. HRNZ cannot even recognise and eliminate blatant drug-cheating .Let alone anything but the crudest and inept efforts of gambling irregularities amongst license holders.

8.2.21)The state of Addington Raceway and Metropolitan Club recently pleading the need for Poker machine money highlights the whole inadequacies and lack of transparency and consultation in Harness racing governance. In the 40 years or more I can remember attending Addington raceway. I have seen a huge sell off in the land. The problem with this method in raising capital is that land can only be sold once. The only capital investment I have noticed is a member’s stand, which I think cost $11million and recently a stable block built at a cost of $7 million. Both these things do nothing to improve or increase the possibility of generating more customers from the betting public. And render this whole complex nothing more than a ‘white elephant’. The new stable block is only there to enable the members to have easier and convenient access to their horses. I had no problem with the old stables and do not consider the stated (I feel under) approximately $300,000(works out at less than 5%)per year interest cost to service this capital cost anything but a waste of money.

8.2.22) The Addington racing surface is substandard as it is not and cannot be made into a true oval. The ‘showground’ bend is inconsistent and disjointed making it difficult for some horses to run around.

8.2.23) The best possible scenario would see Harness Racing move from Addington to the surrounding area of Christchurch. It only is used for about 50-60 days a year.

On-course attendance is meagre at best, except for one per day per year, travelling 10 or 15km away from the centre of the city would make absolutely no difference to this one-day’s attendance. An ideal place this racetrack could have been relocated to was Templeton or close to the Airport as it would have been in close vicinity to so many horses being trained.

8.2.24) Plus this extremely valuable potentially commercial land at Addington could be put to much better use. But what are the members who exclusively control this activity going to do with their modern stand and new stable block (maybe $20+ million to replace.) I would also be interested to know how the commercial contracts of this club are scrutinised and awarded. If the business transparency is anything like the appearance of the barrier draws. And the results of the appropriate authorities attempts at curbing the drug-cheating epidemic. This commercial contract allocation could truly rate Harness Racing as a ‘den of iniquity’.

8.2.25)It is interesting as I mention the officials of this club and racetrack are now lobbying the Council to rescind the ban or gain an exemption, on any more Poker Machines in Christchurch. There are any multitudes of excuses espoused as to why this should occur but no explanation as to why this club did not have Poker machines installed in the first place. Instead of just mindlessly taking the proceeds of these machines from other venues. To race horses they must be nominated by a certain time if for any reason that nomination is missed it will not matter the horse will not be allowed to race. This Club missed the time for the installation of poker machines and have no body but themselves to blame. But as usual in Harness Racing there is one rule for some and a rule for another. Maybe that is the crux of the problem why the core customers (punters) have deserted the product in droves. As later mentioned I object to harness racing taking the proceeds of poker machine money. But as I state, owning and operating these machines as part of the entire business model seems much less abhorrent than what they did before, in just taking the proceeds from other venues. When this money could have been and should have been put to much better causes. However I fervently oppose the Harness Racing clubs disguising mis management, lack of consultation and poor business decisions by using the poker machines to subsidise and ingratiate the disproportionate stake structure, which unequally benefits the same members of these clubs at the expense of the rank in file HR participants.

8.3.0) Harness Racing New Zealand. (HRNZ) Administers Harness racing it is like a government department responsible for the issuing of licences, registering of breeding and policing Harness Racing.  For some reason they where extremely reluctant to issue John and I licenses when we first applied (30 year ago) which I take extreme offence to. Considering Harness racing is made up of prominent participants including; convicted drug dealers, fraudsters, thieves, receivers and alleged and all other forms of criminal activity past, present and future who were obviously issued with their licenses without fail. But it seems John and I were judged by the sins of our grandfather who had an unceremonious and ignominious exit from Harness racing some 80 years ago. This was due to the involvement with the above mentioned Judge associated harness racing property developing participant’s grandfather in a ‘ring in’ scam. This individuals Grandfather must also have had some association with a prominent Judge. As he and another managed to get acquitted on the basis of turning crown evidence while our grandfather and another took their wrap.

8.3.1) The Stipendiary stewards are the police of Harness Racing it is somewhat disconcerting that they are drawn from the same fraternity that they are empowered to police and in one case related by marriage to the same fraternal family the convicted drug cheat I mentioned earlier emerged as a protégée from.

8.3.2) HRNZ and I just don’t like each other.  It has been said, I have a problem with authority, the problem I have is with; cheats, criminals, corruption, cronyism, class distinction, lack of democratic process and bullies. It appears, many of the authorities I come into contact with fit these descriptions thus have a problem with me it is not vis versa initially   This was clearly demonstrated by the late Stipendiary steward Purvis going completely out of his way to prevent John and I being licensed. I challenge HRNZ to front up and stipulate what did we ever do to warrant this and why were we treated completely differently from other applicants. Initially it was stated that our facilities at the beach were not good enough even though as photos again can prove all our horses were absolutely immaculate (photo34 Betty’s pic as a yearling many of these horses descend from this horse including photos (1-12, 17,22,24)

 

photo 35 Our best horse, Hard Cash winning in class record at Addington together my brother John and I (driver) ,this was the horse that had to compete against the HRNZ Vet consultants (way) over achieving horse throughout its career,)

8.3.3) These horses produced from so called seemingly unsatisfactory and unsuitable facilities for anybody to be licensed, merely to train their own horses. Obviously these horses had access to toxic free water. Recently I saw a human-interest story on the trackside-racing channel about a now prominent specialist-trotting trainer (a relation by marriage to the trainer I mention involved with the Judge in RMA property development matters). This specialist-trotting trainer was skiting about the ease in which he was granted his training license at the same time I was constantly being denied my chance and illustrating the same individual Purvis inspected this trainer’s as a new applicant’s dearth of facilities. Which were just a dilapidated open barn and a paddock from my recollection.

8.3.4) This should be contrast to what Purvis said to me “we have got to set standards if we gave you a licence we wouldn’t have any standards” Anybody that can remember the simply immaculate condition all our horses used to be in, similar to the photo’s of 27,28,34&35 will understand why I became so angry at this controlling body and their denial of giving me a chance to train our own horses for so long. Justified by unfair and distorted rationale for this prejudice by the Controlling body, in denying us our basic right to participate in this activity. I have no problem with rules regulations or stipulations if they are fair and transparent with everybody being treated the same. I do not tolerate being victimised or treated as a second-class citizen and just as importantly I do not tolerate it done to anybody else.

8.3.5) Right from my initial contact with HRNZ or as it was known the Trotting Conference, when still a teenager. They went way out of their way to exclude my brother John and myself. I have no idea of the reason for this as by anybodies standards I had over achieved at school both academically and in the sporting field. Individuals who have anyway a problem with authority cannot accomplish this especially when burdened with chronic dyslexia as I was at school. The difference being in all my time at school I was judged and subsequently treated as an individual and nobody at the school had any problem with me based on what my grandfather or any other relative had acted or been involved in.

8.3.6) This victimisation by HRNZ was further enunciated with Purvis’s superior, Chief Mackenzie suspending me for 3months for I don’t know what I am not entirely sure this serial DIC’er knew what he was suspending me for either. I should have requested this stipendiary steward undergo a breathalyser test when adjudicating over me.  I never actually got to find out what Mackenzie’s problem was with me. As it appears, he fell in the Clutha River while awaiting his own trial or sentence. Obviously he was better at drinking (and driving) than swimming, as he never got out of the river. Did he fall or did he jump? That it the question only the Clutha River can answer.

8.3.7) When people or groups of people don’t like me or my brother I don’t like them, there are no exceptions to this. But in this case HRNZ started it.   Maybe this is why HRNZ declined the request to inspect our horses after they were seized. But wrote a big article on their website about how these horses were thriving away from our care. Alluding to the fact, the SPCA have adamantly professed that they all were malnourished before going to a new environment whereby they were now thriving. Maybe the access to water without toxic amounts of IRON in it has the most to do with the only 25-30 % that were not thriving in our care.

8.3.8) I hold HRNZ 100% responsible for the endemic abuse of performance enhancing drugs. They are neither transparent nor co-operative with people such as myself that want to put a stop to this cheating, treating every request or suggestion with hostility, defensively and intransigence.

The Stipendiary Stewards are either the dumbest officials to ever hold any kind of position of investigatory responsibility or deviously cunning and latently corrupt. I am maybe a poor judge but I do not consider these officials, collectively dumb or stupid.

8.3.9)One day maybe just one day the truth will be exposed about this drug cheating in Harness Racing. One thing I guarantee, none of these dishonourable cheats, liars and thieves will ever admit it, like some cheats in other fields have done and are beginning to do. Harness Racing participants do not think like normal people so consequently they do not act like normal people. So should not be treated or expected as such by the investigating authorities and media The British media are adept at dealing with and exposing such people and their ilk. It seems the only thing the New Zealand media can do. Is through deceit and treachery is attempt to destroy people like my brother John and my self. That is pretty much in keeping with my previous analogy of Nazi Germany.

 

 

 

 

8.4.0) Access to Poker Machine money.

Harness Racing should not have and should not request access to this money which method of collection is causing so much damage in the community. If HR is to utilise the proceeds of this ‘crack cocaine’ of gambling they should be required to own and operate the machines at the tracks, as is the case in the USA. Even this is not acceptable but I consider less abhorrent than the status quo.  To constantly put out their hands, as a non-contributing beneficiary for this money, is not only unstainable it portrays HR in a bad light. It is just not justifiable or defensible to be asking for and taking the proceeds of a form of gambling, which has such a devastating and unequal effect on the weak and vulnerable in our society. Then disproportionately laud it on the high stakes horse races to owners most of whom are extremely well off. Like most things in HR this abuse of Poker machine proceeds, is diametrically contrary to the values and aspirations of our society, as is the governance of HR

8.4.1) What HR should be arguing is a tax advantage against Casino gambling based on the cost advantage of Casino operation and the far-reaching effects on the employment all horse racing creates and sustains. As well as the export Industry horse racing produces as compared to casino gambling. Or Harness Racing should have requested/applied to have put casinos at the main metropolitan race courses (Addington, Christchurch and Alexander park Auckland) They are both centrally located and the gambling products would compliment each other with the profits of this legitimate business used to foster the stakes in Harness Racing.    But instead of this, these Clubs took the easy option pushing for the proceeds of this poker machine money without any investment or effort.  Ignoring or not caring of the perception or consequences, asking for it and taking this money ensue, when these proceeds could and should be directed to worthy causes.

8.4.2) For further avoidance of doubt I have made no complaint or done any Governmental lobbying on my views on Poker Machines. Except concerning the abuse of these proceeds by Amateur drivers, which I feel has had a negative impact on Harness Racing as a whole receiving these proceeds. HRNZ should never ever have allowed the Amateurs to access this charity to purely fund their hobby.

8.4.3) Recently in review of applications for the granting of Poker machine licenses at Addington.  I specifically chose not to contact the Christchurch City Council on this matter even though I am strongly opposed to the proliferation of these poison machines.

8.4.4) In my complaint to one of these trusts which was made only after unsuccessfully trying to reason with the Amateur organisation. I expressly explained the distinction between the proceeds going to these Amateur driving and legitimate stakes. Which many people I know and do not necessary dislike depend on for their income and to pay wages of their staff. The use of the proceeds of these machines operated by the Clubs could be argued as a trade off from the result of the clearly unfair and disproportionate tax structure which favours casino’s and casino gambling compared to horse racing. Even after the results of the fair tax campaign, which Harness Racing chose to first oppose then sit on the fence about, except when it came to receiving the benefits. There is still a huge disproportion in the application of this tax due to the flow on benefits of Horse racing compared to Casino gambling.

8.4.5) The problem I have is with the Metropolitan Club (MTC) as opposed to the Auckland Trotting Club (ATC) who utilise not only the proceeds of poker machines but also all other possible legitimate businesses to booster stakes. This Metropolitan club will only be dragged into the 21st century, kicking, screaming, biting and spitting. The ATC have specifically kept the lower stakes up or actually increased them while reducing the high stakes races. There would be as much chance of that happening at the MTC (unprovoked) as a snowstorm in hell. Eventually the people in Harness Racing will have to realise that relying on or using Poker machine funding to maintain Harness Racing is unsustainable, untenable and unacceptable. So all and any trainers from Canterbury who are threatening to relocate to Auckland, due to stake disparity should start sooner rather than latter. The disparity of stakes and success of the ATC has much more to do with the application of democratic practice and egalitarian values between the 2 Clubs than the proceeds of any mindless one-armed family destroying poker machine device. Which like casinos, all forms of gambling, alcohol, cigarettes, sugar, all illegal drugs, fast food, excessive consumption of red meat and small coal fired polluting heaters. Human society may well be much better off with out.   Btw I practice what I preach.

8.4.6) As a post note on this matter, I sent a draft copy of this web site to the Broadcasting standards authority inmid August 2010 who I feel did not keep it confidential, as I would have thought such a body to do. I asked them if I need to send a copy to TV3 they obviously stated no. Had they informed me I needed to, I would have only done so on the provision that the contents of this web site remained confidential until I decided to publicly release it. Obviously they showed the contents of this web site to TV3 which I have no problem with .The problem I have is the material in it belongs to me and it should have been stipulated as confidential.

a) On Sept 17th the CEO of the MTC comes out with a statement about altering the stake distribution by reducing the stakes of the high-class Group races and redistributing it to the lower more common races. It seems the reason and ration used is exactly the same as I post on this website. What an absolute coincidence for 100year or more these Club officials ingratiate them selves with these obscenely high stakes races while the rank and file who provide the basis of the product for Harness Racing struggle and starve. Then this website get released to a Governmental agency (BSA) and there is an immediate about face of the policies by HRNZ.

b) In relation to a powerful painkiller known as ‘snake venom’ for the first time ever Rennell from HRNZ states in the Sunday Star Times of October3 2010 this product is unable to be tested for.  This was not on HRNZ initiative but that of the  NZ Customs uncovering irregularities of importation of vials of as yet unnamed and unidentified chemicals being imported by a New Zealand based  Canadian Vet. It is important to note that this product is obviously not natural snake venom but a scientifically manufactured product derived from the same chemical elements in natural snake venom that can be used as a powerful painkiller, as Rennell CEO of HRNZ states; there is no test for. Who would know what else there is no test for including all manner of chemical that can act as blood lactic acid buffers and intelligence drugs, which focus and sustain the horse (crucial in Harness racing as opposed to Thorough bred racing where as the horses are running more naturally.).

c) On the HRNZ website of early October I not that they are engaging some university body to conduct a survey relating to the betting public perception of Harness Racing in NZ .In the 40 years of conscious involvement in harness Racing in NZ this is the first I have heard of ever any consultation with the betting public.

8.4.7) The Chairman of the BSA as well as being some lawyer involved in or previously, the Law Society or some such clandestine organisation, Peter Radich is also a partner in the same lawfirm as Luke Radich and no doubt father of the same ex track side presenter who raced harness horses. Who would ever expect a lawyer especially one involved in or with that law Society to distribute confidential information to a well-connected member of the harness racing fraternity. A New Zealand lawyer would never do such a dishonourable thing (extreme sarcasm). Just like Rennell stated when I asked him at the Trainer/Driver meeting. Why no trainers had been apprehended with modern performance enhancers like EPO or Growth Hormone. Rennell’s reply “maybe all  trainers  are on the level’    Luke Radich, (according to the New Zealand Herald) he knows about lack of honour, using the unauthorised benefit of a mistaken odds posting on Australian tennis while an employee of the TAB to take an advantage of that mistake rather than correctly notify his employer.  From my experience with lawyers and the way they operate, Luke Radich will do well as one. All you owners and trainers racing at Addington in non Group races, even the drug cheats, who most all of you are, think how much you dislike me when you are spending the extra stake money recently awarded to these low grade meetings.

8.4.8) It is significant that Luke Radich raced a horse out of Robert Dunn’s stable I think with members of his family Robert Dunn was a long time committee member of the MTC and now I think Robert Dunn’s wife has taken over the role.

For the MTC to make this stake redistribution for the first time so soon after I released this draft of the web site is just too much of a coincidence. But it makes no odds what is the reason I hope there will be much more of the same to come. Not withstanding the close connection with the Dunn’s obviously Luke Radich would have many avenues to pass on information to any area in Harness racing he chose. Maybe that is the problem with both Harness Racing and society at large in New Zealand there seems no end or abatement to the degree or scope of insider trading. In fact the ability of any particular individual to become involved with and purvey insider-trading information and cultivate unhand networking usually correlates with their success or achievement in New Zealand yet constantly people are getting sent to prison for this type of thing in the USA and UK. I contacted the BSA to confirm if the Chairman had any connection with Harness Racing or did in fact share in the ownership of the horses raced out of Robert Dunn’s stable .The reply was a version of the ‘neither confirm or deny strategy’. I intend to construct a web site in detail explaining the history of illegal performance enhancing cheating in Harness Racing as well as the other scams the participants are involved in as well as the systemic corruption endemic in Harness Racing. Robert Dunn will learn nothing from any information I post on it. In an ideal world free of cheats, Robert Dunn would be rated an excellent trainer His son John also strikes me as a friendly polite and affable young man I wish him well. What people like’s of Robert Dunn and his ilk don’t seem to understand is a person doesn’t have to be very smart to stick a needle in a horse and inject a substance to make the horse a perform better.  But it is extremely difficult to train and race a horse in a sustainable manner. These people are the ones who should be campaigning to stop the drug cheating and if they should be coming to me and thanking me for my strong stand on this scourge. But like I say for these people to do this is like the Mafia campaigning to stop organised crime.

The situation with Robert Dunn shows the dilemma I am in. He would only be mentioned because of Radich’s connection with him. I have never had a problem with the man; I hope the situation has been mutual. But don’t expect me to act like some subservient peasant and my brother and I put so much time, effort and passion into training horses in the fruitless attempt of competing against serious cheats and not be upset about it.

8.4.9) Maybe the prevalence for this type of behaviour and its culture with the close personal involvement to so many important HRNZ employees and officers with the trainers is part of the reason no drug cheats ever get caught.

8.5.0) Amateur Driving

This is an initiative, which has been driven and instituted solely due to the systemic undemocratic nature of the governance of Harness racing. These are people who drive horses in special and restricted races for themselves alone. Like the gentleman powerboats or car racing drivers. It is s difficult concept to explain but none of them (initially anyway) appear to be in any position of financial compromise so can more than afford to fund their hobby. But instead of funding it themselves (like everybody with such hobbies should) these Amateur drivers also stuck their noses into this poker machine trough to access the money for the stakes, which lure people like John and I to provide horses for these people to drive. Because of the lack of otherwise organised low grade races that all can access, again a clever ploy to give the owner and trainer no other choice to compete for a stake but enter in races solely open to these enthusiasts to drive in.  I have absolutely no problem with this amateur concept per-say provided they did not use this Poker machine money to fund it and there is no official manipulation to encourage owners and trainers to enter horses in them. Because of the political structure and long term-accepted ethos in Harness Racing, compliance with the later point would be almost impossible. Another example of this type of manipulation is the dearth of summer racing in Canterbury during the Nelson/Bernheim circuit leaving many owners and trainer no choice but to travel all that way to Nelson/Blenheim or not race the horses for 3 weeks.

8.5.1) First I complained to HRNZ about this exploitation of poker machine funding. The official reply was, that as the race is under $1001 (being $1000) it is not HRNZ concern how or where they access the stake money.   I then complained to Amateur driving organization about what I consider an abuse of Poker machines proceeds and failing a satisfactory reply I complained to the Trust involved and then the Internal Affairs department (no reply or answer from either the Trust or Internal affairs). I informed this Amateur Organisation I would do this so no doubt they are somewhat unhappy.

8.5.2) Also last year (2009) they licensed these Amateurs to drive in tote races (public betting on). As it was, this first tote race, was an abomination, the type which has never and I am sure will never be seen in the annals of any horse race .If the horses had had no drivers and just run themselves (like Greyhounds) it would not have been such a inept and ridiculous exhibition. This dual licensing process, is not acceptable, there should be only one qualification to drive in totalisator races and everybody should be treated the same. Not one rule for these club affiliated amateur drivers and another rule for everybody else. It is significant that apparently the main thrust behind this amateur driving is Steve Phillips a powerful member of HRNZ Club affiliated and dominated executive.

8.5.3) Rather than doing so much for the Amateur drivers. Much more should be done in Harness Racing to help to establish the non-family connected ‘stablehand’. These usually young people are the engine of Harness racing they work long hours are extremely dedicated and very poorly rewarded both monetarily and career advancement opportunity wise. The career advancement almost always goes to a family member of the existing Harness Racing fraternity.  There is a junior driving scheme but that only serves to help the young drivers (usually family connected) that are not in need of the help anyway. For these junior-driving races (or some proportion of such races) the young drivers who work full time as stable hands, with the least number of wining drives should get first option of the horses to drive. As it is many junior driver do not get the opportunity to drive in one of these races because obviously the owners and the trainer need to put on the most experienced driver in the effort to win the race. This has nothing to do with self interest and is solely to do with what I considered an unfair situation which is unique to Harness Racing in New Zealand   As I latter explain. I had never any ambition to become involved in harness racing on any other basis than working with my own or my families horses although I love driving horses in races I do not like driving other peoples horses and will never do this in any circumstances.

9)Churchill said he liked people with a lot of enemies as it showed they have principles it certainly appears I have a lot of enemies I hope it also appears I have strong principles and would never ever do to our own horses what has been so strongly, wrongly and deviously but successfully portrayed by the news media.

10) Obviously I should not have of been concerned about these other matters while even a minority of our horses were so sick or we had no proper place to put the Stallion. But the problem with our horses only came to pass since they gained access to that toxic water in the last 12-18 months, for the 30 years prior all our horses have been way past acceptable I like to think most were excellent. It was only when we became vulnerable that these two-faced underhand individuals who so much resent my principles could use this situation to attack my younger brother John and I. With the power and resources of the Newspapers and TV3 to such devastating affect. This was a ‘perfect storm’ to our detractors and my enemies the results of which TV3 and the Newspapers who purveyed the false, misleading and dishonest portrayal of the situation will be held account for.

10.1)I must admit when this situation eventuated recently I expected our older brother Lindsay to at least offer to help us, because we would have helped him. But from growing up with and knowing my elder brother for so long I can’t say, I am neither surprised nor really disappointed. Disappointed maybe not the correct word, of course I am disappointed, our brother neglected to help us but that is reality now we move on. What’s done now is done he knows that as well as I, growing up with me.  It is so amazing that my young brother and sister could be so contrasting to my elder brother in all manner of aspects. Though there are things I respect and admire about my older brother most notably his family values in the dedication and devotion he has shown towards his wife and children. But unlike my sister and young brother there are many thing I don’t respect about him maybe there in is the problem. I always believed blood was thicker than water obviously concerning this individual it is not the case from his perspective, just like the attitude of the drug cheats in Harness Racing towards me, so be it.  But what ever else he is, he is my mother’s eldest son even if we have had our last conversation that doesn’t change.

 11)As I latter explain The Government of New Zealand and the Lawyers involved have facilitated the Selwyn District Council to dishonestly take our farm with out proper access to due process. This same Government has facilitated apparently fanatical full-blown nutcases to take all our horses disallowing access to any process.

12) The Drug cheats in Harness Racing in apparent complicity with the lack of effective detection and apprehension of perpetrators and the practitioners of such dishonest and dishonourable behaviour. Have stolen the 1000’s upon 1000’s of hours and 100’s of thousand $ we have invested in Harness Racing without any hope of success. But most of all these cheats have stolen our dignity and our dream. I will never ever again be so stupid and naïve to think I could go out on the racetrack to compete against these extremely dishonourable people. That the horses we are against are not illegally enhanced. Everybody makes mistakes I try not to make the same mistake twice.  These people, they now know they are cheats and they know we know they are such. I truly despise these people and the organisations that promoted and allowed this behaviour to perpetuate and escalate. These cheats feel they have a culture of entitlement because they make their living by training horses for other owners. Feeling justified at stealing from people like John and I because we are rated as hobby trainers like the amateurs’ drivers I described.

13) Harness racing is our life I don’t train horses for other people because I don’t like gambling and I don’t like gamblers. As most horse owners are gamblers. It is not a good foundation of any kind of relationship. But most importantly I don’t like to deal with people on any kind of ongoing situation as opposed to how much I enjoy everyday working with horses. Up until this situation when so many of our horses became ill I can truly say I am at peace when working with horses as opposed to dealing with people My approach to horseracing is similar to an artist or musician. It is my passion we devoted our life to it and from honest hard work hoped to be able to make a living out of it. In retrospect looking back on the quality of horses we had this would have been more than realistic expectation had we been competing against other horses with the same level of compliance ours were at. It amuses me that these cheats delude themselves in this surreal entitlement by ranting on what time they get up in the morning. Every one of those Trainer’s meetings I have been to, there has been constant mention of the time they supposedly have to get up in the morning. No mention of the time they spend napping in the afternoon or the time they spend in the pub or with someone else’s wife or girlfriend, cheating on their own wives. They speak about the latter behind each other back.

14) It is interesting to note that most of the car thieves roam the streets at the same time these horsetrainers supposedly start. As if the Cops stop these scum thieves at this time in the morning, it will appear they are honest hard workers on their way to work. Which is pretty much, a similar scenario with the drug cheating horsetrainers.

15)  I wonder if one day somebody actually tells the truth about what has gone on in Harness Racing for so long, as is starting to happen in cycling. But the difference in the real world is the government and controlling bodies have integrity (especially the French and Germans on this matter) and some journalist have the most important quality to be a journalist, courage as opposed to all the journalist in Harness Racing who are just dishonest by action or design in not recognising and exposing this disgraceful situation.

15.1) The role of brave and honest journalists is one of the most underrated in the development of our society and functioning democracy. It is indeed true these men and women journalist do not and have not got the credit they deserve. Harness racing in New Zealand is a good example of what happens when these fine people are absent their role taken by crawling, backsliding charlatans and rouges

15.2)What we had left of any value from our Truck and machinery business has been stolen by the culture of lowlife vermin thieves this country creates and encourages, by the attitude of the Police and pathetic penalties metered out by the Courts for such behaviour. I often wonder about the thought process of such individuals who thieve other people’s property. How can they do this to people already struggling and feel no pang of remorse or conscience I truly hate and detest these people and all who are in any possible way associated to them. They are no better than the looters who take after a disaster preying on people down on their luck And genuinely hope I never catch anybody doing this, as I most certainly will not be able to restrain my anger. All these thieves no doubt feel some entitlement or suffered some perceived depravity, to justify this behaviour (maybe too much fast food as a child or over exposure to heavy metal music) as do the drug cheats in Harness Racing and the corrupt Government officials and grafting crony hangers on I latter mention. But the thieves, even those who chose to steal off the easiest and weakest prey, unlike the other corrupt and dishonest drug cheats, dishonest horse owners, corrupt Government officials and grafting property developers and lawyers .The thieves are in a deluded state of justification and entitlement but are under no such illusions as to what exactly they are.

15.3)Harness racing drug cheats they are positive they are ‘good’ trainers and beating the already I feel compromised authorities is part of a so-called good trainers ability and repertoire. Their corrupt and usually well-connected clientele are certain they are smart and slick operators pushing the envelope in the smartest possible sense. Their rationale being it is not what a participant does but what the participant gets caught for is the onlysignificance. That none of them ever get caught and with the present state of affairs none ever will seems a more pressing factor for the trainers to continue to cheat than anything else.

15.4)Maybe that would justifiably be the case if everybody was involved in drug cheating then it would be considered, ‘let the best chemist win’.  But why should people such as John and my self be forced to cheat to compete or give up Harness racing due the hopelessness and futility of competing honestly. Then get castigated and denigrated for speaking out against this disgraceful situation but most importantly have our dignity insulted. By being called jealous, sour losers or inept horsetrainers.

15.5) There is the cultural difference, which for some reason manifests its self in Harness Racing. In music and art, no matter what the technical ability of the individual, a forger is a forger most certainly not a painter or musician. In literature or academia a plagiariser is most certainly deemed not any more than a cheat and judged and treated accordingly But for some reason in Harness Racing these cheats are judged as good trainers. How smart does somebody need to be to access illegal drugs and dispense them with a syringe and hypodermic needle, millions of junkies do it everyday. But these junkies do it to themselves not a dumb animal from greed and gratuitous benefit.    May be that says more about the people and governance of Harness Racing than I could ever write

15.6)What no government, thief, cheat or fanatical nutcase can take from me are my principles.  If I have a choice between pandering to or joining drug cheating Harness Racing participants and corrupt oligarchies governing officialdom and my values. I’ll take my values and whatever consequence goes with it.

16) If anybody still thinks John and I would ever purposely neglect or otherwise malnourish our horses as has been so wrongly and successfully depicted by all concerned most notably TV3 .I cannot change this and realistically don’t really care now. But they are utterly, absolutely and clearly wrong. We will issue legal proceedings(which I will ensure are internationally scrutinised) against everybody who has stated this publicly including TV3, newspapers involved, Canterbury Equine Clinic, Dolan from/and the Harness Link website  and Harness Racing New Zealand (for the inference and innuendo posted on its website.)

16.1)It is important to understand the context by which we got into this situation in having so many horses with out our own farm to keep them They and these malicious and spiteful ‘trailer trash’ who are partly responsible for this whole situation of our horses being seized. Make holocaust deniers seem the epitome of thoughtful rational objectivity. Then at the end of the day these extremists think they have done Gods work by stealing our horses. What kind of Government would give such lunatics nutters access to power in any kind of functioning democracy let alone with the authority of the Courts backed up with the presence of the Police

17.0) Situation concerning our farm

17.1) In 1997 my brother John and I purchased a farm in Rolleston of about 46 acres. It was perfect for what we wanted. And set about constructing a purpose built horsetraining and breeding farm along with expensive workshops to accommodate the truck and machinery and import business we had at the time.

17.2)In 2000/01 we were visited by representatives of the Selwyn District Council (SDC) one of them being a Councillor Jens Christensen a very prominent and well known property developer and Councillor in the Selwyn District (As is described by Mr Glasson in the Glasson Report Appendix7). Their mission was to inform us of the purchase and intending Industrial Park planned by the SDC on the land, which was farmland immediately adjacent to our already constructed horsetraining tracks. They wanted to get our neighbour consent for the Resource consent to be issued on a non-notified basis. It is significant that the SDC chose to purchase this huge tract of agricultural land for conversion to the largest Industrial Park in the South Island right next to our horses training tracks without first consulting with us. The most affected and important neighbours from a RMA stand point. Obviously in the normal situation of property development in a case like this the Council is only the consent authority so therefore will be vigilant to the application of the law to protect small landholder against the known abuse and manipulative tendencies of property developers. Clearly these checks and balances were not in place in this case. In fact the opposite was the state of affairs with the Council manipulating and abusing the process for their own ends. This is plain to see and obvious but the Courts of this country have actually strongly professed the opposite. A ruling which sooner or later these same Courts will have to be held to account for.

17.3) It is important to note my brother and I knew absolutely nothing about resource management (RMA) matters, real estate or otherwise associated property development matters. And we had neither the time, inclination nor disposition to be in a position to find out.

17.4) We decided to decline to give our neighbour consent as it meant we would have to give up our rights in respect to any nuisance or danger the SDC could inflict on us. As our ‘fast work’ and jog tracks were right beside this area we felt it not prudent to give up our right of protection to insure we could train our horses on our tracks in safety. (Photo28 of fast work track when first moved 1998)

(Photo29 of fast work track with distribution centre building constructed 2003 hardstand is directly in background of track) bare in mind this photo was taken before the SDC had settled with us the directly affected and adjacent neighbour. This matter alone highlights the abuse inflicted on us by the SDC and the manipulation of process employed by the SDC to ‘smooth the wheels’ for the Warehouse development at the expense of our democratic and property rights. Please refer Glasson report p3 8 April 2002 11 April 2002

 

17.5)  Christensen just would not stop visiting our farm uninvited and unannounced using the circumstances as a guise to gain undercover evidence to be latter used against us in this matter. Which is noway compliant or acceptable as to how the Local Government Act stipulates such Local Government must conduct their business.   It was also from these visits the possibility of the SDC purchasing our farm was considered.

17.6) We expressed the view that we would not be adverse to selling this farm provided we were compensated in full for the construction we had done, including our tracks, barns, workshop and the 100m long equine swimming pool (email photo of horse in swimming pool) plus some form of compensation for a % of the profit the SDC would reap from the eventual industrial development and commercial sale of our farm. Christensen or the SDC didnot disagree with these.

17.7)Shortly after this they started construction of the Warehouse Distribution centre right next to us (see photo29 track).  It seemed strange that as it transpired the SDC would offer us $80,000 for our neighbour consent then when we refused just start construction anyway. We complained to the Selwyn District Council about this commencement of construction, as it was disturbing our horses while we were training them.

17.8)This disturbance and nuisance with the construction machinery became so much we made a complaint to the Rolleston Police

(photo30, 31 of type and style of construction machinery operating next to our tracks) who washed their hands of it stating it was a civil matter.  It is impossible to fast work (train) horses safely next to this type of machinery.

(photo32 Fast working  horses on our track before Christensen /SDC Izone Park these are going at speeds between 45 and 50kph)

17.9) As affidavit evidence put to the Supreme Court but ignored like everything else, if these horses are spoked by this heavy machinery the result is disaster.

(photo33 shows the potential for such disaster but unlike this case I do not let the reins go as if I put the horse in the cart it is my responsibility to see it is taken out of the cart safely  (Photo 34) shows what can happen  but in our case it was worse because as I stated to these lawyers supposedly representing us “who would be responsible if a horse and cart got out on the road and caused a fatality”. Their reply from our supposed lawyers, was that is why it is best to sell our farm to the SDC “ even when making concessions on value” Lawyers written advice in omitted letter)

17.10) The situation became so concerning and potentially dangerous We had to truck our horses to another track to train them. This was for a period of over a year this became irksome and onerous especially considering we could not train our horses on our own farm. These kinds of situation of specific potential gravity is detailed and defined in the RMA and needed to be properly addressed before those Resource consents could ever be legally granted.   The SDC initially replied that the construction was legal as they were carrying it out on land already zoned for industrial so therefore it was as a right. This is in fact incorrect the SDC and the Warehouse first applied for Resource consent on a non-notified basis for this development and this was rejected without our neighbour consent. They then reapplied with a whole devolution of non-notified resource consents,(described by Fowler/Rodgers in  an omitted letter as a complicated ,convoluted process of resource consents)  a practice that has already been tested by the Courts and shown to be an abuse of process. The basis of this manipulation of process relied on the container stand (Eastern Hardstand) being directly adjacent to our boundary, which the SDC never ever gained proper legal consent for under the correct RMA procedure.

17.11)There was also no provision nor consideration of the affects of the construction machinery on our situation which is clearly contrary to the RMA. The SDC was never allowed to do or construct anything on this land adjacent to us that had the real potential to cause us so much harm without first the whole matter being properly and legally examined and mitigated. Without any doubt not only was it not done it was actually unlawfully disguised, misrepresented and ignored by the manipulation and abuse of the non notified Resource consent process. Which completely took us as directly affected adjacent neighbours out of the process and everybody including Fowler/Rodgers stressed there was nothing that could be done about this that is why we were best to sell our farm to the SDC.

 

17.12)Yet the Counsel for the SDC has the audacity to put to these Courts “The Williamson’s wanted to sell their farm and the SDC wanted to buy it” What is so unbelievable is not that these lawyers would put such a distorted version of the situation to these Courts but the Courts actually accept it.

17.13) This may be acceptable in submissions if there was for some other reason we wanted to sell this farm which would only be we had found another farm to move to. Maybe the SDC could try to contend we were not entitled to have it valued on the basis of potential Industrial land. However the law in this situation is only concerned with the motive of the buyer not the seller so it would not hold up. What the SDC is not allowed to do is as I have shown they have done, subvert and manipulate the abuse the process to pressure us into this situation.

17.14) The contempt these lawyers and worse the Government and Courts have for my brother and I is no more demonstrated by the rationale offered that the sale of our farm was a settlement rather than the product of the abuse and danger the SDC were inflicting on us. As I have shown $156,000 for 18.5 ha of prime land in 2 titles in the middle of Christensen’s Izone Park with already 7500sq/m of Industrial land. Needs only to be compared against all the other neighbours’ purchases to show what nonsense these NZ Courts are professing on this matter also. I use a quote from other Judges “For anything to be considered a settlement all parties need to be of one mind and there must be a full disclosure of all relevant information” By virtue of this rationale not withstanding the violation of the LGA and RMA by the SDC in order to unlawfully acquire our farm. It can never be deemed valid unless it can be shown we were made fully aware of the necessary procedures to quickly, effectively and cheaply stop this pressing danger being applied to us by the SDC. Which is Environmental Court Enforcement Orders   As well as the legally defined method of valuing such a property in a potential commercial situation the process, which along with Enforcement Orders I latter explain.

17.15) The problem for the SDC in review of this situation as they as Consent holder in relation to the Enforcement orders and under the obligations of the LGA and RMA concerning potential commercial value for the land they are buying. Are just as legally responsible as Fowler/Rodgers to see these crucial matters are properly explained and are fully understood to the point we give our informed consent that we did understand the ramifications of these two crucial processes as it effected our situation.  The truth is we had no idea about these matters and they were actually misrepresented and completely disguised by all lawyers and Government officials alike. Of this there is no dispute.   

 

17.16) In July of 2002 Christensen by now the Chairman of this Local Government property development alliance, presented an offer(the first ) for our farm of $450,000 then another for  $500,000 or alternatively $80,000 for consent including the Eastern Hardstand adjacent our farm. We considered these offers an insult considering we had paid $360,000 for that farm 5 years earlier and the building and development we had carried out was valued by an independent quantity surveyor at $439,000 we consider it not possible to replace these facilities (not including the house and land purchase) for this sum and it was calculated on relocation for the buildings not replacement which obviously did not include the cost of the materials. That makes the bare cost(not including relocatable  building material costs)  of this farm at minimum $799,000($360+439,000) not accounting for 5 years of appreciation of 46 acres in two titles, 2km from the centre of Rolleston, 400m from SH1 and 7500square metres of already zoned Industrial land. But most importantly it was impossible to replace this farm in a similar area with these facilities for this amount.

17.18)Realistically we would have told Christensen and the SDC to go for a running jump but it was impossible to train harness horses next to the SDC’s construction machinery and from the scale of this development of this Industrial Park which was right on the boundary next to our tracks. This danger looked likely, and from the legal and consent authority advice received it appeared this danger was legal and allowable would continue for many years.

(photo 31a, is from our jog track with the container stand and straddle cranes that can stack these containers 3 high It is significant that the original non notified approved position of this hardstand was directly adjacent this jog track and the land adjacent was require to be kept vacant for the Warehouse to expand into)  .

17.19) From the knowledge and information we had at the time we felt it best, if possible to move away. As we feared if our horses or one of us was injured it would most certainly result in a violent altercation. We in a latter dispute asked the SDC if they would put a large berm beside the boundary.  This request was emphatically rejected by them as well they instructed us that they would not allow us to build such a berm to shield this danger of the construction machinery. It is important to realise that we could not put any kind of berm on our side of the boundary and retain the use of our training tracks. As the tracks could only retain the oval if they went right up to and beside the boundary of this Industrial park. This could be alleviated with the Jog track. But this was the only position we could locate our fast work track on our whole farm Even if we were prepared to pay the large cost to relocate this track there is nowhere on this farm we could have fitted it.

17.20) This is significant as it showed the SDC effectively controlled the will and means to operate our horse training tracks in safety for the present as well as the future. We suspected and were informed by the lawyers negotiating this matter for us. This would be  the style of the SDC’s negotiation (tooth and claw) more so with Rat Cunning(RC) Christensen in such a prominent position as chief negotiator. This is why these lawyers supposed to be representing us could so strongly and successfully pushed the best option was to take the highest offer we could get from the SDC and try to move away from this situation.

17.21) From the advice we received from these lawyers and the information we had at the time, effectively we had no choice. Despite what these lawyers and Courts have so strongly professed and held. The sale of our farm at such an undervalued figure was not a settlement for the harassment and abuse inflicted on us by the Selwyn District Council and let be done so by Christensen’s lawyers supposed to be representing our best interests. But this sale was due to the result and intensity of the abuse and danger inflicted on us by the SDC and the constant legal advice, both written and oral from the lawyers supposedly representing us. That it was prudent to move, at the best offer we could get, as the situation concerning safety would most certainly deteriorate in the future. This is also clearly unacceptable behaviour and practice in a Local authority conducting its business in New Zealand.

17.22) If Fowler/Rodgers had put ½ the effort into protecting our rights to exercise our horses safely and improving our strategic position as they did in misrepresenting and distorting the situation on behalf of Christensen and the SDC. Obviously we would have been able to negotiate on the basis of the legally correct price of potential Industrial land. Or we could have been able to chose to remain on our farm in the confidence of peace and safetyprotected by the law.

17.23)Not withstanding our ignorance due to the misrepresentation of these 2 key matters of enforcement provisions and potential Industrial land valuation. We felt our basis for negotiation in moving from this farm was notunreasonable especially considering we suspected the SDC would reap $millions from the development and sale of this farm. Something that was constantly denied and misrepresented by both the SDC and the lawyers supposed to be representing us. But most importantly we were not willing or motivated sellers in anyway shape or form.

17.1.1)First contact RMA lawyers

We first contacted these specialist Resource management lawyers in the winter of 2002 shortly after we rejected these offers from Christensen. The only such lawyer we knew of was a Chris Fowler at the firm of Anthony Harper lawyers. We first met Fowler from a dispute we had with the sawmill neighbour concerning them claiming 1 metre of our driveway. Fowler represented this sawmill and seemed very proactive and knowledgeable on RMA matters. Mr Glasson has described. Fowler/and his superior Paul Rodgers had a significant and overriding association with Christensen and subsequently the SDC, which was not initially revealed or mentioned, and then much latter only partially and improperly disclosed. This partial and misrepresented disclosure was only done after we ourselves learnt of this connection of Christensen to the firm of Anthony Harper by chance. It is extremely significant that we never actually were aware of the close personal connection of Christensen to Fowler/Rodgers until we belatedly received Mr Glasson’s report mid 2008. As obviously Fowler did not mention this in his brief casual and flippant misrepresented disclosure.

17.1.2) Initially in 2002 after we first spoke to Fowler about this matter he was really difficult to contact and would not return our calls. But when we did finally make substantive contact with him he suggested we put in a submission to the one and only notified resource consent notified (compared to what seems 5 or 6 non notified) Fowlers file acknowledges contact in Sept of 2002, which like almost everything in this file appears a deviation of the truth.

17.1.3)It is significant that Fowler put as defence to the Law society that many of the contentious matters such as non-notified resource consents were enacted before he was engaged. Obviously this was the reason for his reticence and stalling in the early stages. And why it was crucial that we were not to become aware of their connection to Christensen/SDC initially. As obviously had we been made aware of this connection as we legally should have been and had a legitimate expectation to be We would have immediately sort the advice of another advocate with no connection to Christensen/SDC. This would have been fatal to Christensen’s interests has he had already stated his opinion of the critical need of rapid establishment of this Distribution centre which could only have been done by abusing and manipulating the process as well as excluding us entirely from it. Christensen had also publicly stated his attitude to the price he was adamant we should be paid for our farm which makes Christensen’ rationale contrary to the legally correct methodology our farm should have been valued.

17.1.4) On examination of the advice we received there are no doubt these lawyers of Christensen’s followed Christensen’s wishes and interests on this matter rather than ours. Most of all this can be seen in the results they obtained for us. Not withstanding compared to the correct price our land should have been valued at as Potential Industrial land, but comparisons of the price Christensen/SDC paid for the properties of all our neighbours.

17.1.5)Fowler/Rodgers suggested nothing could be done about the situation most pressing of stopping the construction machinery danger and harassment directly adjacent our tracks. Or the huge amount of stress this whole situation was creating for us. This also played right into the hands of Christensen and the SDC’s I mention the more we implored Fowler/Rodgers to do something about this danger and harassment and the more we expressed our anger and frustration at it. The more the construction machinery operating by our track increased and intensified, what another amazing coincidence.

17.2.1)Our initial instructions to Fowler/Rodgers were we would prefer to move away from this industrial development. This was based solely on the way the SDC were conducting the, as we now know illegal development and the mutual animosity and contempt that we had developed for and between Christensen/SDC.

17.2.2) Christensen’s and the SDC attitude seemed similar to something out of the Wild West; the only problem was we could not respond in kind. Had Christensen and SDC conducted this development according to as we are now aware the restraints of the law, our confidence thus preference would be completely different. Obviously had we been aware of the strict stipulations, requirements and obligations of the RMA, as I am now, this whole matter would not have occurred. As most lay-people are not nor expected to be aware of these complicated RMA provisions and regulations this is the reason for expensive advisors. This also the reason liability is strict on disclosure of conflict of interest matters. As the lay participants depend so much on the trust of the relationship with these expensive advisors they have enlisted.

17.2.3) We strongly stipulated to Fowler we could only sell this farm if we were compensated along the already agreed parameters. If that was not possible which seemed a strong possibility because of the now personal and ingrained bitterness, which had developed between Christensen/ SDC and us. We wished to pursue all and every legal avenue to secure our strategic position and protect our basics democratic right to participate in the process, which was so much affecting us. Obviously we realised after the initial pathetic offers, that Christensen and the SDC would not pay a legally fair price for our farm if they could avoid it. And being able to pressure us by the constant as we now know illegal construction and danger from the earthmoving machinery played right in to the motive of Christensen and the SDC.

17.2.4) We urged Fowler and Rodgers (the partner in charge of this matter for us) to do their upmost to create and preserve the strongest possible strategic position.  To create an incentive for Christensen and the SDC to meet what we consider and the law has deemed required, not unrealistic expectations of the price paid for our farm.(Obviously at the time we were not aware of the crucial legal provisions pertaining to our strategic position in this matter concerning our farm. That is why we engaged specialist lawyers).

 

17.2.5) And we constantly pleaded to Fowler/Rodgers to do something to stop this construction machinery operating next to our tracks. The more we implored these Lawyers to do something to stop this construction machinery disrupting our life the more it increased in frequency and intensity. Though obviously we were not aware of the significant, valuable and close association these lawyers had with our principle antagonist (Christensen) in this matter.

17.3.1)Connection between Fowler/Rodgers and SDC/Izone/Christensen

As it transpired as already mentioned, these lawyers we chose, Fowler and the partner in charge of our case, Paul Rodgers had a valuable and long-term association with obvious vested interests to Christensen thus the SDC.

Glasson report p1 para 3 Christensen is one of the most well known Councillors in the Selwyn District and a large land developer in Lincoln and Rolleston townships Anthony Harper (Paul Rodgers Chris Fowlers direct superior) has acted for Christensen for many years including defending Christensen in a case brought against him by the Local government commission (or another Government body and initiated by Councillor Debra Hasson or Councillor Heather Wilde (both of the SDC The case involved Christensen being accused of conflict of interest in taking part in Council discussions when he had a personal interest.”

17.3.2)The case was brought by the Auditor General although Christensen was found not guilty I think it was due to the Government Departments inability to establish the desired degree of criminal proof. From this situation theSDC would have been well alerted of the issues surrounding conflict of interest, especially involving Christensen. Yet they entered into these negotiations being fully aware that the lawyers we trusted and depended on to act against Christensen were in fact Christensen’s long time and closely associated lawyers. As well the SDC would have been totally conscious of the fact that this relationship was unknown to us and at no time was it fully and legally disclosed. I just refuse to accept that this can be anything else but way past wrong and actually illegal for the SDC because of their strict obligations under the Local Government Act. As well it is unlawful for lawyers to act in this way as stipulated by the Law Practitioners Act so again contrary to the Local Government Act for the SDC to be engaged in such a situation.

17.3.3) Initially this relationship between Christensen and the lawyers representing us was completely undisclosed and hidden from us. Not until at least 9 months later when we ourselves became aware of some connection between Christensen and Anthony Harper (AH) it was then only partially disclosed to us. With Fowler stating, Christensen was only a ‘small’ indiscriminate client of AH concerning occasional conveyancing.

17.3.4) Obviously there is a legal requirement of full and frank disclosure of any such situation at the outset from both the lawyers and the SDC. With the advice of another independent solicitor taken to assess the situation and most importantly our full informed consent to be given. Just as obviously this was never done and our informed consent was never ever asked for, let alone given. As can be latter shown this informed consent wouldnever have even been given even on the basis of the partial disclosure. Of most importance in this matter of disclosure is we were not informed that Fowler/Rodgers infact had a longstanding and valuable personal association with Christensen. Infact this was actively misrepresented stating he was a small conveyancing clientof the firm. Obviously I was aware Fowler/Rodger were RMA lawyers that did not deal with conveyancing clients.

17.3.5)It was not until I received Mr Glasson’s report in mid 2008 and did further research my self in 2009 did I become aware of the significance of the true connection between Fowler/Rodgers and Christensen and the SDC. If these New Zealand Judges or anybody else state anything different they are liars and I will gladly tell them to their faces.

17.3.6)It is significant to note that due to the obligations of the Local Government Act on the SDC. This Local Authority and Consent holder was required to fully disclose the  true situation between the lawyers of the Chairman of their Industrial Park and the same Lawyers we trusted and relied to protect and promote our interests. Who were supposedly acting against this chairman in an aggressive, dynamic adversary, acrimonious situation.

17.3.7)Though out this whole affair Fowler/Rodgers constantly stressed there was nothing tangible we could do to prevent the danger being created by Christensen and the SDC so our only realistic option was to taken the best offer we could get from the SDC and try and move away from it. This constant advice both oral and written with a raft subliminal messages, played right into the hands Christensen/SDC.  As mentioned the more we pleaded to Fowler/Rodgers to do something to stop the menace of the construction machinery next to our training tracks, with this machinery operating and disrupting us 7 days a week at all hours of the day and night, the more this threat and danger intensified.

17.3.8)It is irrefutable that Fowler/Rodgers, Anthony Harper, Schultz the other property developer on the Izone and a client of AH. Had a large financial interest and incentive for the outcome of these negations tipped in the way of the SDC against us. This also included the application of the correct process.

17.3.8) This preconceived outcome would be conducive to Christensen’s already biased public statements and intentions in the matter concerning our farm and participation in the RMA process.

17.4.1) Environmental Court Enforcement Orders

It is significant that this whole matter concerning the unlawful construction and dangerous, illegal earthmoving machinery harassment could have been rectified and stopped with the implementation of an Environment Court Enforcement order (Appendix8) at a cost of $55.This would have put a halt to everything. This would have been extremely upsetting to Christensen’s personal aims and objectives

17.4.2) Instead of informing us of and immediately instituting this cheap, easy and quick method to stop this abuse and harassment. Fowler/Rodgers Christensen’s personal lawyers stated the only possible method to remedy this situation was a Judicial review; a costly and complicated process which was likely not to be successful and most importantly according to Fowler/Rodgers would not stop the SDC continuing with their as it was illegal construction. Fowler/Rodgers also wanted between $30-35,000 lump sum deposit stating that the cost would be more and we were likely have a huge costs bill against us by the SDC. Obviously from the advice we received from Fowler/Rodger legally stopping this menace and danger was not an option. This should be compared against the correct advice of $55 which if properly advised would have stopped all this abuse and most of all given us confidence in the process and assured us we could have remained on our farm despite the huge disparity of resources, power and political influence. But most importantly continued to train our horses in peace and safety therefore remain on that property without the fear of serious injury to either us or our horses With such an injury undoubtedly resulting in a violent altercation with Christensen, the SDC and the construction workers.

17.5.1)Agreed process of constituting value of our farm

Eventually in Feb 2003 SDC agreed to a process by which our farm could be valued.

1)      Land and house at valuation

2)      Replacement cost of facilities

3)      Potential value of the land for industrial use

17.5.2)Fowler/Rodgers engaged a valuer, Mark Mc Skimming from Simes Valuation on our behalf and the SDC, Mark Dumbar from Telfor Young.

17.5.3)What an unbelievable pantomime charade act by these Valuers. Resulting in constant arguments. The problem was that Fowler was arguing against us for the SDC cause. Constantly Fowler/Rodgers, Christensen’s undisclosed associate and lawyer, ridiculed and vetoed our not unrealistic expectations. The opposite of what they were supposed to do. Not one proactive thing did these lawyers (except maybe the relocation expenses which they persuaded us to relinquish to SDC and Christensen’s whim) or valuers do on our behalf and we were constantly arguing and being distracted by things that should never have ever entered the equation. E.g. both Valuers completely negate and disregard the 7500sq/m of already zoned Industrial land on our farm yet concentrated on the condition of the dwelling. One is worried there is no up grading and the other about a hole in the inside door (as we did not live in this dwelling and had no intentions of. When we brought the property we did not go inside. In the 5 or 6 years we owned it I would have been in side that house no more than 4 or 5 times Yet these Valuers seemed most concerned in its condition which wasn’t that bad for its age (about 20 years) to decrease the price of our whole farm which actually was being purchased for industrial development, despite the concerted litany of misrepresentation by all concerned including our legal representation   The condition of the house which these valuers devoted so much time to was totally irrelevant and another example of bad faith by Christensen/SDC The house id no longer on this property).As can be seen from my seemingly disregarded complaint to the Valuers Complaint board nobody is forthcoming as to why this 7500sq/m of Industrial zoned land was neglected and completely overlooked from the valuation.

17.6.1)Potential Industrial Value and Simes Valuation

Of most importance was the value for potential Industrial land. Dumbar for the SDC came up with some weird formula resulting in our land being worth 53 cents per sq metre on this basis Mc Skimming first gave no value for industrial potential then after a heated argument between us and Fowler, presented  $5 psm, devalued to $3 psm. As mentioned both Valuers gave no Value for the 7500sqm of land already zoned Industrial on our property, when the 2.9ha similarly zoned   farmland on it adjacent SE boundary was being negotiated and subsequently sold for around $25 psm to Solid Energy concurrent to the negotiations with the SDC over our farm. Yet neither of these valuers mentioned or made note of this crucial (neighbouring land) indicator in deciding the potential Industrial value of our farm’s 18.5 ha adjacent to this Solid Energy purchase. Our farm also provided vital access to the SDC Industrial park and the road, which obviously presented a potential in valuation over and above the adjacent Solid Energy purchase.  Both Valuers however devalued the lifestyle value and horsetraining aspect of our farmbecause of the presence and the close proximity of Industrial development to it.

 

17.6.2)The situation with the 7500 sq/m of Industrial land on our property sums up the lunacy of this whole situation. When we purchased this farm there was this portion of Industrial land on the SE boundary. It appears in 2000 without any notification or consultation with us, by virtue of Variation or plan change the SDC arbitrarily zoned this back to rural .The SDC in the HC and CoA admit this was a mistake but are adamant that the Industrial value was in place when they purchased the property therefore the Valuers are remiss and liable. Like much of Marshals (SDC manager)/Christensen /SDC evidence put to these Courts it is clearly wrong and my evidence and submissions clearly show the SDC stole this designation off us unlawfully by changing the zone in 2000 As this zone change came into power on notification. This is why the Valuers gave it no value. When put to the valuation complaints board this matter of the conflicting reason no value was given for this Industrial piece of land. Even though Dumbar states it in his evidence for the SDC ‘that the Variation negated the value.’  Which is clearly contrary to the evidence put to the HC and CoA by Marshal for the SDC .The Valuation Complaints board refuse to have this ratified preferring instead not to comment even when specifically asked about this matter.

17.6.3)Marshal the SDC manager in his evidence suggested to the High Court and Court of Appeal. States the SDC should not have to compensate us for our purpose built facilities because of the presence of the Industrial development (they themselves created from previously agricultural land with out properly following correct RMA procedures in accordance with the Local Government Act), nobody would wish to buy this property as a horsetraining establishment. The SDC should have stated this in the first place instead of agreeing the opposite. This statement by Marshal sums up our predicament. The SDC had ruined any chance of us selling this farm as a horsetraining operation and they were able to illegally intimidate and harass us so that we couldn’t use our tracks. Then these Courts and Government Departments in New Zealand treat us worse than they treat criminals. Because we were to prepared to stand up to this in the fresh light of day. Only after I was able to properly research the situation with the help of an independent RMA report kept from us and misrepresented by 2 more separate expensive lawyers.

17.6.4)Despite this Industrial presence, the legally correct and pertinent formula for valuing such a property for potential Industrial development is misrepresented, unlawfully negated and degraded. Again this is completely contrary to the way Parliament has deemed and decided a local Government like the SDC must act.

17.6.5)Eventually the price of our Valuer and quality surveyor was $939,000  $500,000(land and house including Industrial potential value) + $439,000 Quantity surveyor value of Facilities we had constructed. We were certainly not happy with this and can be plainly seen by latter analysis was woefully remiss and corrupt in relation to the potential Industrial Value.

 

 

17.7.1)SDC Valuer Dumbar Telfor/Young

Somehow the SDC and Christensen presented a total Registered valuation of $450,000 Value of house ($205,000 Dumbar’s own Curtilage assessment for the house for a SDC GST claim on the deal) and 18.5 ha (46 acre) 2 titles, 7500sqm zoned industrial plus replacement of facilities ($439,000) plus future Industrial potential of our land. The Selwyn district Council, they say in good faith produced a Registered Valuation in sum total (land, house +facilities, amenities+ potential Industrial value) of $450,000 to be used as an antagonistic negotiating figure against us.

17.7.2)The SDC acted contrary to the agreed terms of negotiation completely neglecting to include the Quantity Surveyor’s calculation of our specially constructed facilities. This unauthorized and fraudulent valuation presented as an antagonistic and disruptive bargaining tool was only discovered be me several weeks after it was corruptly presented. And was completely neglected by Fowler/Rodgers for obvious reasons.

17.7.3)So on analysis of SDC’s registered valuation $450,000 -$205,000 that means our 18.5 ha of land in this position with the value added matters of 2 titles and 7500sq/m + the purpose built facilities valued at $439,000 by an independent Quantity surveyor are worth in total $245,000.

 

17.7.4) I am supposed to accept as these Courts rule that we do not have an arguable case to entitle us to test at trial. That by presenting this Valuation and using it as an antagonistic tool to destroy our expectations the SDC has not acted in bad faith and has obeyed its obligations under the Local Government Act.

 

17.7.5) I am supposed except these insults from these Judges and not show contempt that not only have they allowed the SDC take from us our democratic rights and steal our farm they have completely destroyed our confidence in the fairness and transparency of the process of Justice in New Zealand. And I will tell them to their faces if I ever get the chance to stand in front of them over this matter again.

Let them put me in prison like they do to other honest citizens who dare to question their contribution to the graft and corruption in this country.

 

17.7.6) The SDC were adamant and again dishonestly stated they could only legally negotiate with in this figure of $450,000, bear in mind it is less than the offer we categorically rejected of $500,000 nearly 1 year earlier.

17.7.7)Presenting this registered valuation to stymie the negotiations was clearly done in bad faith knowing full well because of the aggravation and danger their constant illegal construction was causing us(notably preventing us from training our horses in safety for so long).

17.7.8)This ploy would lower our expectation of being treated fairly by the procedure destroying our thought process and further intimidate us into accepting our lawyer’s constant litany of advice, to take the best offer we could get and move away from these circumstances.

17.7.9)Even the Simes Fowler/Rodger enlisted on our behalf of $500,000 for the land and house should be taken in the context of the $360,000 it had cost us 5 years earlier. And the impossibility of replacing a similar property for this amount at the time in a similar situation not including any potential industrial value .As can be seen in my complaint about the valuation process, the fact we were unwilling sellers of this farm and correct correlation of the neighbouring properties sold in the same timeframe. Should have resulted in a much higher appreciation, not withstanding the Industrial Value potential. Christensen as can be seen by the SDC own evidence was constantly whinging and complaining he could find a better farm for less than the total amount of the valuation we were using and even the bottom figure the SDC subsequently come up with ($740,000) after this ridiculous ($450,000) {If what the SDC was claiming initially backed up by Christensen’s lawyers was true. That they could only negotiate with in the $450,000 how did they manage to be able to arbitrarily change it to $740,000 without any input from Dumbar. That confirms both Dumbar’s initial valuation was corrupt and the SDC were initially lying. Both matters negating the validity of the contract, as a Local Authority is just not allowed to negotiate that way.}

17.7.10)But Christensen  and the SDC just would get it in their head that we were entitled to be compensated for the purpose built facilities we had built on this farm . As this went on it is clear that it was the SDC’s and Christensen’s personal mission to see that we were paid the very bare minimum for our farm and they used any and every known under hand trick to achieve it. And I have to listen to these Judges say this Christensen who barges into democratic meetings, he has already been denied a deputation to. Supposedly stayed out of these proceedings despite the screeds of contrary evidence I put before all these Courts.

17.7.11)Complaint to Valuers Registration board (appendix9)

 

 17.7.12)Valuation  Board Reply to complaint (appendix10)

 

17.7.13)This $450,000 registered combined valuation by the SDC created a stalemate. Obviously this bad faithploy by Christensen allowed to be perpetrated by his lawyers supposed to be representing us, meant nothing to the SDC. As this illegal (admitted and confirmed by the SDC in writing) construction causing us so much grief and danger, just continued unabated anyway.

17.7.14)Had Christensen’s lawyers advised us of and instituted the Environment Court Enforcement Orders to abruptly stop this illegal construction and development by Christensen/SDC as well as challenged the legal validity of the convoluted non notified resource consents.(These dishonest lawyers are portraying that we did not want to do this in the fear of ending negotiations over the purchase of our farm. From their own evidence this can been seen as completely false in its correct context.

From the only advice were given by these lawyers the only option we had was institute Judicial review and they wanted $35,000 advanced deposit and they stated the chances of overall success were slim plus it would not stop the SDC construction. Had we been informed as we correctly should have been that a $55 Enforcement Order would have abruptly put a stop to this. Obviously we would have initiated itimmediately When Fowler and Rodger state we were properly informed of this process, not only are their files doctored, some of the emails included forged but they are dishonest and dishonourable liars like the lowlife Harness Racing participants I have had to deal with for the last 30 years.

And these are the people our Judges are made up from. What hope is there for the judicial integrity of this country? Unless something radical is done to break the cycle of deceit and corruption these lowlife like Christensen/Fowler/Rodgers/Russ, Cameron and Marshal feed on and multiply with, condoned and actually lauded by the Judges and Courts of this country.)

17.8.1) These Enforcement orders would have certainly stopped the illegal construction and the constant danger to us training our horses.    Obviously this would have completely changed the complexity of the situation thus our strategic position. Christensen was certainly aware of this and as can be seen by his evidence to the RMA hearing of October 2002, where he states ,it was crucial that this development be completed with the upmost of urgency.  Obviously Christensen and the SDC were aware of the crucial factor of becoming and remaining engaged with lawyers they had such a large degree of influence over. Knowing these lawyers would not advise us of this enforcement order procedure. This was cleverly and cunningly done but is against the law for the SDC to operate as such.

17.8.2)What is absolutely astonishing about this whole affair is the SDC as Consent Holders empowered by the Government to enforce the RMA provisions. Were just as responsible to ensure we could continue to train our horses in safety. As were Fowler/Rodgers to explain and enact the appropriate processes to ensure we could continue to train our horses in safety. This is obviously in our best interests which in reality were completely contrary to Christensen’s and the SDC best interests This situation should never ever have arisen I don’t care what these Judges in this country say If these New Zealand Judges can not accept this situation is so wrong it can only be deemed toxic. Not only are they corrupt they are infact delusional. If it means I am no longer a New Zealander by not accepting what these New Zealand Courts rule as corrupt. I am not one and I want no part of their dishonesty and deceit, even by virtue of acknowledging and remonstrating this it without contrition or hesitation.

17.8.3) It is important to note that the unlawful construction was being carried out under the guise of Eldamos this is a building entity for the Warehouse but obviously it was agreed and stipulated that the development would be purchased back from the Warehouse to the SDC on completion. It was later on sold by the SDC to the Anglican Church for around $20million.

(Just as I question the ethics of Harness Racing being involved with poker machines I also question the rationale of the Anglican church being involved with the Warehouse .A company which sells products most of which are made by it appears no more than slave and/or child labour. But from my recollection of a book I read while in Japan. The Anglican Church is not averse to being connected with slave labour considering this church was one of the founders and original profiteers of the slave trade. For the avoidance of doubt, my late mother (who I loved and respected very much) was a devoted and devout Anglican who dedicated her life to serving the community and her church. I have no axe to grind with this or any other church).

17.8.4) Each one of these sale and purchase resulted in upwards of $200,000 in agent fees. As far as the stipulation of open transparent and democratically accountable, sound and prudent I am troubled to understand the rationale behind the multiple ownership changes of such an expensive complex resulting in such expensive fees.  Despite requests under the Official Information the SDC are not forthcoming of the reason either.

17.9.1)SDC misrepresentation in negotiation concerning future use and potential Industrial value of our farm

The SDC were adamant constantly reiterating they could only pay the minimum for our farm as they stated in writing the had no intention of changing this property to Industrial zoning for “many,many years if at all (The SDC words in writingAppendix11). Stating also that because of this position with future rezoning that any perceived potential industrial value was not relevant and did not add any value to our property at the time. (This is written correspondence put before 3 Courts with the blatant misrepresentations ignored and disregarded by all 3) So the SDC states, due to their obligations to ratepayers legally they could not pay more than theirValuer stipulated.

17.9.2)This should be compared against the price paid to and method of negotiation with our many neighbours for their land, who Christensen’s lawyers were obviously not representing. Or Christensen and the SDC had no personal grievance with Nor where these neighbours in any way able to be intimidated and harassed by the SDC, as were we. This when not only were these neighbouring properties much smaller. Only one of these properties had a training track and noway could the horsetraining facilities be in anyway compared to our property. This neighbours track was well away from the boundary of the Industrial Park so unlike our situation their was noway they could be intimidated by the SDC’s use of unlawful construction machinery. .

17.9.3)It is interesting to note that the SDC changed the zoning of this whole property (our farm) as soon as it appeared possible. Yet 3 Courts ignore this gross misrepresentation and deception and completely ignore the stipulations of Open transparent and democratically accountable   placed on the actions and behaviour of the SDC by the lawmakers in Parliament. The same 3 Courts also completely ignore the Common law requirements in relation to the way a Local Government must act.1) Must be procedurally fair.2) Must not act in bad faith 3) Must not act with malice.4) Must not act unreasonably or with oppression. 

 

17.9.4)It is again important to stress that what was involved in this litigation concerning our farm. We did not have proved our allegations were in fact right but only that we had one arguable point to be granted the right to this whole matter be tested by trial. Not only was it ruled our case did not have one arguable point to pass this test. The Court of Appeal went so far as to say our whole case was hopeless. The only thing, which is hopeless, is the expectation of this New Zealand system these Judge’s is involved with. Could in anyway resembling the degree of justice and equity which is demanded as of right to every other citizen of the developed and civilised world not just the English speaking countries. 

17.9.5)From this stalemate situation, we explored the possibility of a relocation loan and if necessary a commercial lease of the property after the occupation agreement was up. Both of these terms were agreed to by the SDC. Then another weird theory was proposed by Fowler/Rodgers/Christensen and the SDC that the final price would be determined by a third Valuer. By now we had lost complete confidence in the process and especially in these professional advisors such as Valuers and lawyers in this fraternally infested, politically corrupt city of Christchurch to act honestly or fairly. So we were adamant we would not transfer the means of valuing our farm to one of these. Again I repeat this would have been of no consequence had the SDC not abused the process and intimidated us constantly with the constant gratuitous and unlawful construction machinery next to our training tracks. And likewise had we known or been informed of the cheap ($55) simple and effective means of legally stopping it. We would never, ever have considered selling our farm under these circumstances.

17.9.6)It is also significant that we were constantly getting bombarded and brainwashed both in written and oral advice from Fowler/Rodgers that our best and only tangible option was take the highest offer we could get from the SDC and try and move away from this situation (We have these original letters of advice stating this theme by Fowler/Rodgers which were omitted from the file presented to us after terminating our association with them) This was to the point on more than two occasions Fowler actually aggressively yelling at us to pressure us into selling this farm. Again under normal circumstances this exhibition of aggression and yelling at us by Fowler would have been the end of the matter and our association with this lawfirm. This situation was by no means normal made so by the association between the SDC/Christensen and these lawyers supposedly acting for us.

17.9.7)We were constantly conscious of the danger and potential escalation of more potentially fatal menace by the construction machinery next to our training tracks. And it seemed from these lawyers’ rhetoric and the consent authority’s affirmation and arrogance. Nothing could be done to stop this danger and it was likely to intensify in the future.  Plus obviously the political power and resources of the SDC combined with Rat Cunning Christensen’s well-known method of conducting business and the toxic loathing, which had developed between Christensen and us.

17.9.8)These matter along with Fowlers advice, inference and innuendo that the SDC would invoke resource consent audit on our property and could actually make us remove our horsetraining tracks, as we didn’t have resource consents for them. I had never heard of resource consents needed for training tracks but nothing would have surprised me with that SDC with Christensen involved. As I put evidence to the Supreme Court of Christensen barging into the 281st meeting of Ecan when already been denied a representation demanding the rapid and expedient issuing of a Resource consent for this /his Industrial Park

17.9.9) The analogy of us being between a rock and a hard place is apt. Involved in these circumstances against Christensen with the power, influence and resources of the SDC as well as the Warehouse with Solid Energy lurking in the background. But the significant influence and valuable association Christensen had on the lawyers we chose and trusted to act in our best interests against this alliance.

17.9.10)But as I more than adequately explain the reason for the predicament and gravity of our situation was solely due to the deceit and dishonestly of this Local Government who acted in conspiracy and collusion with their Chairman’s lawyers in an undisclosed basis .To specifically enable this Chairman’s already biased public statements about the price we should receive for our farm and the critical nature of the urgent establishment of the Warehouse Distribution centre to come to fruition. Thus completely excluding us from the process as legally affected party neighbours denying us both our property rights as well as our democratic rights. These actions and behaviour of a Local Authority are unlawful and actually illegal. As stated by law made in the New Zealand Parliament, which obviously these judges of New Zealand, have decided to take no notice of at all.

17.9.11)Yet these Court’s strongly proclaim Christensen avidly stayed out of the involvement concerning this matter and our farm despite the SDC and him underhandedly engaging with his own lawyers supposed to be representing us.  Christensen in his evidence along with the Valuer were constantly and wrongly stating we were conducting vehicle dismantling on the property. This is incorrect and false. We used these workshops to repair our own trucks and machinery that is all. We were fully legally entitled to do this. But from Fowler’s advice it was stated this use of our workshops would be strongly and likely successfully challenged by the SDC and if we failed to settle with Christensen /SDC they could legally require us to remove our workshops. The aerial photos can demonstrate this method of intimidation and motivation by the SDC/Christensen, the Valuer took and the helicopter surveillance photos (blown up) Christensen plastered all over walls in the one and only (of 4 or 5) notified RMA hearing on this matter. This one notified Resource Consent more than anything sums Rat Cunning Christensen’s and the SDC modus operandi.

17.9.12) It is clear this relocated Northern Hardstand was more than half complete before they even had the hearing and the evidence from SDC own enforcement officer states the SDC went on and continued to allow construction to all but complete , even while this decision was under appeal.

17.9.13)This disregard and abuse of process did not give us a lot of confidence in the SDC compliance to the law thus our future safety. Like I say Christensen’s and the SDC operated next to our farm with less compliance to correct legal procedure than any banana republic could ever have displayed

17.9.14)The evidence Christensen put to this RMA hearing, which is latter contradicted, by the same Government Official’s sworn evidence to the High Court and Court of Appeal corroborates this. What that is called is perjury evidence of which was put to the Supreme Court and as usual completely ignored.

17.9.15)With the information we had at the time and the advice received from the lawyers It did not instil a lot of confidence in our ability to continue training our horses on that property in the confidence of peace and safety for the future. We got the impression from Fowler/Rodgers that what the Warehouse and subsequently the SDC wanted one way or other they were going to get it. This is plain to see for any interpretation of the letters of advice from these lawyers especially the letters that were omitted from the files. After these files were released by AH.

17.9.16)It is clear from the benefit of hindsight, which we are allowed to use in conflict of interest matters especially concerned with and involving a Local Government. This whole matter of pressuring us into selling our farm was planned and orchestrated by Christensen and the SDC with military precision.

17.9.17)The way the SDC manipulated and abused the resource management process to deny us proper and legal involvement in it. Thus initiating and completing their unlawful construction But most importantly this disregard of the law completely destroying our confidence in the process and the ability to stay on that farm in peace and security for the future.

17.9.18)The way they cultivated and promoted the association with their Chairman’s and main negotiator’s lawyers in order for this ‘working of the process’ and undermining or our strategic position to be so successfully achieved.

17.9.19)The constant and gratuitous intimidation and harassment which they knew was so much infuriating us in preventing us safely training our horses and Fowlers and Rodgers advice that nothing could be done to stop this. And it was likely to continue and escalate unabated in the foreseeable future.

17.9.20)The way the SDC clearly presented false and corrupt valuations to the negotiations and falsely stating they were compelled by law to only negotiate with in this valuation of $450,000.When all the time they were continuing with their unlawful construction unabated by Christensen’s lawyers.

17.9.21)The influence this situation had on the Valuer(Simes) that Christensen’s lawyers engaged and instructed  to also be so reluctant and evasive at correctly legally valuing this property.

17.9.22)The way the SDC clearly misrepresented their intended use and reason for purchasing this property is contrary to the fair trading act and obviously the LGA.

17.9.23)They way Christensen used his undisclosed connection with the lawyers we chose, who we trusted to protect and promote our interests. Instead Christensen’s lawyers completely destroyed our situation.

17.9.23)I also believe Christensen cultivated undisclosed relationship with our close associate to glean confidential information in return for favour in future consideration of resource consent from the SDC.

17.9.24)Our computer was hacked and Christensen being an ex policeman and private investigator would have been familiar with this and all other forms of electronic surveillance lawful and unlawful.

17.9.25) Christensen also I believe used his influence and rat cunning to undermine our business to compromise our financial situation something obviously no Local Government is allowed to do. After nearly 10 years of good and exclusive business with Canterbury finance (subsidiary to Alan Hubbard’s South Canterbury, finance) by which they secured all our truck finance exclusively. Despite the millions of $’s of good business we directed towards this finance company and not receiving one $ in commission. This finance company abruptly terminated our credit facility for our business despite having all our trucks and machinery as collateral as well as a caveat over our farm. This was done at a crucial part of these negotiations with Christensen / the SDC and without any warning. It is significant to note that as well as being a long term and valuable client of Fowler/Rodger and Anthony Harper Christensen was also a significant client of Canterbury finance. As well Christensen had a significant role in the Canterbury Plains Water Irrigation scheme, which Alan Hubbard managed to get his tentacles into in a large way. So no doubt they were more than remotely acquainted. SDC is 50% owner of this CPW scheme, which would have required them to have significant dealings and all kinds of correspondence with Hubbard.

17.9.26)It is important to note that Christensen knew we dealt exclusively with Canterbury finance because on the many uninvited trips to our farm where he was treated cordially and politely (please refer to the passage of murder under trust by the Cambpells at Glencoe. Maybe this is another inherent trait of some Scottish people in not recognising and being alive to their potentially toxic and treacherous enemies. But instead trusting them, enabling these enemies to obtain a huge position compromise over the gracious host.) I remember him quizzing me about the finance arrangement of our business though this individual did not mention he had any involvement or connection with Canterbury finance, which in retrospect would seem odd if he was an honest honourable person. Or even was conducting the business of the SDC in the manner Parliament demands. What an amazing litany of coincidence.

17.9.27)If Hubbard’s Canterbury finance had wished to terminate the arrangement with us at this crucial time it was their prerogative. But if Hubbard is as honourable as he claims his firm should given us some warning and paid us the upwards of $100,000 of commission I chose to forgo because of my reluctance to be in anyway associated with income from money lending. Canterbury finances actions and behaviour in this matter is a good explanation why I chose to have nothing to do with or any involvement in money lending and do my best to avoid contact with them. What is indisputable is the SDC with or with out Christensen involved is not able to remotely close to being implicated in this kind of behaviour “undermining our business in order to unlawfully pressure us into selling them our farm” It is way past the balance of probabilities this was the sole reason for Canterbury Finance for the first time in 10 years of good mutual business refused to offer us credit on a vehicle. Yet they were still offering customer we had sent to them without any commission credit on vehicles purchased from other truck suppliers.

 

17.9.28)It is also significant the IRD decided to launch a full out attack on us at the crucial time of these negotiations and issuing bankruptcy proceedings against us for I think about $12,000 in supposedly unpaid GST. Considering this business(Wilco Imports) incurred liabilities due to the close to $million wages I chose to pay to the 10- 15 staff we employed and I refused to lay off when through no fault of our own the business environment changed. Each and every one of these staff was paid his/her full entitlement until they left naturally or were fired due to an indiscretion. I am troubled to see why this GST payment was not credited to the huge legitimate tax losses our company had/has incurred resulting entirely from  these wage payments.

17.9.29) Failure to lay off these staff when I should have was the result of 3 things in my character I latter discuss,1) my stubbornness, 2)my concept of honour 3)and the huge impact the Japanese and the way they conduct their business had on me. Unfortunately I failed to grasp at the time the cultural difference between the workers in Japan and their counterparts in New Zealand. Plus the importance that capital can be borrowed in Japan from between 2 and 5 % not the upwards of 20 % we were forced to pay to these loan sharks. I often lament when I here the NZ Government or a SOE is laying off staff, though my decision destroyed our business and is responsible for our dire financial predicament. In some ways it vindicates the way I have chosen to live my life. Maybe our financial situation will change in the future and I will look back on this part of our lives and be pleased I did not take the easy option even if the easy option was the financially prudent. I also lack the required ruthlessness to deal with people in such situations unmotivated by anger, this will never change nor do I want it to

17.9.30) The military precision and conspiratorial orchestration goes down to the way Christensen’s Fowler/Rodgers manipulated the files and forged emails as well as the way the subsequent lawyers Russ and Cameron not only neglected to forward the contents of the RMA report but also criminally misrepresented it. It is interesting that the Government agencies I complained to, the Law society refuse to investigate this gross dishonesty and all the Courts completely ignore the unequivocal evidence of this.

17.9.31)Yet still we get from these Courts of New Zealand

HC23There is no evidence of undue influence exerted by the plaintiff in this case. Throughout the Williamson’s were receiving legal advice. I accept the submission that the parties were very much in a position of equal bargaining power It follows there was no inequality of bargaining power, nor any suggestion of improper use by the plaintiff of its position.”

HC 25]There is no evidence before me that the Williamson’s were in a   position of particular disadvantage, or that the plaintiff knew of this or exploited this. To the contrary, they were represented throughout by Anthony Harper .The evidence shows that firm acted as strong advocates for the Williamson’s”

 

17.9.32)These ruling which are almost a verbatim copy of the submissions of the SDC were basically reiterated bya Judge of the Court of Appeal  in her ruling who as I stated to the Supreme Court, appeared to either have a serious problem with me or was completely misunderstood. When I appear before 3 Judges of any Court in an English speaking country I am entitled to expect all 3 will engage with me equally as they do my opponent and my evidence and submissions will be granted equal consideration and examination as that of my opponent.

17.9.32)The way these Judges of New Zealand highest Courts have conducted their duties in this matter except forone Court of Appeal Judge who did at least show me the courtesy of engaging with me, is just a disgrace. As can be seen from my description of ( appendix 14a]Glossary of Individuals involved) As I state in my complaint about the media I wonder if heinous criminals getting treated with the disrespect and contempt all but one Judges showed towards me.

17.9.33)There is two interesting concepts in historical context which apply to the situation my brother and I have found ourselves in. As regard to the deceit and manipulation of documents and process. I am interested in history especially that of our own culture. It is significant that in WW2 in every form of engagement and quality of weaponry the Germans were vastly superior. Except for maybe fighter planes, the latter (fuel injected) Spitfire to the ME109 which was surpassed by the Fowker wolf 190 then possibly negated by the Merlin powered P51Mustang and the heavy bomber.4 Merlin Lancaster, the American BoeingB17 and B29 the Germans had no heavy bomber close to matching the capabilities of the Lancaster orB29. But everything else including battle tactics, the Allies were inferior. According to (Hon) General Douglas Mac William

17.9.34) But what the Germans were absolute no match on the Allies, was deceit, trickery, intrigue, subterfuge, espionage, counter espionage or most importantly strategy.   This can be no better shown by the two crucial invasions of Europe by the Allies. Sicily and Normandy the Germans were completely clueless of the true intent and actual locations. In the invasion of Sicily the British devised a cunning plan of having a dead man washed up on the coast of Spain carrying vital (false) documents of the false location of the landing. Knowing full well this information would be passed (discreetly) on to the Germans before being returned to them by Spain. This is well documented in a Book “The man who never was” The Normandy invasion subterfuge was so complete that even after the allied troops were established on shore. The Germans would not move reinforcements to the area (Normandy) as they were sure this invasion was a diversion from were the had been duped by the allies to believing it was going to occur, 100’s of miles away.

17.9.35)We in New Zealand are the equals of everything our British counterparts are except for Soccer. Yet these Judges and Government officials refuse to even accept the possibility of similar deception and intrigue well know in our culture when Christensen/SDC /Fowler/Fowler clearly decided to become involved with, by engaging together in an undisclosed basis. The question has to be answered why did they do this on an undisclosed basis when clearly it is unlawful. If not to manipulate and abuse the process undermining our property, democratic and strategic rights, in order to unlawfully establish this Distribution centre. And pressure us into selling our farm so undervalued for Christensen/SDC Izone Industrial Park. It is not even remotely possible that this is allowed under the LGA. Let alone not arguable to the point of hopelessness, that this   behaviour of the SDC is not contrary to the LGA.

17.9.36) What concerns me most is not that this SDC involved with Christensen became involved in such deceit with Fowler/Rodgers .Nor Fowler/Rodgers would doctor the files and forge emails. But would openly do this and not even be held accountable to any form of scrutiny from the controlling authorities. Worse still be praised and lauded by the Courts and Judges involved.

17.9.36) An analogy of the quality and motivation of Judges, Government official’s and lawyers behaviour can be shown by comparing the situation to the plight of the African Americans in the South before the civil rights movement. Obviously there were laws enacted by Congress to protect rights and liberties of the African American’s at this time but what the Lawyer’s, Government officials, Courts and Judges did was just simplyignore and misrepresent or manipulate them, just as has happen here in New Zealand concerning my brother and my situation. To enable Christensen and the SDC to unlawfully, pressure us into selling our farm.

17.10.1 Final part of negotiation SDC changing goal post with help of Christensen’s Lawyers

Because of the apparent hopeless and helpless situation we faced as portrayed by these lawyers of Christensen supposed to be representing us.  We reluctantly agreed to enter into this process on the basis of the minimum price being $740,000(I am not really sure how the SDC came up with this price as it certainly didn’t come from there total valuation of $450,000 only a couple of months earlier they were so adamant they were compelled to stick to for the good of the ratepayers) and the top $939,000 this was including the existence of  a  relocation loan and the possibility of a long term lease, should the need arise. This lease possibility was agreed and is stated in writing during the negotiations as if the SDC had not agree to this it would have been counter-intuitive to their stated theme and as we know now false and misleading claims they had no commercial use for our property.

17.10.2 Fowler/Rodgers however failed to get this vital negotiation premise ratified in the final agreement. This was very easy for them to do as I had be forced to postpone many business trips to Japan because of the stalled and delayed negotiation by the SDC.I was leaving for Japan shortly after we received the final document and did not have time to properly read and understand it. Obviously this is the reason for Lawyers and the reason they charge so much.  So not surprisingly when the occupation agreement ended the SDC reneged on its and Fowler/Rodger’s vital assurance. Thus failed to agree to a commercial lease arrangement. Instead stating they wished now to develop the property for commercial sale and did in fact sell the front 4 ha (10 acres) for several $millions to Solid Energy the neighbour. The SDC also reneged on its agreement to provide a relocation loan on the again false and erroneous grounds. This was done shortly before the agreement and we were convinced by Fowler/Rodgers to off set this with an extra year of the occupation agreement. The premise used was   that such a loan was not legally allowed; this is clearly a false premise and pretence. The SDC should not be able to use this method of negotiation.  I have put before the Courts there is clearly statutory provision for Local Government to be able to provide such a loan in this situation of relocation. This vital relocation loan was clearly withdrawn at the very last moment under false pretences.

17.10.3Again the Courts are completely oblivious and silent on this deceit and misrepresentation. The best the HC judge can do is we agreed to the false pretence somebody or something just because it is agreed as it was in this case very reluctantly and on the assurance of the ability to continue in occupation of that property under a commercial lease. It does not make a false pretence correct simply because we agreed to it. Obviously had the true and correct situation being know as I put to these Courts we would not have agreed to it. Just as obviously this is why parties use the premise of false pretence to convince people of something they otherwise would not of agreed to. This is again elementary and is a measure of the contempt these Courts and Judges of New Zealand have towards us that they constantly dished out and accepted this rubbish

Induced to make offer

17.10.4 To alleviate our concerns regarding the input of third experts Fowler suggested we put in an offer of $800,000 we reluctantly agreed to this. On analysis of this price $800,000 – $439,000- $205,000{SDC curtilage (house and garage etc) assessment} meant our 18.5 (46 acre) land we received a total of $156,000. This was done on the advice of two extremely experienced RMA and commercial property lawyers who just happened to be the lawyers of our main, dominant antagonist in this matter, key negotiator and representative for the purchaser. And the Chairman of the Industrial Park this farm despite the misrepresentation and stipulations that it was not destined for this use, plainly stated in writing, has now become an integral part of.  Just as in the case ofSteven’s v Premier real estate critique The Court states the advice to make this offer was bad advice. So just as in the Steven’s case the substance of this offer should be disregarded As I have stated in reply to the Courts mention of this $800,000 offer in reiteration of the plaintiff’s submission, which were used as substance of the judgement. It appears there is a rule for one or most and a rule for my brother and I, in the interpretation of legal principles in this country.

 

17.10.5 Obviously had I known even half the information I do now. This whole thing would never have eventuated not withstanding the connection between the Lawyers and Christensen. It would be fair to assume that 2 extremely experienced RMA lawyers should have a better understanding of the situation than I could ever grasp. This demonstrates the value the undisclosed connection between Fowler/Rodgers and Christensen to the SDC and ultimately the nature of the unlawfulness of the conflict of interest.

1)      Environmental enforcement orders a cheap ($ 55), easy and quick (1 or 2 days) method of stopping the danger and more importantly the potential anxiety that Christensen/SDC with the help of the lawyers supposed to be representing our interests were so easily able to impose on us.

2)      Potential Industrial Valuation Obviously had we known of this legally correct method of valuing our farm as Mr Glasson suggests this property should have been. It would have given us many different options as well as negating Christensen’s/SDC antagonist method of negotiation with such a pathetic so called registered valuation.

17.10.6 It is significant to note that even after enlisting 3 sets of expensive expert litigators. I did not become aware of these crucial matters until I took the time, effort, expense and most importantly sacrifice, to research thismyself in 2008/9

Through its illegality and abuse the SDC made it impossible to safely train our horses on our own farm because of their conspiracy to become involved with the close associates and lawyers of our major protagonist opponent (Cr Christensen) It enabled this Local Authority to act in a away, not only achieving its goals by working the process but completely destroying our confidence of remaining on that farm in peace and confidence for the future. Thereby pressuring us to succumb to the constant rhetoric and inaction of Christensen’s lawyers and take the best offer we could get from the SDC and move away. This is plain to see from the advice in the many letters, which have been omitted from the original file by this so-called doyen Christchurch law firm. When the file was passed to the subsequent lawyers.

17.10.7)Immediately after the settlement we contacted this Anthony Harper Law firm stating we were not happy with the way things transpired.(This again is a clear contradiction to the judgement of the Courts which are adamant we voiced no concerns about the situation. Despite unequivocal evidence to the contrary these Courts just refuse to relent on this crucial matter or accept the truth of it. It is just plain and simple madness that the High Court makes an emphatic finding and despite clear counter evidence the Appeal Court makes the same finding and then the Supreme Court will not even consider reviewing the matter. What do these Courts think we are; chimpanzees or some other such monkey species.)

Eventually G Brodie the senior partner of AH (and also was the president of the Canterbury Law Society) became involved and this went on for a period of 18 months. Brodie explained to us Christensen was a large and valuable client of their firm,(completely contrasting the situation disclosed by Fowler/Rodgers at least 9 months after we first contacted this lawfirm  and more than 18month since we had become involved with Christensen.)Brodie required us sign a disclaimer that their was no conflict of interest between Anthony Harper concerning Christensen’s involvement in this matter He was also going to get another law firm to review the situation which is the correct and expected procedure. (I note this is a completely different description of Christensen’s association that was forthcoming from Fowler originally)

17.10.8)Under no circumstances would we agree to this of Brodie’s, as we were adamant that it was a conflict of interest situation. It is also interesting to note, why this process of our informed consent and peer reviewing Christensen’s involvement with this Fowler/Rodgers and AH   was not implemented initially when it legally should have been by both the law firm and the SDC. (Complaints to Law Society/Legal Complaints Review office, concerning Fowler/Rodgers of Anthony Harper)

18.1.1)We then engaged another Lawyer Dean Russ. The files went from AH to Russ’s offices. Russ gave them to me to look at and I commented (recorded in writing) that there seemed a lot of material missing in relation to the theme of advice we received. But I could not be specific or elaborate, as at the time I had no examples of any letters, which were not in the files AH presented to Russ. I asked Russ if it was feasible that Fowler/Rodgers could in fact doctor the files by changing or removing items of advice given to us. He was adamant that such a deceitful, dishonest practice would impact so much on the integrity of the legal system. A lawfirm, especially of the standing and reputation of Anthony Harper would never do such a thing. I believed him, as it seemed a serious matter that would attack the integrity of the whole process. Especially concerning the position of trust that the law firm holds.

18.1.2) Also there were emails in this file supposedly written by me but with legal terminology that I did not use and was not in my vocabulary at the time the email was supposedly written. Most importantly one e-mail supposed written by me states that Fowler informed us of the connection with Christensen initially. This simply did not happen so it is impossible I wrote this e-mail, this can be of no dispute.

18.1.3)Russ did very little for over a year then in May of 2006 asked my permission to get a Resource management expert to review the file and make a report. I straightaway replied to him in the affirmative. Russ never informed me of the RMA experts name referring to him only as Peter. In July of 2006 Russ received this report, which is in total 5 pages. On Friday 14 July 2006 9.22am(Appendix13) Russ e mails Peter Glasson “Thanks Peter

 Makes interesting reading. Will discuss further issues arising with you when you have some time up your sleeve” Obviously this latter discussion never took place as Russ did not show or mention the contents of this report to us except for a ½ sentence he used to misrepresent the substance of it.

18.1.4)Peter Glasson replies 14 July 2006 9.27am “Hi Dean The valuation and conflict of interest seems to be the crux of the issue. Given Christensen’s involvement I just can’t see how they can argue that there is no conflict of interest. The valuation process and values need closer attention ……Peter

18.1.5) Russ never forwarded this e mail nor any of the contents of this report to us nor did he mention it except much latter mis quoting 1 part of a sentence “Overall, resource management process appears to have been followed” Russ uses this statement as justification we have no claim against the Selwyn District Council therefore should give up and beg for mercy. Russ clearly misrepresents the contents of this report Yet as well as not forwarding or discussing the rest of this 5 page report Russ fails to complete the sentence he used from it to dismiss our claim. “although the pressure to work the process and reach decisions with in very short timeframes is obvious A definition of ‘work the process’ according to the Collins Dictionary is “manipulate or abuse  for ones own advantage” Clearly this is contrary to the way Parliament has decreed a Local Government to act in terms of the Local Government Act “to conduct its business in an open, transparent and democratically accountable manner”

18.1.6)But what Parliament decrees and legislates is obviously of no account to the High Court, Court of Appeal who denied us the right to trial  and 3 Judges of the Supreme Court who denied our leave to appeal this matter in accessing a basic and fundamental right for the whole affair to be tested by trial.  Through the subterfuge and deceit of this lawyer Russ and the subsequent lawyer we engaged Grant Cameron of Grant Cameron and Associates. We did not receive this report or any knowledge of its true contents until July/August 2008.More than 2 years after it was commissioned. Then it was only due to a fortuitous telephone conversation I had with the author that I received it at all.

18.1.7)It is significant that because Russ did not mention anything about the correct substance of Mr Glasson’s report .So we could not follow up or engage this resource management expert in more detail. Russ now states, he did not do this because we could not afford this expert opinion. Bare in mind he did not inform us how much it would cost let alone if we could afford it. Like most everything in this troubled affair, this comment by Russ is unbelievable. Russ was in possession of $5000 deposit over and above what we had already paid. He refunded us$3500 of this as well as Russ’s firm did the conveyancing on a substantial further mortgage we took out on our parents home in order to have the funds to fight this matter. It is absolutely extraordinary Russ would even put up such a dishonest and so easily refuted flimsy argument. Clearly by not engaging Mr Glasson or mentioning of his report to us was of huge benefit to; Anthony Harper/ Fowler /Rodgers  /Christensen and the SDC and just as proportionally detrimental to our cause. That of which Russ was supposed to be advocate for.(Complaint to law Society concerning Russ Appendix14)

19.1.1)Next  lawyer  Grant Cameron

When Russ seemed to lose interest in this matter not long after he received Mr Glasson’s report. We engaged another lawyer as mentioned Grant Cameron an ex policeman like Christensen and as I have constantly described in my legal correspondence to the Supreme Court. I honestly consider Cameron as a wholly despicable and reprehensible individual in many ways similar to Christensen, words cannot express the contempt I have for Cameron (like Campbell this name originates from a similar area of Scotland, to my own and my contempt for Cameron emulates that for Campbell (TV3) and Mackenzie of HRNZ .I don’t think I would have lived long had I been born 4 or 5 centuries earlier in the area of my families origins Given the grief, aggravation and acrimony I have had in all manner of aspects in my life with people of Scottish Clan names but at least I would have had the privilege of dying like a man with honour. Not a shamed beggar as this litany of theft, dishonesty and corruption has reduced John and I to. And these lowlife corrupt thieves and cheats would not be able to hide behind our society’s civilised social conventions and these scumbag’s well-practised manipulation of the law to avoid the consequences deserved of such walking two legged vermin. There must be something inherent about Scottish for the families to polarise and deceive and the individuals of different groups to loath each other.   . No wonder there is so much crime in our society if Christensen and Cameron are any kind of example of the Police.

19.1.2)Cameron reinforced Russ’s contention concerning Mr Glasson’s as yet unseen report. Adding that as there was a distinction between Anthony Harper representation of Christensen in his private and business role. As against Christensen in his position and key negotiator of the Industrial Park .So according to Cameron this does not constitute even a potential conflict of interest. So again according to Cameron there was no requirement for any kind of disclosure of the association what so ever.

19.1.3)As well as being contradictory to Mr Glasson’s informed opinion with stated reason. This is pure nonsense and a complete distortion of the meaning of the word ‘potential,’ by Cameron. The matter of distinction, which I actually dispute, this is any. Is only one gambit of the many facets, which decide a potential conflict of interest or wether it is acceptable for any particular advocate to act against an existing client. Let alone as Cameron states, absolve the advocate from any disclosure of the association with the client they are in a supposedly antagonistic exchange against, on behalf of another client.

19.1.4)It is a basic and fundament principle of our adversary legal system that the client and that client aloneis entitled to the undivided and uncompromised loyalty of the advocate. Because of the nature of this dynamic and acrimonious adversarial negotiation, it was impossible for Fowler/Rodgers to wholeheartedly push our interests and not severely upset and conflict the interests of Christensen. This is more significant that not only was Christensen a long term and valuable client of the Lawfirm Anthony Harper but also specifically personally associated with the same lawyers we engaged to be opposed to him. ( Brodie did not inform me of this  and actually misrepresented it. I did not know this until I received Mr Glasson’s report and was in a position to do my own research on the matter. When Fowler did make partial disclosure late in proceedings he specifically misrepresented this stating Christensen was a small client of the firm involving conveyancing only)

19.1.5)The inappropriateness of this relationship was exacerbated by the extreme bitterness and animosity, which had developed before his own lawyers had become involved supposedly represent us against him and was escalating. On the basis of the terms of instructions per Shands Road Sawmills connection to Anthony Harper where Fowler specifically states they cannot become involved or entertain any criticism of this client(SRS)It was purely impossible to be in this same situation against Christensen. As well as the strongly personally biased previous public statements Christensen had made concerning the desired outcome and our so-called unrealistic expectations. Together with Christensen’s public statements relating to the crucial need of rapid establishment of this specific development next to our farm and in particular our next to our training tracks we were in opposition to. Copies of the documented evidence of Christensen’s statements put to the Supreme Court and as usual ignored.

19.1.6)Simply by examination of the written advice we received especially in the omitted letters it is easy to recognise whose interests Fowler/Rodgers chose in this matter.  The reason and possible rewards can be seen by the evidence I produced to both the Supreme Court and relevant government departments of potentially $million worth of work which AH/Rodgers/Fowler has garnered from Christensen/ the SDC or it affiliates ( this evidence like everything else was ignored) There was/is no distinction between Christensen and the Industrial Park we were in antagonistic negotiation and argument with ,they were one of the same.. As the Lawyers own rules stipulate the meaning of client to encompass anything the individual concerned has any degree of authority or influence over.

19.1.7)Obviously as Christensen was the chairman of this Industrial park and chief negotiator concerning the purchase of our farm. It is patently obvious he had more than a significant degree of influence and interest being personal, professional and political in the outcome of these negotiations against us and Fowler/Rodgers of which we were completely dependent on and trusting. As I earlier mention Christensen as well as Schultz the other property developer had large investment in commercial property development in the Rolleston area which was directly related to the development of this Industrial park It is of huge significance that Fowler/Rodgers and the firm Anthony Harper represented these property interests of Christensen which were also dependent on the success of the Industrial park. Clearly it was in these lawyers long term financial interests for this venture to succeed and progress according to Christensen’s already stated public statement. Which were obviously contrary to our situation.

19.1.8)We trusted and expected them to protect interests when they were Christensen’s undisclosed valuable associates as well as business and   personal lawyers depending and being influenced much more by this connection with Christensen than required loyalty to us. Infact all concern became involved in this matter on an undisclosed basis to specifically destroy our position in every respect.

19.1.9) It is also significant that Christensen was very much personally involved with us over this matter and made strongly biased public statements about his preferred outcome concerning our supposed unrealistic expectations. These were before we came involved with his personal lawyers and again evidence of put before the Supreme Court and ignored as usual.

19.1.10)As Mr Glasson details and explains “I consider that the matter is more fundamental than that. In this case, Christensen was directly involved and was directly negotiating on behalf of the SDC against the Williamson’s and having direct correspondence and telephone conversations with Fowler. That would appear to be quite different than AH representing a client simply against the SDC.”

19.1.11)Even if there was a legal distinction in Christensen’s role, which I strongly disagree with, because of the intense personal involvement, and almost personal obsession Christensen had in this matter. Evidence of which I put to the Supreme Court and relevant Government Departments. Christensen was constantly complaining and proposing through out the negotiations he could get better farms closer to Christchurch less than what we were being paid. Yet he totally disregarded the cost of the facilities we had specially constructed and the curtilage which left our 18.5 HA( 46 acre)  in 2 titles with 7500 s/m of already zoned Industrial land in the middle of this Industrial park with a land value of $156,000.Again ignored by all the Court and Government Department it was put before.

19.1.12)The Statute law and code of conduct of the SDC requires this association to be fully disclosed to us in the first instance by Christensen/SDC and AH. And our full informed consent given and properly recorded, of that there can be no dispute.

19.1.13)The Supreme Court defines informed consent in Stevens v Premier real-estate; as consent given in thefull knowledge that a conflict of interest exists. That is unambiguous and completely negates Cameron’s rationale for dismissing the association, thus any chance of our challenging the situation.

19.1.14)What the Court is saying is the degree of distinction is of no importance. The initial choice of continued representation is ours and ours alone on the basis of us being informed of the worst possible scenario of the connection between Christensen and AH. It is of no dispute this full disclosure and ‘informed consent protocol’, was never done. It seems though all the Courts of this country are extremely selective and discriminatory in how they apply their own principles. More so when it involves a self-litigant against one of the doyen lawfirms the likes of which many of these Judges emerged from.

19.1.15) After what I have learnt about the workings of our justice system I contend that the power, seemingly un accountable Judges have garnered is not sustainable when they are presiding over members of the same fraternity they have emerged from. Judges should be only Judges and lawyers only lawyers and the two groups have a healthy disdain for each other.     It is my experience of the cases I have studied that Judges are reluctant to expose the abuse of the process involving matter of conflict of interest between lawyers Especially when it involves an allegation of conflict of interest and associated imprudent, deceitful action and advice by one of these, ‘Old boy network’ lawfirms.

19.1.16)As mentioned, Cameron also misrepresented Mr Glasson’s report and did not forward it or its contents to me. But Cameron was stupid enough to give me Mr Glasson’s full name for the first time which I latter used to make contact with him and for the first time gained access to this report in mid 2008. As mentioned a full 2 years after it was produced. Though it does surprise me that this report did not go missing from the file as many of the letters of advice from Fowler/Rodgers were supposed to. Somebody needs to be held to account as to how this crucial report and it contents could so easily be with held from us. And why this procedure of full disclosure of something so important to our situation was so blatantly and obviously misrepresented.(complaint to Law society concerning Cameron Appendix 15)

19.1.17)The High Court and Court of Appeal strongly ruled Christensen stayed out of this matter. Yet I put before these 2 Courts the SDC own evidence of Christensen’s dominant involvement. In not only the Distribution Centre construction and Izone development but most importantly his strong opinion of the terms, condition’s and price we should receive for our farm.(SDC evidence of Christensen’s involvement Appendix 16)   

19.1.18)By now I had lost complete confidence in lawyers. Especially when Cameron almost doubled the fee he had estimated without informing me of such until the one and only final invoice. He then instituted summary judgement proceeding against us to recover this seemingly hydrauliced fee. And more importantly would not release the case documents meaning I had to prepare my case without them We had to take a loan from a finance company using our truck we relied on for our income to pay Cameron’s fee to avoid being possibly bankrupted by this Summary judgement.

19.1.19.)I visited the Community Law Office to see if they could advise me how to defend this Summary judgement for eviction by the SDC. First they agreed to help but then for some reason changed their minds.

20.1.1High Court Submissions (Appendix 17)

I then decided I would need to become a DIY lawyer and knowledgeable of the Resource management matters, to defend the Summary Judgement eviction the SDC had instituted Obviously I considered this extremely difficult and daunting as mention I am and have been professionally diagnosed severely dyslexic. But the other side of this dyslexia is the reason I have been able to acquire for a layman a competent knowledge and understanding of this matter.

20.1.2) This matter of dyslexia explains one of the reasons it was so easy for Christensen/the SDC and these lawyers to deceive us. I had absolutely no idea what was going only that this whole matter was wrong. But as I mention I inherently trusted the system 100% so trusted what Fowler/Rodgers/SDC and Christensen served up.

20.1.3) I am a one dimensional person but if I put my motivated mind to one thing providing it is not building, engineering, mechanics, operating construction machinery or anything what so ever to do with mathematics, spelling or grammar. I can usually become relatively proficient at that one thing. So I studied cases on the Internet and the legal process as well as the RMA in the library. From this I compiled 40 pages of submissions I put before the High Court As well as 3 lengthy Affidavits of evidence.

20.1.4) It is extremely complicated and difficult to properly explain so after we secure the return of our horses I intend to make a web site focusing on this matter whereby I will post the submissions and correspondence to the Supreme Court and relevant Government agencies including the Valuers complaint board and Law Society, of which I intend to lobby internationally over this matter regarding our farm.

20.2.1)With the advice these lawyers constantly served us up. Which is authenticated by the letters of advice that were omitted from the file by the same lawyers. We had only 2 options

1)      launch Judicial review against the SDC which would incur a huge cost and require a $35,000 deposit in advance According to Christensen’s lawyer the result would most likely be a total loss with more costs incurred .Most importantly the SDC would just keep construction anyway win or lose. It is most significant Fowler neglected and misrepresented the situation concerning the enforcement orders that would have been so destructive to Christensen’s previously stated motives and intentions thus his interests. For these Enforcement Orders to operate in co junction with the judicial review of the process would have been fatal to Christensen and his previously stated intentions. It would also have directly impacted on Anthony Harpers future business and aspirations. Had we been correctly advised the $35,000 would have been cheap

2)Take the best offer we could get from the SDC even at a loss of value(on lifestyle value of our farm) and try and move away from this nightmare.

That these were the only 2 options made available to us by Christensen’s lawyers is irrefutable and incontestable and can be clearly substantiated by the examination of the written letter of advice especially those omitted from the file.

20.2.2)This advice and situation we found ourselves in has to be examined in the light of potential conflict of Interest .It is impossible to dismiss or negate these conflict of interest circumstances by virtue of any distinction between Christensen’s involvement with Fowler and Rodgers. These same lawyers involvement supposedly for us against Christensen in his connection with and as Chairman of Izone Industrial park. To dismiss this situation asnot potential conflict of interest circumstances, as these Courts have so strongly done, is purely impossible and corrupt.

20.2.3)The connection is a Conflict of interest because of Christensen’s personal involvement in the matter and the assignment and reflection of any success or failure to himself personally. Because of Christensen’s dominant and controlling position of chief negotiator between the Izone and us. But most importantly because of the longstanding and bitter relationship, which developed between ourselves which, can be clearly demonstrated by the strongly bias public statements Christensen made about our situation and the price we should receive for our farm. Christensen chose to became involved in this personally for his own reasons he went way past what a local government official should of and is actually legally allowed to do. It appears he personally used many underhand and dishonest methods possible in order that as much pressure as possible was placed on us to facilitate the sale of our farm at the minimum possible price. Obviously this included influencing the lawyers they engaged with on an undisclosed manner. This is unlawful for a Local Government to operate and negotiate this way. If this was not the case why was the proper and legally correct disclosure not made to us?

20.2.4)Mr Glasson (RMA consultant) sums this up in e-mail to Russ 14th July 2006, which as mentioned Russ, kept from us along with the crucial report attached. “The valuation and conflict of interest seems to be the crux of the issue. Given Christensen’s involvement I just can’t see how they can argue that there is no conflict of interest. The valuation process and values need closer attention” Pretty self explanatory but no conflict of interest is exactly what Russ went on to argue as well as the next Lawyer Cameron along with 1 high Court Judges 3 Court of appeal Judges and last but not least, 3 Supreme Court Judges. One of who is having his own judgement questioned as regard to conflict of interest matters he himself is involved with.

20.3.5)It is of most significance that situation or connection only needs to be established as a potential Conflict of Interest as because the SDC is empowered by the Local Government Act. By this Local authority not disclosing any potential Conflict of Interest. The SDC has acted unlawfully contrary to statute (Local Government Act). Deeming the contract null-envoid (contrary to statute) under the Illegal Contracts Act. This is not disputable so all the Courts ignore it.    

 

20.4.1) The SDC went on and secured our eviction from this farm after the occupation agreement period had expired, by Summary Judgement. Summary Judgement is a method, which fast tracks the legal process by-passing the procedure of trial such as cross-examination of evidence etc. It has been described by leading authorities (English Law Lords) “except in the case of a simple debt or were there is no conflict in evidence as a aberration to our system of justice.” And it legally should not be used in any other situation than described. Meaning we were fully entitled to have this matter litigated in the proper and correct manner, that being a trial.

20.4.2) As I have already mentioned what appears to be proper and correct in the implementation of justice in our country obviously according to these Courts I appeared before does not apply to my brother or myself. As TV3 Campbell alluded to and infers on his program about our horses being seized through supposed malnourishment and neglect Campbell states “which has shocked the horse community.”.  Therefore according to Campbell we are the most ignominious and notorious pair of brothers in the English-speaking world, since the Drisco Brothersroamed, raped and pillaged the Wild West in the 1860’s after the American civil war. But what these Courts, the News media, SDC and the SPCA don’t seem to realise as even these Driscos, the Outlaw James Brothers and the London gangster Kray Brothers had full access to the correct legal process and procedure .Yet we are denied any right to this process of justice, both concerning the pressured sale of our farm and the seizure of our horses.

20.4.3)The way the SPCA have seized our horses is worse than summary Judgement at least in summary judgement there is a fair chance to see the evidence and reply to it. Even as in our case with our farm the Courts chose to completely ignore our rebuttal evidence as well as the legal requirements of implementing this Summary Judgement. I believe the SPCA have relied on the same false evidence they have been feeding the media   Despite all manner of requests and efforts of discovery we have been denied the opportunity to see exactly what that SPCA evidence to the Court was and defend our selves against it.

21.1.1)High Court Judgement concerning our farm (Appendix 18)

The High Court ruled strongly in the Selwyn District Council’s favour and ordered we vacate the property in 7days from that ruling and also issued a indemnity cost order of $30,000 which the SDC issued bankruptcy proceedings against us for. Indemnity costs are the total expenses in litigation they are very rarely awarded usually it is between 20-50%. It is significant that had we been receiving any kind of Social welfare benefits or legal aid, which obviously we would have qualified for. No costs would have been awarded against us. (I don’t take Government benefits never have and never will. even when I was hospitalised and incapacitated for a month during this situation with our horses) I support the social welfare system, to a point, but I choose not to engage in it.)

21.1.2) It was impossible to move within 7 days so we appealed to the Court of Appeal and also applied for a stay, which the SDC did not oppose.

21.1.3)The Court of Appeal just basically mimicked the judgement of the high Court, which in turn was almost averbatim copy of the submissions of the SDC lawyer.  HC 23 “There is no evidence of undue influence exerted by the plaintiff in this case. Throughout the Williamson’s were receiving legal advice. I accept the submission that the parties were very much in a position of equal bargaining power. It follows there was no inequality of bargaining power, nor any suggestion of improper use by the plaintiff (SDC) of its position” Please compare this to the report of Mr Glasson

21.1.4)For anybody who is bewildered by how the High Court and Court of Appeal in New Zealand could come to such a twisted and distorted judgement of the situation I suggest a visit to; kiwifirst.com  a web site of an American man who has had to endure similar injustice at the hands of these Courts when a conflict of interestinvolving the Old boys network is a key issue. It is also pertinent to understand the type of operator Christensen is and the reason he acquired such a reputation in the Selwyn District as such an adept and ruthless ‘worker’ of the process. As already mentioned.

21.1.5)Example of Christensen’s obsession and disregard of process (appendix19)

In the evidence I produce of the minutes of the 281st Ecan meeting whereby it states Christensen interruptedthis meeting when he had already been refused a deputation to speak.(again evidence put before the SC) The reason for this rude defiant and arrogant interruption more akin to an organised crime heavy. Was to complain about the delay and issuing of stormwater discharge consents for his/this same Izone Industrial Park. As can be seen by the complaint I made to Ecan. Christensen and his Industrial Park had no such problem in the rapid and expedient issue of the storm water run off consent to the container stand less than 300metres from our one and only well. Christensen has clearly perjured himself by the evidence he has put to the High Court and Court of Appeal but as per usual the Supreme Court ignores this. And due to the denial of trial process by this New Zealand justice system we are unable to highlight and ratify this perjury by a Local Government representative and SDC Industrial Park Chairman and Chairman of Economic development..

21.1.6)Christensen and this Izone Industrial Park with the help of the undisclosed connection of his own lawyers’ he/SDC were able to place unlawful and gratuitous pressure on us leaving us no real option to sell our farm to this same Industrial Park. Sounds also like the way organised crime works, but had organised crime been involved instead of New Zealand Local Government and a so-called respected and reputable Lawfirm. We would have recognised what was happening and found it much easier to deal and retaliate to. Straight away knowing exactly what we were dealing with and more importantly, how to effectively remedy this.

21.1.7)Even after we became aware of Christensen’s partially disclosed association with these lawyers, albeit misrepresented, I had no idea what was happening or going on. We had an inherent trust in the integrity of process of New Zealand Local Government to obey and abide by the law. As well we had had no real experience with lawyers and or property developers, so were fundamentally naïve to their deceit and dishonesty.  It is clear Christensen/SDC cultivated this undisclosed relationship with Fowler/Rodgers so they could purposely abuse and violate the law as well as our democratic and fundamental property rights but most importantly our trust. But what concerns me and amazed me was how the High Court could reach a judgement, which is so clearly the complete anthesis of the true and real state of affairs.

22.1.1)Court of Appeal Judgement (Appendix20)

After the just as compelling Court of Appeal judgement with its costs attached. In this judgement the CoA states I present no new material and used the fact we had not paid a security for cost when it was clearly shown that the SDC were in possession of admitted liability to us far in excess of this security for costs. But as usual this Court misconstrues the whole situation to conform to the submissions of the plaintiff, as is the theme of this whole affair. They are correct that there was no new material as we still had not received the RMA report of Mr Glasson nor found the omitted letters. But I thought I would be appearing before Judges in the Court of Appeal unlike the individual in the High Court who were aware of and familiar with the RMA process in New Zealand. Obviously I was wrong.

21.1.2)However I unequivocally show a crucial part of the High court judgement was wrong and it should raise questions as to where this High Court Judge got the evidence for this incorrect ruling concerning the advice given us by our lawyers as to the potential industrial value of our land.  This crucial matter certainly was not in the plaintiff’s submissions as it is admitted the SDC misrepresented their true intention for our property. Justifying the misrepresentation by stating their method and theme of negotiation concerning the future use of our property did not constitute an agreement and they changed their minds after the sale was complete. This is idiotic, fanciful and ludicrous that the Court of Appeal let alone the Supreme Court accept this without due process of a trial. But as I state in order to conform to the status quo the Court of Appeal choses to remain silent on this matter.

21.1.3)The CoA clearly followed the completely incorrect ruling of the HC concerning when we first voice concerns over the whole affair and the conflict of interest with Christensen and his lawyers involved. This is despite the contrary evidence put to them. The CoA chose to completely ignore this definitive evidence on the basis of a flawed and unsubstantiated speculative opinion of the HC Judge.   Then after the screeds of new evidence put to the Supreme Court should have been enough to allow leave to be granted and the correct process of a trial enacted. Straight after the CoA judgement we applied to the Supreme Court for a stay. Before that time limit was up the SDC invaded this property with security guards, dogs and police to forcibly take possession of it. This was after we had asked the Supreme Court should the stay be denied, we be given a fair amount of time to exist this property with some dignity. The Supreme Court although taking the application fee of $900, which was urgently Couriered (extra $150) to them, decided not to reply to this request for over 1 month.

 

21.1.4) After a short period of time with the SDC security guards in occupation 24 hours a day 7 days a week The SDC issued an ultimatum that unless we informed them where we could take our 30 horses   by the next day they all would be taken to the pound.

21.1.5)We took some to Mt Sommers where our family owns about 8 acres and we rented a paddock in Oxford where we took 12.

22The snake we helped

We put 7 young horses and the stallion at a person’s place who had not long previously come to me in such a distressed state stating that he was going to kill himself.

22.1)As he had become involved with his housekeeper and she had a Summary Judgement claim against him for $50,000. Something to do with an Australian timeshare apartment and maybe an American ponzi scheme this snakelike individual was involved with. He had previously been skiting he was getting 10% per month (what an idiot) from this Nigerian style investment scheme.

22.2)For those who don’t know a ponzi scheme is where the earliest investors are paid a dividend from the latter investors (these earliest investors solicit) principle similar to pyramid selling scheme and when the inevitable end comes there is always some excuse why it has eventuated and it is usually believed by those gullible enough to invest in such a  ‘hair-brained’ scheme anyway. Never ever invest in any thing with interest bearing more than 10% per annum and the closer it gets to 10% be more prepared to lose your investment. This idiot honestly believed he would yield 120% per annum for his money and he was adamant it was backed by the US Treasury stipulated it can only be entered by invitation. I am not sure if we were invited into it or not. I have made a lot of mistakes in my life but none of them have involved idiot-logic greed inspired schemes like this.   This individual honestly rates himself as some kind of astute dealer businessman and this rubbish conned-vinced him, where a smart primary school student would see through it.

22.3)Anyway this Summary Judgement against him by his ex housekeeper for the $50,000 had progressed to the stage that the hearing for the claim was in 4 or 5 days.  The lawyers he had enlisted despite all my efforts and telephone conversations would do no more on it as he was behind on their fees even though we had lent this individual about $5000 supposedly to be paying the legal fees. It was also an uncontested summary judgement meaning this individuals lawyers had made no reply to it which rendered it tantamount to a formality.

22.4) As it transpired my brother John figured out a way the summary judgement could be adjourned. By getting a medical opinion that this individual’s diabetes had contributed to a state whereby he was not adequately able to defend himself. Delaying these Summary Judgement is always very difficult but this was achieved by some quick thinking from John. On the morning of the hearing I took him to the hospital to get written documentary record of this diabetes condition.  I attended the hearing and the Judge was extremely reluctant but thanks to John, left with no choice on the presentation of medical evidence of the affect of the diabetes on this individual. We lent him the further money to get the papers from the lawyer. I found him another lawyer and did sufficient research to instruct the lawyer to conduct the defence on the basis that this investment was a partnership and not a loan. Meaning both parties share the profit as well as the liabilities Which I presume eventually was held as the matter was withdrawn by the plaintiff (housekeeper) without a word of thanks from this nasty serially maligning, visibly deficient individual, to neither my brother John nor myself. If somebody did this for me they would be a friend for life but I realise I am different from most Harness Racing participants.

22.5)Both John and myself thought worst-case scenario, the least this individual could do was let us keep some horses, especially our stallion at his farm. Considering had it not been for our help according to him when he came begging for it, he would not exist As he had a perfect stallion yard I would have thought the least he could have done was help us out in this way. Shortly after (2 or 3 weeks) we put our stallion there (he would not let us use the stallion yard so we had to keep him in a box) he informed us he wanted us to remove all our horses then before we could arrange another place he instituted legal proceeding to have our horses removed off that property. As I have mentioned I have upset a lot of influential people with the forthright views and proactive action I have taken in support of these views Though not concerned, I am troubled to understand what I have done to prompt this individuals determined involvement in this matter.  He used our tractor to cultivate his land 2 years in a row but whinged like a hungry child when it came to given us part of the subsequent crop he agreed to. Then reneged on the full account because he reckoned the second year’s crop was not big enough. What that had to do with our tractor I couldn’t figure out. We provided him use of 2 cars for over period of about 2 years when he was not travelling so well financially both of which he failed to put any oil in and ruined Maybe he is upset we didn’t provide him a better more fitting car for his esteemed stature and dominant presence in the community, for him to ruin.

22.6)When we were trying to figure out away to fight his summary judgement, my sister suggested we visit the community law office On the way there he told me if anybody was there that he knew or from his old school (a private previously single sex school) we would switch roles, with him saying he was in attendance to help on support me but we never actually established what I would have been their for that he was supposedly in support of.     It is important to note this individual also has some significant undisclosed connection or association with Cr rat cunning Christensen. It is feasible that in return for the undercover information it is possible he was feeding Christensen and the SDC about our situation and motives concerning the dispute with our farm He was able to subdivide off and sell his house as a small section separate from the rest of his farm on the basis of non-complying activity, resource consent and build another house on the same farm. Something usually very difficult but if commonly allowable, most every farmer in the area would want to do.

22.7)We were lucky enough to rent this place at Halswell so we moved our horses and stallion to there. There are 5 boxes at Halswell so we moved the stallion from one to the other. So long as we kept the other horses away from him he was fine and contented and I would clean the boxes out before I moved him into the next one every 2 or 3 days. He would have access to as much hay as he could eat and I would have spent hours cutting fresh grass and willow branches for him. But obviously a proper yard for him would be ideal but sometimes ideal is not possible. When we first moved to that property in Halswell all our horses did fine, as they were accessing water from a different water well.

22.8)The episode with this individual who begged our help when he badly needed it and we gladly obliged responding with a positive and decisive result for him. Not only did he neglect to reciprocate the favour but also along with his oddball Springston associate is actually a co instigator and driver of this unlawful and unwarranted SPCA action.  According to a person who was connected to the SPCA, these two were/are in constant liaison with the head office (Clodhopper) of the SPCA driving this seizure from a Harness Racing perspective. No doubt they were in constant communication with Kitto and Rennell from HRNZ as well. These obnoxious and dishonourable individuals are pretty common of many in HR

22.9)The first ‘astute’ housekeeper investor would constantly purvey malicious and lewd gossip to another guy who was at our farm working with the horses. One of this nasty individual’s constant themes was that his now associate’s wife was culpable in dishonestly diverting funds from a Harness Racing activity they were in charge of organising. At the time we had a painter, an ex bikie and another young guy working at our truck workshop. As they were all in attendance during lunch and tea breaks hearing this just constant litany of lewd disgusting gossip between these 2 Harness racing participants.   These two workers stated they had never heard anything like the screeds of malicious gossip that came out of these Harness Racing participants’ heads. 22.10)The ex bikie stated, if these 2 were anything to judge by, there must be a lot of sick twisted units in Harness Racing

22.11)There is an interesting anecdote, which sums this situation up with this maliciously twisted individual we so significantly helped at a critical time with a successful result for him. We made no judgement as to why he got involved with his housekeeper in a Queensland timeshare as well as lavishing cars and other gifts on her or why he was so stupid as to enter into one of those Nigerian style ponzi schemes we just helped him when he needed it.  “A traveller was passing a water hole and he saw a snake impaled on a stake unable to free its self-doomed to certain death as the water was rising. The traveller stoped and walked over to the impaled snake and managed to remove it from the stake. The snake, as soon as the traveller was off guard and vulnerable bit him with deadly venom .The traveller exclaimed, “why did you do that when I saved you” the snake replied Don’t you realise I am a snake

22.12)Anybody who knows this individual and the way he conducts his life will understand how well this description applies to him and I apologise to anybody who he had done similar things to and still remained civil to me during my association with him.

 

22.13)At this time we managed to tidy and remove all our items from our ex farm. While under constant threat and intimidation from the SDC. Stipulating if this removal was not done by a specific time the SDC would not pay the pre agreed removal coats which we were relying on to pay the High Court imposed indemnity costs.  Bankruptcy proceedings were initiated, which we managed to avoid due to full payment of these Court, imposed indemnity costs. These costs and the method of intimidation and oppression by the SDC were more than unreasonable. As the SDC was only partially successful in its claims(as they actually claimed all our machinery and possessions that were still on the site in the SDC Statement of Claim , I am not sure why this Judge did not rule this claim).But the facts are the SDC claimed it and we successfully defended it rendering the SDC only partially successful so no costs at all should have been imposed let alone to an indemnity scale.

22.14)As stated to the Supreme Court, we got more ultimatums from the lawyers of the SDC than would have be issued in the Invasion of Normandy by both sides. All the time they were stressing that if we did not comply with these ultimatums we would not be paid our total relocation costs and what remained on that farm would be confiscated. It appears Christensen was involved in this lurking in the background. I know this because the serially maligned timeshare ponzi investor was in discussions with him over this relocation matter as there was something on our farm that belonged to him and he was adamant the SDC was going to seize it along with all our possessions. When I asked him how he was so sure of this .He informed me “Jens Christensen told me”

23.1)I include this passage to show that my brother and I did not deserve to be left in this predicament when others were in trouble we had helped them especially this individual. Basically this individual is an example of many of the participants in Harness racing. Some people there is just no dealing with many Harness racing participants are such a group cultivated promoted and perpetrated by the HR media and HRNZ allowed and condoned by the New Zealand Government.

23.2) As well it shows Christensen was cultivating relationships with people we were connected to undermine our situation. Christensen himself may be entitled to  this type of underhand behaviour but he is most certainly not allowed to do this in relation to any SDC involvement with us, which this matter was. The SDC obviously chose Christensen for their chairman of this Izone and in charge of so many important portfolios. Knowing full well his methods and reputation. So the SDC is culpable and liable for his illegality under the Local Government Act.

23.3) Ask anybody who knows Christensen and or his methods so synonymous cunning and underhand. What kind of Government in any free, fair and democratically minded society would let such a person anywhere near any kind of situation that has any potential at all for graft, corruption and manipulation. What kind of Justice system would permit this let alone praise it. As has this High Court Judge backed up strongly by all these other Judges in this aberration of a judicial system we have in New Zealand.

23.4) Christensen/SDC so strongly and ruthlessly along with these Courts completed their eviction, which resulted in us having no place to put our horses.  Yet more 2 years after the SDC and the Courts evicted us from this farm at such urgency. Except for the front 10 acres sold for many million$ the remaining 36 acres have been left idle and overgrown.

24) SDC lawyers Buddle Findlay

The situation concerning our involvement with the SDC lawyers Buddle Findlay, partner, W Palmer and solicitor, Kelly Foley. Demonstrates why this situation is so wrong with Fowler/Rodgers being involved against Christensen.

24.1)Initially when I first met Ms Foley I was impressed with what seemed her genuine compliments of my submissions. Now my feelings toward her are ambivalent. I have a toxic and deep-seated loathing for Palmer her superior and the partner in charge against us. Realistically this is the way I should feel towards Palmer in such an antagonistic and acrimonious situation. This is the way Christensen and the SDC should have felt towards Fowler/Rodgers and Anthony Harper which was obviously impossible to achieve by these same lawyers representing us in the same manner Buddle Findlay represented the SDC against us. We were entitled to this same level and degree of robust hostility and subjective aggression to be directed towards Christensen   and the SDC from Fowler/Rodgers as was directed towards us in this subsequent matter by the SDC and their lawyers Palmer and Ms Foley from Buddle Findlay.

24.2)If Fowler/Rodgers were not prepared to engage in or it could be perceived they would not act in this manner against Christensen and the SDC on this basis, which by virtue of the advice rendered clearly they didn’t Obviously we should have been informed of this matter in the very first instance.

24.3) I was bullied a lot when a child, I hate bullies. I would never ever do anything, which would shed me in such a light as even remotely close to bulling. Lawyers in these big lawfirms are bullies and most of the Judges in New Zealand come from this type of Law Firm including Anthony Harper. The system is designed to be like a boxing match. Two equal opponents giving their best shots for their client with no thought, remorse or consideration of the consequences to the opponent. The SDC certainly got their money’s worth from Buddle Findlay as well as their pound of flesh from us.

24.4)How could this possibly work for us when the lawyers we engaged had a dominant, significant and valuable close undisclosed connection to the party we were in a bitter dispute against? Then the subsequent lawyers we engage to review the situation. Dean Russ and Grant Cameron it appears enter into a conspiracy with Fowler/Rodgers/Christensen and the SDC  to do everything possible to see our cause stymied and defeated. In fact the system is specifically designed to prevent such a situation arising but it appears the Judges in New Zealand are discretionary as to how they evaluate and apply these strict principles and pre requisites of our adversary bases system. As well as how they apply the statutes of Parliament. Clearly Fowler/Rodgers chose to engage with Christensen and the SDC in this matter on an undisclosed basis not just to nullify our strategic position but also to completely destroy it. This is the complete opposite we are entitled to expect from any lawfirm in New Zealand .

24.5)That these lawyers including Buddle Findlay, Russ and Cameron as well as all the Judges involved cannot and will not see this means they like Fowler/Rodgers and Anthony Harper are latently corrupt and or psychotic.  As well as extremely well educated they are very intelligent so there can be no other reason for the complete distortion of the judgement of the true and correct situation.

25 Misrepresentation of Glasson report

As mentioned in July/August 2008 I received RMA report of Mr Glasson and became aware of the true contentsfor the first time.  This is a full 2 years after it was completed and presented to the lawyer Russ who commissioned it on our behalf. It was completely unbelievable how scathing it was of the association between Christensen/SDC and Anthony Harper and how concisely but correctly the author had analysed the situation even on the basis of the doctored files he reviewed. But what was more unbelievable was how blatantly and consummate dishonestly both these lawyers had misrepresented this report’s contents, so much to the benefit of Christensen and the SDC as well as AH(Fowler/Rodgers).

25.1)The questioned can be asked and needs to be answered is if the Courts of New Zealand are so right in their adamant finding for the SDC .Why did these two lawyers, who are deemed officers of the Court go to so much trouble to not only ensure we did not see or become aware of the contents of this report but actually misrepresent it.  At about the same time we received this report, we found a whole bunch of letters of advice, which the originals of the copies that had been removed from the file before it had been released by AH to Russ. These omitted letters clearly show the actual theme of advice we received from Fowler/Rodgers and again, how wrong the Courts interpretation of this whole affair is.

25.2)Mr Glasson’s deduction of the integrity of planning process we faced in this matter.

 Mr Glasson sums up what we were up against On page 3 of this report “11 April 2002 A report was prepared on behalf of the SDC on the notification /non notification issues for the land use consent application (R305468). The report was prepared by planning consultant Justine Ashley of Planit (Christchurch firm).Not surprisingly , (emphasis added)as the consultant receives a huge amount of her work from the SDC the report recommended that the application be processed on a non notified basis. Note the exceedingly short time period between lodgement and the writing of the non notification report.”

25.3)For those that don’t understand by this resource consent being granted on a non-notified basis even though it was established categorically we were the directly adjacent and affected neighbours we have been completely and successfully denied participation and access to the RMA process. Not only at the RMA hearing stage but also right throughout the Court stage as appellants effectively we were unlawfully excluded from the process.  It is significant that in noway did the SDC explain or consult with us on this matter. When we contacted them initially, they falsely stated this development could occur as of right. The SDC commissioner Robson also used this rationale of explanation completely neglecting to properly explain it. Mentioning nothing what so ever about any non-notified resource consent element of this so called ‘as of right’ sounds about as legally valid as the ‘claim of right’ I earlier mention. This could only have occurred with the SDC’s misuse of its position of consent authority, completely contrary to the flawed ruling and subsequent judgement of the High Court and Court of Appeal.

25.4)Obviously had the SDC been only the Consent Authority and this development conducted by a private entity these multiple non-notified resource consents would have never have been issued. Of this on critical analyses there can be no dispute.     Which is the ultimate test of rebuttal of the flawed High Court Judges judgement. Who admitted as to knowing nothing about RMA matters.

25.5)Please also consider the anxiety and anger the operating of earthmoving machinery right beside our training track was causing (a key matter in the legal determination of  and  the rightful  issue of a resource consent under the RMA. Of this also there is no dispute. Clearly this along with other required matter concerning consideration was totally ignored. Resource Consents can not legally be issued with out proper and due consideration of the effects construction machinery on the neighbours legitimate activity.) and the advice of these lawyers being nothing tangible could be done to prevent in the future so our best option would be to take the best offer we could get from the SDC and try to move away.

25.1.1) Attempt to draw media scrutiny to this matter concerning our farm Letter to Van Beynen (Appendix 21)

In my one and only telephone conversation with Mr Glasson he suggested I contact a reporter at the Christchurch Press; Martin Van Beynen. Which I did, forwarding to him the report and my submissions along with the judgement This Van Beynen didn’t even bother to reply to me so after 5 weeks I recontacted him and he briefly replied the Press was not interested in this matter. It appears Van Beynen is a resident of the small and isolated community in Lytelton harbour that Fowler is also the resident of, what a small world.

25.1.2)When one of the Community papers affiliated to the Christchurch Star printed an article about our horses in Halswell. Which Sutton from the SPCA affirms we were doing as requested and our horses would not be seized) I visited them twice presenting them this same information and asked them also to publish this information concerning the pressured sale of our farm. As this state of affairs concerning Fowler/Rodgers undisclosed affiliation with Christensen/SDC was the sole cause for us ending up in this situation. This paper also declined to consider publishing this matter instead concentrating on the condition of the sick horse and ignoring the fact that it was a minority of them and the rest were fine.

25.1.3)As well I explained this to the TV3 resident Airhead ‘Utering’ but she stated it was too complicated for TV. Obviously telling the truth is also much to complicated for TV3. As this station advertises, it is all about the story, never mind the truth that’s much too complicated and difficult No bother completely destroying our reputation with defamation, slander, pure misrepresentation and blatant lies resulting in such gross and slanderous allegations on the same channels website about us. It’s all about the story.

25.1.4Situation concerning Mr Glasson

Recently I received a letter from Dean Russ the lawyer who engaged Mr Glasson It stated “Mr Glasson no longer wants anything to do with this matter”. This is now also not surprising as it appears Mr Glasson has been commissioned as a consultant  by the SDC and Hughes another property developer crony of the SDC who is some kind of manager of this Izone Park,. What an extraordinary series of coincidences that have occurred in this matter concerning the pressured sale of our farm. What I can’t figure is why that report of Mr Glasson’s did notgo missing (like the letters omitted from the AH files were supposed to do). After Russ successful misrepresented this report and failed to inform me of the author’s full name so I had noway of authenticating the misrepresentation.

25.1.5)I was actually stupid enough to believe what Russ and Cameron had stated about Mr Glasson’s report. Maybe stupid is not the right word after lobbying and complaining to the lawyers and having to endure the litany of nonsense from the valuers I was lulled into a sense of cynicism and distrust at the ability of any expert in Christchurch acting honestly or honourably in this matter. Thus acquiescence at these lawyers misrepresented description of Mr Glasson’s report that is the product of graft and corruption of process. After a while honest people just get worn down by it and come to expect nothing less.   What an unbelievable predicament, a client believing 2 lawyers that have been   engaged and these lawyers both misrepresenting this important document and evidence of a RMA consultant, so much. What hope has this system when I will describe my self as stupid for believing 2 expensive and experienced lawyers engaged subsequently to act in the manner of our best interests? And these lawyers actually act in a completely contrary manner and I only discover proof this deceit and treachery purely by chance. That is a sad measure of inadequacy and corruption of our legal system in New Zealand.

 

25.1.6)Complaints concerning planning report

Concerning this crucial RMA report I recontacted the relevant Government departments responsible for the sanctioning and scrutiny of behaviour of recalcitrant government departments; Complaint to The Ombudsman (Appendix 22) and Complaint to Auditor General (Appendix23) (who had previously prosecuted Christensen for conflict of interest so should be fully aware of his M.O.) they replied that because this matter was in the Courts system they could not get involved. I disagree, just as the Courts are independent from the other Government bodies; Parliament and the Executive. These bodies are independent from the Courts. The Courts are not our rulers and don’t make the laws in this country, Parliament does and it is done by the power of the electoral mandate. The Courts are there to interpret and apply the laws according to will of Parliament not the other way around. These agencies like the Auditor General are there to up hold and apply the law, investigate any potentially wrong doing by Government departments and Local Government.  And if necessary these 2 Government Departments are required to prosecute, in relation to the actions and behaviour of these government agencies or in this case Local bodies. It is nothing to do with the Courts. The Courts are not expected to or equipped investigate under the present system we have. The Ombudsman and Auditor general are specifically there to do that.

25.1.7)How possibly can a small property owner inexperienced with the workings of Local Government, motives of property developers and deceit of lawyers. Possibly be considered to be in anyway equal to a multi billion$ organization like the Selwyn District Council with a apparently devious rat cunning property developer at the helm, combined with the Warehouse and latterly Solid Energy(well known for their exploits of pushing and exceeding the law to achieve a desire and predictable result in this SOE favour), as have these Courts deemed and decreed so strongly and wrongly.

25.1.8)When the same lawyers the small property owner engaged to protect and promote their strategic and fundamental democratic rights. Have a large, valuable and significant undisclosed relationship thus vested interest to the rat cunning property developer Chairman and key negotiator of the Industrial park, these same lawyers are supposed to be in aggressive opposition to. How possibly can this be judged, open, transparent or democratically accountable as Parliament demands? Why if the SDC were not going to take advantage of the situation to work the process and create an inequality of bargaining power in excess of the already huge disparity in resources both financial and political, did they not disclose the connection at all? Not withstanding in the first instance as Local Government would legally be required to do. Then the next lawyers engaged by us against this alliance, completely misrepresent and distort the situation on behalf of the clearly recalcitrant Local Government and theprocess working property developer.

25.1.9) How can we possibly get expert opinion to speak out against the SDC action, manipulations and abuse of process when they (SDC) employ or have the power and huge financial resources and incentive to employlucratively any expert that does?

25.1.10)Why have these Courts so strongly and compellingly ruled the SDC have complied with their legal obligations when this Local Government has purposely denied us the right to participate in the democratic process and cultivated an illicit association with the lawyers of their Chairman to see we were not only pressured into selling our farm but cheated out of the fair and correct value of it as potential Industrial land. Clearly this farm was intended to become and has in fact manifest its self as Industrially zoned land.     As Mr Glasson states in the final sentence of his report ‘Part of that review of the valuation would also need to take account of the rezoning of the land to Industrial which was clearly going to occur as part of the process”

25.1.10)Clearly then the SDC method of negotiating this crucial matter is false and deceptive thus they misrepresented the true situation. This is not allowed for a normal property developer under the Sale of Goods act and the Contractual Remedies Act let alone a Local government, which is bound by the much more stringent and strict precepts of the Local Government Act.

26)Valuation complaint(Appendix 24)

Yet I made a 70 page complaint with a extra 51 pages of appendixes of evidence and indicators to the Valuation complaints board. With pertinent questions such as How can the SDC put forward a valuation of potential Industrial land of 53cents psm when farmland (with Industrial zoning) adjacent sold for $25psm to Solid Energy? Negotiated and sold in the same time frame. And why was no value given to the already Industrial zoned land on this farm The reply was that the Valuation complaint board have decided to take no further action on this matter, no reason or answer to any of my questions. I then requested a copy of the investigators report. The reply was this report was confidential.

26.1)What a Hillbilly organization, the Valuation Complaints Authority is which as will be seen by my latter website. It could only match the Law Society in it exhibition as a mockery and fairground attraction display of the process of justice.

27Complaint to Law society and Complaints review Officer  ( Appendix 25) Complaint AH re Fowler/Rodgers)

As for that Law Society who in their right mind is responsible for letting this lot loose on an unsuspecting public, this bunch are a perfect example of “way past a joke”.

27.1)When put to the legal complaint review officer, Duncan Webb that Fowler/Rodgers were responsible for the omission of many crucial letters of advice thus denying me the opportunity to put the evidence of this advice to the Courts. His reply was, “what possibly could be their motive.” This is a Law Professor specialising in the Legal ethics and a Partner in a doyen lawfirm, Lane Neave.

27.2)If this learned Professor cannot envisage why lawyers would remove from the file letters that were expressing strong advice contrary to that, thus severely prejudicing the defence offered by these same lawyers. It is way past my ability and potential as a communicator to explain it to him considering an illiterate petty criminal could figure this out with very little inducement or reflective analytical timespan. Maybe he should seek the advice and counsel of his students as to the reason for these lawyers admitting these crucial letters.

27.3)It is significant to note that Webb was a member of the same complaints committee decision that he was reviewing as Legal complaints Review officer. I highlighted this to them before my complaint was lodged but as usual it is ignored. If that was not plain crazy it would be laughable like the Supreme Court Judge adjudicating over his business partner he is perceived to be financially beholden to and not recognising the indiscretion and potential damage to the integrity of the system. These lawyers and judges operate in a different world either psychodelic or psychopathic they certainly don’t seem to possess normal thought and rational processes.

28) S14 Fair trading Act

Parliament again is explicit and adamant on relation to the purchasing of land destined for commercial development. S14 Fair trading Act “False representation and other misleading conduct in relation to land 1)No person shall in trade in connection with the possible grant of an  interest in the land b) make false or misleading representation concerning the nature of the interest in the land ,the characteristics of the land ,the use to which the land is capable of being put or may lawfully be put ..”

 

28.1)As mentioned the SDC and Christensen constantly and adamantly denied our farm would be rezoned Industrial thus used for Industrial development thereby strongly stressing no extra value should or could be considered due to a financial obligation to ratepayers. This contention of no future commercial use was agreed and pushed by Fowler/Rodgers, Christensen’s lawyers supposed to be representing our best interests. The SDC in their evidence to the Courts, which like everything else, was completely accepted by these learned Courts. State these, as they manifest themselves, misrepresentation’s concerning the future use of our property. Did not constitute an agreement and the SDC merely ‘changed their minds’ deciding after the purchase to include our farm in Christensen’s Industrial Park. Obviously this was untrue and can easily shown to be so.

28.2)Something does not need to constitute an agreement to be held as misrepresentation. That is pure madness coming from a local Government in New Zealand and even worse endorsed by the 3 highest Courts in New Zealand. Something can be deemed misrepresentation by omission, let alone reaching the threshold of constituting an agreement.  Surely if this rationale of ‘changing their minds after purchase’ to counter false and misleading misrepresentations during negotiations concerning the future use of purchases by property developers was allowable and/or acceptable. All property developers would adopt this ploy. Obviously that is what the law is written to prevent. It seems like many things in this matter the Judges from New Zealand’s highest Courts cannot figure that out, because if they could they would have to termed corrupt.

29)Examination of Ruling concern future Potential Industrial land. (Appendix 25)

One of the many things I find extraordinary in this whole affair   Is the High Court Judge’s ruling on this matter concerning future Industrial zoning and its impact.33c”In agreeing to proceed with the sale, having been advised by their solicitor concerning the issue of future rezoning and potential impact on the value of the property” The fact is, the opposite of what this HC judge is alluding to, was advised and argued that the future Industrial zoning of our land was not relevant and did not add any value to our farm at the time. The SDC do not dispute that the sale was negotiated and conducted on the basis of them insisting this land would not be used for commercial development for more than a significant period of time if at all. Then changed their minds concerning their intentions. After they and the lawyers supposedly representing us used this misrepresentation as a means of ratcheting down our expectations.

29.1) This ploy of the future use of our land not being considered potentially Industrial relevant was strongly pushed by Christensen /SDC   /Fowler/Rodgers. This is clear from the written correspondence of all concerned Yet any suggestion contrary was met with a hail of rebuttal and ridicule both by Christensen/SDC and most importantly the lawyers supposed to be advocates for us.   So where the evidence or rationale is for the HC Judge’s ruling, I am entirely unsure. Yet when this was put to the Court of Appeal the 3 Judges concerned weresilent in their Judgment about this extremely important matter concerning the negotiation process of our farm.

29.2)What does that mean when contrary evidence is put to a higher Appeal Court and the same Court is silent on the lower courts finding. I will have to get an interpretation of this situation from England, the USA or Australia because as I have already stated these Courts and the NZ Government obviously don’t give such reasons to peasants.   This matter of misrepresenting the basis of purchase wrongly interpreted in the High Court judgement. Is pertinent to the Local Government Act and the common law requirements of the accepted behaviour or a local government. Yet the High court judge portrays the complete opposite of the reality of the situation even when it is admitted by the SDC. Then when this is plainly presented to the Appeal Court and Supreme Court they simply ignore it.

 

29.3)Again we are expected to lamely accept this like some kind of limp zombies. I wouldn’t be so upset if these Courts stated the truth of this matter but to so clearly misrepresent it is wholly unbelievable. And something I cannot and will not accept. The letters of advice omitted by Fowler/Rodgers unequivocally state the SDC has noeconomic use for this farm that is why they are driving a ‘hard bargain’. This combined with the constant rhetoric and written advice from the SDC that they had no intentions of altering the zoning of this land to Industrial anytime soon if at all. So this matter could not impact anyway on the properties price or value. Yet the Courts of New Zealand state even when contrary evidence put before them, that our solicitor advised us on the potential impact of commercial rezoning of our farm, but still we proceeded with the sale. This is wholly unbelievable, the advice we got from these lawyers and the strong representations by the SDC were the complete opposite. Who are these Judges trying to fool?

29.4)The truth   of the matter corroborated by the omitted letters of advice was that because of the escalation of danger to us and Christensen/SDC method of negotiation. Combined with the joint wealth, power and resources of the SDC and the Warehouse along with SDC/ Christensen’s ‘tooth and claw’ style of operation. We were strongly advised that basically we had no choice but to accept the best offer we could get from the SDC even  on the basis of us“ making concessions on value

29.5)Obviously had we been made aware of the Enforcement order process, which would have so easily, cheaply and abruptly stopped this danger and harassment as well more importantly allayed our fears for the future. The whole matter would have taken on a completely different perspective. That is why Fowler/Rodgers, Christensen’s lawyers and close associates not only did not mention in any way this $55 procedure the actively and successfully misrepresented it

29.6) With regards to the valuation methodology, as put to the Supreme Court and in my Valuation complaint there is a clearly defined method for calculating the value of a property in such a commercial situation combined with a formula for estimating the deferment according to any incumbencies on the land preventing rezoning. Which our farm had none

29.7)At the beginning of 2009 I decided to devote the majority of my time and effort to fulltime studying this matter. Resulting in a complaint to the Valuation registration board, a further complaint to the Ombudsman and Attorney General. As well as, study of the Resource management Act and procedure and extensive submissions to the Supreme Court. This consumed me, though everyday except for when I was sick or in hospital I would go and feed and check on these horses when I could not do this my brother John did with out fail. Seeing some of these horses including the stallion deteriorate to the extent they did truly devastate both of us. But as I was so consumed in this matter concerning our farm and John was valiantly trying to run our business of scrap metal, when the price had crashed we both failed to recognise the real culprit, which was causing the situation. Nor did anybody else recognise this Iron toxicosis.

 

30.)I find it difficult how anybody can justify such draconian behaviour of this SPCA by seizing all our horses. I believe is solely on the basis of false and misleading evidence, that all our horses were malnourished and neglected and we had failed to comply with the instruction to mitigate this situation. Parliament has only given authority under the Animal Welfare Act Animals that are in constant need of veterinary care or attention. Obviously the vast majority of our horses did not even remotely meet these criteria. Whether we are culpable for the condition of the horses so severely affected by this Iron Toxicosis is contentious. If we are the Canterbury equine vet is more liable for not advising us to make the necessary tests and precautions for it. As is the regional authority and health authority for not alerting us to the possibility of the situation with this water.  The same is attributed to the suggested tolerance to the wormers we were using. Why did this Canterbury Equine/SPCA not inform us of the matter to use another wormer, even though I am certain while the horses were drinking that toxic water it would have made absolutely no difference to the condition of the sick horses.

30.1 I first contacted the Supreme Court in June of 2009 stating I was only doing so at the advice of the Ombudsman and asked for advice as to the matter going forward. By now I was becoming tired of these indemnity costs which the SDC Counsel Buddle Findlay appeared at times to be claiming like kids grabbing free lollies in a lolly scramble. Though we surprisingly did receive $5000 back of the initial $72,000 we were owed (of which the SDC cunningly reduced to $50,000), which was calculated in the negotiations as account to the cost of relocating our machinery etc. After much of the evidence put to the Supreme Court inNovember 2009 they finally replied stating that the Supreme Court had only jurisdiction over appeals from the Court of Appeal and the fee was $900.(The Courts of this country are required to enact the legislation of Parliament also but it appears they are extremely discriminatory in their choice of this jurisdiction and application.)

30.2)(Summary of submissions to Supreme Court Appendix 26)

30.3)I specifically stated that obviously this matter was well out of time and should this out of time factor be held against me, inferring I could see little point in appealing for leave. But wanted closure from the Court process so we could move on to lobby politically, notably on the basis the Courts had clearly disregarded the will of Parliament in this matter. As obliviously it was a unique situation that through no fault of our own I could not present the evidence relating to the report of Mr Glasson and the omitted letters of Fowler/Rodgers legal advice, to the High Court or the Court of Appeal. I felt this out of time matter should not be held against us especially after we had lodged the Appeal and became liable for more indemnity costs. If this out of time matter was to be held against us I felt it fair and reasonable that we be informed of such before applying and thus forfeiting the $900 plus coming exposed to more indemnity costs from the Buddle Findlay for the SDC.

30.4)It is my contention that the Court process in New Zealand is only fair and reasonable when it suits it or the Judges and lawyers involved, to be. And this attitude is out of step with the process of Justice in the rest of the English-speaking world. 30.5)That is why it is imperative that the Appeal process to the Privy Council in England be reinstated or the ability to appeal to the Supreme Court of Australia. New Zealand is too small, fraternal and homogenous for this adversary process of Justice to properly function with out compromising influence and connections of these lawyers and Judges becoming over riding factors.

30.6As this farm largely remained unoccupied since we were evicted off it. We held out some hope the Supreme Court would at least grant us back occupation of it while this matter was properly litigated. Obviously this would have solved our problem regarding a suitable place to put our horses.

31.1Supreme Court Submissions (appendix 26a)

Obviously this is a huge amount of work and the culmination of the previous study. These were presented on or about the 20th of Dec 2009. I cannot believe how I was able to learn all this stuff I have absolutely no interest, in such a short period of time. But on the other hand I can’t understand how my spelling can be so bad and I am completely oblivious to it no matter how many times I proof read. But if I look at the same thing in a completely different format on a different day I will easily see the spelling mistakes.

31.2)Disallowing of leave to Appeal (appendix27)

On the 23rd of February 2010 the Supreme Court gave its judgement disallowing our leave to appeal this summary judgement Thus denying us our right to a trial over this matter. Stating as a reason amongst others, the application was not brought in the proper manner until more than 18 months after the decision in the Court of Appeal (out of time) I had contacted them a full 6 months before this to ask their advice and guidance explaining I was unable to get a lawyer to properly and honestly present this case. I have never stopped lobbying this matter since soon after the sale of our farm was completed. Given the working days for Christmas break I am troubled to understand how this Supreme Court could have possibly read and comprehended all this information pertaining to the situation and the lower Court judgements in such a short space of time. This is evident in the initial judgement the SC awarded no costs against us as this Courts states it appears we were Bankrupt. Despite the fact nowhere had I stated or inferred anything the kind. If the Supreme Court are not going to read or properly consider all the evidence or submissions put before them in such an important matter that is their prerogative but what they should do is state this clearly. So they can be held accountable if necessary latter.

31.2)Obviously this was the end of the road in a possibility of gaining re-occupation of this farm in the interim and despite the fact we had been in negotiation of a property to lease in Templeton for some time we though it would be better to try and find somewhere else.

31.3)Even though we were in full consultation with the SPCA regards our negotiation to find another place and then we told them once we had finally secured a perfect place to put our horses which including the stallion. They still continued with this draconian and heavy-handed operation to seize all of our horses and give them away to other people.

31.4)With regards to the procedure and process concerning the sale of our farm. We were obviously very naïve I never dreamt that when we enlisted a lawyer in such an important matter. That lawyer would have a valuable and significant vested interest connection with the key antagonist we were negotiating against. And even though the relationship between that antagonist and us was mutually toxic with the potential for an escalation of the already bad feeling. All concerned would keep the existence of the relationship undisclosed from us.

31.5)I trusted the fact that Local Government would apply and scrupulously stick to its own rules and obey the laws made in Parliament.

31.6)I thought that when I enlisted the services of not one but 2 expensive lawyers to peer review they would act in the manner and with the integrity the adversary system would require. Being, robustly aggressive, without fear out favour in the pursuit of our (their clients) best interests.

31.7)The reality of the situations was that all lawyers concerned were expensive Trojan horses that would do or say anything to serve the wishes of the Selwyn District Council, the Warehouse, Solid Energy   and the property developer in charge of this alliance against us. Obviously we would have been much better off without any lawyers right from the outset of this whole matter..

31.8)I trusted the fact the High court would apply the will of Parliament and when that was ignored the 3 Court of Appeal Judges would recognise this indiscretion and put the High Court Judgement right.

31.9)I was confident the central Government departments (Ombudsman and Auditor General) involved in scrutinising the behaviour and operation of the Local Government. Would recognise the abuse and manipulation of process and highlight it with authority, to the Courts.

31.10)Supreme Court Judgement (appendix 28)

By the time I got to the Supreme Court I no longer trusted anything about this system in New Zealand and thought the whole organization of Government was inconsistent, purposely negligent and grossly corrupt. But on the basis of what I had learnt and put before this Supreme Court, I just could not see how this Summary Judgement could not be dismissed. So the matter could be tested at trial. Yet despite the new evidence most notably Mr Glasson’s report and the screeds of other evidence (including statements of the actual theme and substance of advise given to us by these lawyers the High Court and Court of Appeal so compellingly pushed as strong advocates for or cause) and submissions put before this Court they state “.. the appeal even in the light of further material submitted by the applicant lacked merit. The criteria in S13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 are not met.” 

31.11)The Supreme Court are referring to Section13

1)This matter involves a matter of general or public importance.It is more significantly important to the public that Local Government not only follows and upholds the law but also actually promotes and promulgates the spirit of the law. It can be clearly seen the SDC and Christensen in conspiracy with Anthony Harper lawyers have done the complete opposite to this.  This can be seen in the letter I put the Ashburton District Council concerning the actions of the SDC abusing and manipulating the process to steal business from other law abiding Local bodies like I presume Ashburton. But due to Ashburton DC failure to Act on this information I am also sceptical about their compliance to RMA procedure in and involving their Industrial park. What a dogs breakfast this situation of Consent Authorities setting them selves up as large property developers. This can no better be illustrated by the description I put to the Ombudsman and subsequently the Supreme Court about the qualification and escalation of corrupt which is now common in these alliances of rat cunning property developers and powerful Consent authorities

“67) From my letter of complaint to the Ombudsman In my lobbing over this matter I get the impression from all I lobby to, including the Courts, it is about me personally. Apart from the fact that we never wanted to sell our farm and were pressured and induced into it by the danger inflicted on us due to the non-compliance of the SDC to the RMA matters. Our ignorance of the situation and the cunning and devious way Fowler/Rodgers AH used this situation to Izone’s advantage

This is not only about me. This SDC Izone with Christensen in charge is stealing businesses and enterprise from other law abiding Local Bodies and their communities. They are stealing jobs, and stealing future potential from those communities and doing so by subverting the process and deliberately flaunting the rule of law. My complaint is also about an expectation of the members of those communities whose Local Government obeysthe law that they (the community) have a legitimate expectation that that their jobs, welfare, security and future is not taken from   them by a Local Government in an other area that breaks the law and conventions of our society.

31.11.2)A substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred. This specific matter of access to the machinery and processes of Justice is relevant to our entire legal representation, which all-lay people depend to seek access to the machinery of Justice.

31.11. 3)This appeal involves a matter of general commercial significance. a)Obviously when a Local Government with the power and resources of the Selwyn District Council become involved in property development with an alliance headed by a property developer well known for working the process. Every thing must be scrupulously correct and beyond reproach not as an independent expert described

b)“the pressure to work the process and reach decision in short timeframes is obvious” or “I am aware that there was a very considerable number of lengthy discussions between the Warehouse and the SDC to ensure that the warehouse was “captured” for Rolleston and that their path to be able to operate at Rolleston was smooth.”

    c) Our private enterprise system relies on there being a level playing field and the governments purpose is to ensure that environment remains fair, transparent and equal for all participants. With the rules regulations and laws   properly upheld to all concerned. Not as is this case the Local Government has breached and violated the law to manipulate and abuse the process ‘smoothing the path’ for its and its property developer cronies, own advantage. With the Local Government cultivating and benefiting from an advantage by knowingly engaging in an undisclosed manner with the cronies property developers lawyers to not only gain this unfair advantages but also prevent and pervert the course of justice.

31.12)Parliament is emphatic in its stipulation as to how Local Governments must conduct their business. This is high threshold for obvious reasons especially when they get involved in public private partnerships How possibly on the foundation of the Summary Judgement principles, by which I only have to show my points are arguable, can this leave to appeal be denied on the basis of the laws made in Parliament using the definition of the English language.

31.13)It is interesting to note that the Supreme Court chose not to follow the High Court in granting the $6200 indemnity costs. First on the rationale the Supreme Court stated that it appeared we were bankrupt. So granted no costs to the SDC. I straightaway contacted this Court to inform them they had made a mistake concerning this cost ruling That not only were my brother and I not bankrupt we had never been associated in any way with anything that was. Also stating that in the rectifying of this mistake if it resulted in costs even though I had no idea of the magnitude so be it. I don’t want pity from this institution, what I expect is they act justly and fairly. The SDC lawyers then claimed more costs against us for arguing a point to this Court, which I had clearly established we had noway inferred, mentioned or otherwise stated. Doesn’t that sum up lawyers. For some unknown reason the Supreme Court decided not to follow the High Court judges ruling of applying indemnity cost for the SDC. Instead making a costs ruling of $2500 for the SDC, down from $6200.I hope they are not expecting any thanks for this. Though at the time it might as well have been $250,000.

31.14)Why this reduction or departure from the High Courts indemnity imposition? I have no idea as mentioned these Courts don’t give reasons to peasants.

It was my argument to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court that as the SDC were clearly only partiallysuccessful in their claim as in other similar cases the costs should lay were the fall. This is more relevant in our case as the SDC has profited so much by the orchestrated and pressured purchase of our farm that we did not want to sell (SDC profit in the magnitude of several millions of dollars.) It is significant that the SDC issued bankruptcy proceeding against John and I for this $30,000 High court cost claim. When the same Local Authority was set to receive several $ million from our ex neighbour Solid Energy for the front 4ha of our farm. For this High Court Judge to award these costs under these circumstances seems out of step with the system of justice we have. If the indemnity cost award was justified in the High Court one would expect it to be continued in the Appeal courts. Conversely if indemnity cost were not justified in the higher courts the High Court application of them should be reviewed.

31.15)This illustrates the conundrum for the High Court judge, for him to rule against the SDC requires him to bring into question the behaviour of Rodgers/Fowler /Anthony Harper lawyers /.Russ/ Cameron/the Community law office/the Ombudsman and the office of the Auditor General. I must admit this High Court judge is certainly consistent in his compelling judgement against us. In my latter submissions I question the process, which enabled this Judge to hear this matter when he admitted during the fixture that he had almost no understanding of RMA matters. As it appears he is a commercial judge hearing cases of liquidation and bankruptcy proceedings. I would doubt he has any experience in Local Government, public or constitutional law either. I also put to the Supreme Court, from the information I gained from the Kiwi first website I have very real reservations if this man would remain being a High Court judge in any other English speaking country. Yet be in a position to preside over the manipulated legal theft of our farm concerning a subject he admitted he knows nothing about (RMA).

31.16)A fair process would not have awarded these costs against us and given us occupation of that farm until the whole matter could have been properly tested by trial.

31.17)But as I state my submissions to the Supreme Court .If a lay litigant mentions or even infers the word fair They are treated like a whinging spoilt child. What these Judges should do is sometime have a look at a reputable English dictionary just to get a readjustment of the meaning of the language the laws they presided over are written in. The meanings of the word fair are some of the things, which make us in the English-speaking world, different as a culture.

Might is not and has never been right in the systemic application of the rule of law or governance of our society and I doubt whether it will ever be. Despite the most earnest intentions of these Local Government affiliated rat cunning property developers, Judges and lawyers in this country.

32)The reason I devoted so much time and effort to this. Is not only that we were cheated out of our farm but the way it was done. Most notably after I recognised the forgery of emails I am supposed to have written and the way Fowler/Rodgers manipulated the file by omitting crucial letters of advice I vowed there would be no giving in on this matter.  Plus the way these lawyers and more importantly all 3 of the Highest Courts in New Zealand have completely disregarded the will and intentions of Parliament in denying my brother and I legislative protection in this matter.

32.1 The motive and intentions of these 3 Courts can be no better described than how they misrepresent the situation with the connection between Christensen and his personal lawyers Fowler/Rodgers the lawyers supposedly representing us against Christensen in an undisclosed manner. HC 15] Mr Williamson says that 2 months prior to the agreement he became aware that his solicitors, Anthony Harper (the firm) were also the solicitors of Mr Christensen.” This is incorrect Fowler/Rodgers were in a direct and valuable personalrelationship with Christensen and this was never ever disclosed to us and I did not become aware of it until I got Mr Glasson’s report in mid 2008 more than 5 years later. From this the HC judge decided to quote the submissions of the plaintiff almost verbatim to rule

HC33] Continuing to instruct the solicitors, and continuing with negotiations in the knowledge the solicitors acted for an officer of the plaintiff(in that officers personal capacity..)  This is a misrepresentative ruling in both aspects.

31.1. 1) we were never properly made aware of Christensen’s valuable and significant specific personal relationship to Fowler/Rodgers in this matter as the law explicitly requires to be done. Fowler actually misrepresented the relationship, casually described Christensen merely as a small conveyancing client to the firm of AH not mentioning the association between Christensen and Rodgers.

31.1.2) Christensen was much more than a mere officer of the SDC in this matter he was the key and chief negotiator as Mr Glasson points out in his report “I consider the matter more fundamental than that Christensen was directly involved and was directly negotiating on behalf of SDC against the Williamson’s and having direct correspondence and telephone conversations with Fowler. That would appear to be quite different than AH representing a client simply against the SDC.”

 

31.1.3)It is apparent the HC Judge has actively misrepresented the position of Christensen and his dominant involvement in this matter despite evidence to the contrary. The higher Courts do not refute or repudiate this misrepresentation by the High Court.

 

 31.2.)                                          CA24] If there was a conflict of interest {and we make no comment on this or on the Williamson’s contention that it would have unravelled the transaction if there had been such a conflict) there was clearly a waiver of that conflict for the reasons set out by the Associate Judge.

31.2.1)We gave no waiver, we gave no informed consent and the situation was clearly misrepresented to us. We were the subjects of criminal conspiracy and that can be clearly shown by the quality of advice we received and the actual price we received for our land.

31.2.2)If this matter had not concerned a Local Government that was the same                 Consent authority we relied on for RMA protection may be the conflict of Interest would not warrant unravelling the transaction. Because the two were the same and there is blatant evidence of manipulation and abuse of the RMA process, which was the main reason the SDC, were able to pressure us into selling our farm to them. And the SDC cultivated this link with their chairman’s lawyers to cultivate and secure this situation. It is unequivocally contrary to the way Parliament has decreed Local Government must act, thus the transaction is null envoid.

31.3)There is an obvious reason why Parliament has set such a high threshold of behaviour on Local Government and Consent Authorities but it appears the 3 highest Courts in New Zealand as well as ignoring the intentions of Parliament. Are not aware of the huge disparity of wealth, resources and influence this SDC in alliance with the Warehouse and a well known envelope pushing property developer would have against two basically RMA and Public law ignorant small land owners Despite the fact SDC engaged with its own chairman’s lawyers    on an undisclosed basis which alone makes it culpable

31.4)The HC states “There was no inequality of bargaining power, nor any suggestion of improper use by the plaintiff of its position.” The CA states “The parties were very much of equal bargaining power” As I state in my submissions to the Supreme Court that is a strange interpretation of the meaning of equal. These rulings of the HC and CA are countered by a 5-page report of an independent expert familiar with the situation and the individuals involved but completely ignored by the Supreme Court.

31.5) It is important to note in this particular litigation we are not necessarily required to argue we are right only that our points are in fact arguable, to have the summary judgement dismissed and this matter be tested at trial. This basic access to the method and machinery of justice it is not a privilege it is a right. Yet the contempt these lawyers show for our right of access to justice is only matched by the contempt these judges show for the will of Parliament and our democratic rights.  As I stated to this so called Supreme Court of New Zealand if anybody or anything takes away my or my family democratic rights I take it extremely personally.

31.6)I just will not stop lobbying and campaigning this matter internationally to rightfully expose the New Zealand Government abuse of property, democratic and human rights of small land owners to the rest of the world. I am sure the farming producers of the EU and USA will eager take up any ammunition against New Zealand to sanction our products especially abuse of human rights by the Government. Denial of access to the process and perverting the course of justice as the New Zealand Government has done here is as much an abuse of human rights as anything we complain about against other countries. Fiji is prime example what has happened to my brother and I would not happen in Fiji as I have mentioned it would not happen in China maybe New Zealand and Zimbabwe would be on a par here. But Fiji has been expelled from the Commonwealth. Maybe the organisation of Commonwealth countries should consider this course for New Zealand until our justice system is brought into line at least with 3rd world countries. And these Old boys network Judges and lawyers find themselves a golf or yacht Club to ruin rather than destroying our Country with their graft and corruption they purposely perpetrate.

31.7)This whole matter with our farm was obviously personal for Christensen against us. Had this alliance which Christensen is head paid us for our farm in accordance with the legally correct potential Industrial value. As I am sure most of the neighbours were paid and know for fact at least two were. We would have happily relocated and moved away and the SDC would have gone on and still made multi millions of $’s profit from the development of that farm. If Christensen/SDC did not want to compensate us on this basis as it appears most all our neighbours were.

That is their prerogative but what they are not allowed to do is break the law, abuse and manipulate the process in order to place unreasonable and potentially fatal danger and harassment on us. The SDC are not entitled with the help of Christensen’s lawyers on an undisclosed basis place gratuitous and unlawful pressure on us in order to give us no real option but to sell our farm woefully undervalued to them. The SDC is not allowed to enter into an undisclosed relationship with the lawyers of their chairman in order for these ulterior motives of this same Chairman to be achieved. But most of all what the SDC is not allowed to do is work the process and reach decisions in short time frames for its own benefit. Or smooth the path of large influential commercial clients in order that they are captured for the SDC own Industrial park in so doing completely denying and disregarding existing small landowning neighbours democratic and property rights I just refuse to accept I am wrong on this matter.

31.8)The SDC and the Courts deny this has occurred with these same Courts denying us our fundamental right for this matter to be tested by trial. When full and comprehensive evidence of such including that of an independent expert is put before them it is simply ignored and disregarded by these Courts and Government Departments. I believe these Courts, Government department and complaint boards did not even read the substance of these complaints as they certain didn’t reply to this substance in any context.  The courts have denied us the right to show that the main individual involved in this matter for the SDC has clearly perjured himself as was unmistakably shown in the evidence I put to the Supreme Court. But as usual ignored

31.9) Either these Judges pay no heed to the intention of Parliament or they feel my brother and I are not worthy to be a recipient of the protection of these laws and Legislations of this country .The resentment I feel over the way we have been treated by these Lawyers and subsequently the Courts of New Zealand is similar to my feeling about being expected to front up and compete against illegally drug enhanced horses while not complaining about it. It is significant to note that a case I cited and in detail critiqued.

32 Stevens v Premier real-estate(Appendix 12) The Stevens wilfully sold their house and made an untainted offer to another buyer at a price significantly less than the eventual compensation awarded by the Court, But were able to seek redress in 3 Courts before finally successful and the sale price adjusted.

32.1) There are many differences between the Steven’s situation and ours; most notably they wanted to sell their house and had an option on another house so could have been deemed a motivated seller.

32.2) The buyer of the Steven’s house was not in a position to place gratuitous harassment and danger on them. The Steven’s lawyer’s advice was not compromised by an undisclosed connection to the buyer

32.3) The buyer was in no position to manipulate and abuse the process for his or her own ends and to the direct detriment of the Stevens.

32.4) The buyer was under no legal statutory obligation to act in an open, transparent and democratically accountable manner.

32.5) Yet still the Steven’s are successful claiming in the Court system while we are denied complete access to it. With our defence and rebuttal evidence and submission in order to obtain the right to a trial completely ignored and denigrated .As the High Court Judge states of my submissions and Affidavit evidence, “can be disposed of quite briefly”

33)The SPCA have seized all our horses and given them away to undisclosed recipients on the basis of the Animal Welfare Act and I cannot see anywhere Parliament states perfectly healthy in behaviour and appearance horses can be confiscated in or by this manner.

34)One day my brother and I will have another farm and our horses will all look like the examples of the photos of our horses at our farm at Rolleston and before that at the beach in Spencerville. Not because we have to or are payed to because we don’t have anything to do with other peoples horses. But because we want our horses to look like this and that is the way they have always looked before we got, through no fault of our own. Embroiled in a twisted, coiled web of intrigue and deceit that would astonish even William Shakespeare. We have never ever had any legitimate issues with the condition of our horses in the 30 years prior to being evicted of that farm. TV3 state the contrary I will expect them to produce the evidence. Despite dire financial predicament caused by reasons beyond our control we still managed to buy and provide what should have been enough food for those horses. When the SPCA became involved it was clear to all concerned that the problem was with only 25-30 % of our horses the others being fine some infact immaculate. This matter is unequivocal from the photographic evidence and will be further corroborated when and if the SPCA ever produces the photos and condition scores for all the horses on the day of seizure.

34.1) We initially did what the SPCA asked and we have evidence of the SPCA publicly stating this. When this 25-30 % did not improve we provided unlimited good quality hay for these horses and invited the SPCA to inspect this hay each week as it was fed out to ensure all horses got unhindered access to it.

34.2)Still some of the of the sick horses did not improve and the antagonistic SPCA Vet from Canterbury Equine Clinic constantly increased the demands, which had absolutely nothing to do with the condition of these ‘poor doing’ horses such as trimming the feet and putting in smaller paddocks I spent many days fixing and electrifying the fences so this could be achieved (notice there was no mention or sign of any fences in disrepair) even though it would of made absolutely no difference while the horses were drinking that water..

 

34.3)Not one person instructed us to test the chemical composition or toxicity of the water as the water looked so clean and crystal clear. Fixing and electrifying the fences was not an easy job and meant I could have kept the mares far enough away from the Stallion to have more safely left him out in a yard. But as I was not sure about the affects of the grass on him and we had found a perfect place to make a yard whereby he could be constantly monitored. I chose to be rather safe than sorry and leave him in a box until we moved him away.

34.4Everybody including us, had a legitimate expectation that clean clear water coming out of the ground in Canterbury will not be the sole cause of such devastation to our horses especially the young horses and our stallion. This has been an absolute nightmare to John and I. It has destroyed our relationship with our family except for our sister. Destroyed most all friendships and any reputation we did have   But I can honestly say I don’t really care what anybody except John and my sister think of me now. We just want our horses back and I will not stop until we secure the return of them

 

34.5)What is so disheartening about this is together John and I got through this. We managed to provide enough food for these horses and even got to the point they were getting more than enough. We found another ideal place we could afford to properly keep all our horses; we found a perfect place to keep our stallion, whereby some very nice people were going to supervise and look after him, whereby we could guarantee his safety. Our business situation improved immeasurably we had paid off the loan sharks and then this happens .It is like surviving a shipwreck then making dry land and callously and cowardly being machine gunned down by pirates.

34.6)The SPCA have been dishonest and disingenuous with their comments to the media and if this is consistent with the evidence used to get the warrant to seize these horses We will vigorously pursue legal action against them and the Vet from Canterbury Equine Services.  TV3 deviously used still photos and home video the same sick horses from a completely another timeframe and situation to portray the perception that all our horse were in this condition at this time. Many of the horses in these photos have actually improved to the standard of photo 17.   They made out we were hiding the horses that we were perfectly legally entitled to move and wrongly stated we put them in a paddock with no food and water. This was to further perpetuate and escalate the completely false perception we had malnourished and neglected our horses. When there is grass up to their knees and a running water race the length of the paddock. Who in their right mind would put horses in a paddock with no water? If this dishonest and deceitful TV station can get way with this there is no rules in the standards of broadcasting in New Zealand.

34.7)somebody is responsible and accountable for the defamation and destruction of my brothers and I character I wonder wether drug dealers, paedophiles or child molesters get treated this way. Obviously by the examples I have earlier cited they don’t 

34.8)Somebody is responsible to inform us that clean odourless water I have drunk coming out of the ground in Canterbury will be so harmful to horses As I have never heard of Iron toxicosis from well water or any other water before because I or nobody else knew this does not mean we deserve to lose all our horses. Of the other very experienced horsetrainers I have spoken to about this matter, none of them have heard of this Iron toxicosis either. Yet we spoke to an Indian Vet working on a diary farm in Ashburton and he straightaway was familiar with these symptoms and prognosis of Iron Toxicosis and urged us to remove the horses from this water immediately. So obviously this is not fanciful and I request anybody who thinks it is, to graze that paddock with his or her horses with access only to that water.

35)As to the litigation concerning our farm maybe I have to accept that we could be beaten by these dishonest, dishonourable lawyers and criminally corrupt Local Government condoned by the Courts but one thing I won’t be doing, is give into it. As Churchill said after the Allied defeat in Singapore by the Japanese with a vastly smaller army. “Defeat is one thing, disgrace that is another” I will not be disgraced over this matter concerning the pressured sale of our farm. If I am to be defeated and destroyed, so be it. But I will not give in to this corruption and distortion of the will of Parliament.

35.1)We have been up against an extremely affluent and well connected, ex police private investigator rat cunning property developer well known for working and abusing the process (please refer to the minutes of the 281stmeeting of Ecan, Appendix19) that says more about Christensen, the SDC, lawyers and judges in New Zealand than I could ever write.)   Already the New Zealand Government has charged Christensen for Conflict of interest. Concerning his Council involvement with his property development interests and the lawyers that defended him were none other than the lawyers purportedly acting against him supposedly for us in an undisclosed manner. So obviously he and the Selwyn District Council are familiar with the concept and the need for full and frank disclosure in such a situation.

35.2)This private investigating, property developer had also a significant connection to a close associate of ours (ponzi investor involved with his housekeeper) who I believe was feeding the Izone Chairman confidential information detrimental to our situation. This is hardly the way any Government Authority let alone such a rich and affluent Local Government should be conducting its business in New Zealand. Because of the strict requirement in the method and manner Parliament has decreed a Local government must operate .The SDC has to prove my contentions are false in order for it to pass the deliberately high threshold, compromised by the undisclosed associations

35.3)It is an amazing coincidence that this same ponzi scheme investing associate of ours with significant connection to Christensen thus the SDC.  Was granted resource consent for a non-complying subdivision, which on critical examination is dubious, by the same Council this property developer is closely and significantly associated with. This individual involved with Christensen was then able to sell his house alone for the vicinity of $500,000 obviously he now longer needed to borrow cars from us or con somebody into using a tractor and not paying the due for its use. Because this prime example of SMS is a big shot again in his rightful place as a financial master class as an Old Andrewian investor. I wonder if he checks the oil in the car he drives now unlike the cars we lent him and the truck we sold him which we repaired free of charge when he drove it for 3 years without checking the oil until finally it ceased.

35.4)This Selwyn District Council is one of the wealthiest district councils in New Zealand. They have gone into alliance with property developers to create this Izone Park. The Izone Committee consisted of 4 people of which 2 are residential property developers One of the Izone property developers; Schultz is an associate of my parent’s eldest child and his wife. Schultz is also or was a client of Anthony Harper and or Fowler/Rodgers. The other property developer is Christensen. It is significant to note as I have already mention the SDC want toconcentrate the future residential subdivision development in Lincoln and Rolleston where these 2 Izone Committee (Schultz and Christensen) members have their bulk of investments at the expense of other areas were non graft connected property developers are involved. That hardly rates as Open, Transparent and Democratically accountable. But the SDC take no notice of the laws made in Parliament and the Courts and relevant prosecuting Government Departments of this country certainly pay no heed to enforcement of those laws on the SDC.

35.5)Property developers should not be allowed to have anything to do with District Councils especially property developers with the reputation and attitude of the ex Councillor rat cunning Jen Christensen.

District Councils should not be allowed to become property developers in any kind of free and democratic society, which values transparent and open governance. District Councils role is that of Consent holder empowered by the Government to enact the laws and rules of Parliament. Not abuse and manipulate them for their and their cronies’ property developers attached ends.

35.6) Parliament makes the laws in this Country and Parliament has categorically decreed that District Council must conduct its business in an Open, transparent and democratically accountable manner. This is a difficult and unambiguous hurdle for the likes of these public/ private partnerships to meet. It is deliberately made so for obvious reasons. But clearly the senior judges in this country don’t understand this reason or are not prepared to enforce this legislation on the actions and the behaviour of the SDC in their manipulation and abuse which resulted in the pressured sale of our farm to the same Local Government woefully undervalued.

35.7) The SDC did not meet this threshold; the report of the RMA consultant is testament to this. Day one when we contacted Fowler at AH we should have been informed of the association and vested interest connection between them and Christensen and day 2 we should have been informed of this association by the SDC. With both cases our full informed consent given of our acceptance and acknowledgement of the true and correct situation. There is no dispute this process was never enacted let alone when legally it should have been. This is what the legislation states but it seems the Courts of this country pay little heed to the will of Parliament or these same Courts do not consider my brother and I worthy recipients of such statutory protection When the SDC has clearly violated the law with the help of an undisclosed connection to the lawyers of the Chairman of the Izone Industrial Park. Which enabled these lawyers/Christensen and the SDC to pressure us into selling our farm.

35.8)Yet the Courts are deviously, totally oblivious to the deceit and treachery, which has occurred to enable this scam to be successfully orchestrated and completed. No doubt due to the dominant and indefensible behaviour of one of their own Old Boy’s Network lawfirms. With the Courts as well as basing their judgement entirely on the submissions of the SDC and falsely portraying us as some dishonourable disappointed vendors. This clear cast real doubt on the credibility of our entire Justice system

35.9)If we in this country are to be ruled by the Courts whose participants, culture, rationale and philosophy comes from the reason and customs of lawyers. This should be so stated. Maybe I do not wish to wish to be ruled by New Zealand Lawyers and maybe I am not the only one.

35.10) I have absolutely no problem being ruled by Parliamentarian’s even if some (one or three) of them are porno watching, perk taking, and profanity emanating poofters. I would much prefer this scenario than to be ruled by the likes of the lawyers I have experienced. No matter what its faults or flaws, Parliament and Parliamentarians, like brave journalists and the Armed forces have served our society well. Like the English and America, history will be the judge of this. The same judge will not be kind to lawyers concerning the behaviour and ethos of the judiciary in New Zealand

35.11) There is no doubt for this transaction concerning our farm to be recognised as legitimate we were entitled to know off or be fully informed of all the relevant and correct information. That is the reason lawyers and the reason they charge so much. It is unequivocal that these lawyers and valuers, not only did not inform us of this vital information, especially concerning the Environmental Court Enforcement Orders, which can be enacted for $55 in the space of 2 days.  Correct and critical examination of the lawyers letters of advice omitted will unequivocally establish not only were we not informed of this easy cheap process It was actually hidden and misrepresented.

35.11.1) These advisors also not only neglected to mention the legally correct methodology for valuing our farm on the potential Industrial value basis. All these advisers have grossly misrepresented these crucial matters.Devaluing our farm because of its proximity to this same Industrial development, which was obviously the reason for its huge potential value.

35.11.2)Another law made in Parliament States a contract that is made contrary to statute is deemed illegal and null en void under The Illegal Contract Act .How possible can the actions of the SDC/Christensen and there purposeful contravention of the requirements of Open Transparent and Democratically accountable. Be anything but contrary to the Local Government Act.

36 Laws of NZ ;Criminal law  describes conspiracy to defraud  “The conspiracy will be made out where the conspirators have dishonestly agreed to bring about a state of affairs which may deceive a victim into acting or failing to act so as to incur economic loss or put his or her economic interests at risk”  Obviously the only way the SDC can avoid being implicated in this along with everybody else (except the Quantity surveyors including the SDC’s but what the SDC did in this case is just arbitrarily exclude his input in formulating the antagonistic starting negotiating price which they adamantly declare they legally can not depart from. This is completely contrary to the way the SDC agreed to conduct these negotiations)   . With us not being legally or otherwise properly informed by both the SDC and AH of the crucial association between Christensen and the lawyers representing us. Which has resulted in this disastrous situation and even worse settlement for us.

36.1)The only possible way the SDC can be absolved of involvement in this conspiracy to defraud the true and correct value of our land ,is if the SDC can proven they were unaware that AH/Fowler/Rodgers were connected with Christensen Obviously this is impossible because of the case I have and Mr Glasson has mentioned. Where AH /Rodgers represented Christensen/SDC in relationship to   this property developer and Councillors alleged conflict of interest involvement in Selwyn District Council decisions. Considering Marshal for the SDC previously stated publicly the SDC insurance company would pay Christensen’s fees. I is contentious that Rodgers was not representing the interests and actions of the SDC in allowing Christensen to be involved in the procedures casting aspersions on this Local Governments adherence to the principles and edits of the Local Government act. What is of no dispute as the SDC were responsible for the retainer to Rodgers and Anthony Harper Lawyers.

36.2)It may be a little difficult even for this seemingly corrupt organisation to achieve a perception of ignorance to the illicit connection between Christensen/SDC and Rodgers/Fowler. As well Marshal in his evidence to the courts admitted they were aware of the connection but does not mention why it was not disclosed. Especially when there was pressing a legal obligation to do so.

36.3)Obviously we were never expected to become aware of this connection between Christensen/SDC and AH/Fowler/Rodgers because if we were, we would have been fully and legally informed of it in the first instance. No doubt it was Christensen’s skill and experience as an ex police/private investigator which alerted him to our unexpected knowledge of this association well into the process.(I am almost certain how Christensen became aware we discovered this association. This information being the reason the snake I mention, was able to be granted a Resource consent to subdivide the house off his farm as a non complying activity I wonder if some snakes have got so much poison in them that eventually they succumb to their own venom.)

This unexpected information Christensen became aware of induced Fowler to only partially, disclose it and clearly misrepresent the full extent of Christensen’s involvement with these two lawyers we faithfully trusted and depended on.

What is significant to add is we did not necessarily trust or distrust Fowler/Rodgers or Anthony Harper as New Zealanders unfortunately we explicitly and implicitly trusted and believed in the integrity of the process and virtue of the system. This is why the scam between these lawyers and the Christensen/SDC in pressuring us into selling our farm was so easy to orchestrate and come to successful fruition. This is one of the reasons I will never, ever give up seeking a right and just result. And we never for minute believed when dealing with Local Government of New Zealand in this kind of matter, which was so hugely significant to us. We would need to be skilled in the methods of counter espionage and espionage used so successfully against us by the SDC, rat cunning property developers and dishonest, deceitful lawyers aided and abetted by clearly fraudulent Valuers and a corrupt review processes.

36.4)The willingness and ability of the New Zealand Government to use such underhand methods is no better illustrated when Solid Energy (it is also significant that this huge and all consuming SOE was/is involved in this affair concerning our farm) infiltrated the Snail protection Society (SPS) with undercover operatives. Concerning the SPS using the RMA process to delay certain developments no doubt to extract gratuitous settlement payments from Solid Energy in order for the project to proceed without the usual long RMA delays.(since learning all this information about the RMA I can see the unsustainable state of affairs of the present RMA situation where by anybody at all can object to something and delay it long enough to extract settlement payment. Like all good things in our society this RMA process will be ruined or rendered untenable because of the small number of dishonourable and dishonest individuals who abuse the principle. This is why it is so much quicker, cheaper and easier for the consent to be heard on a non-notified basis. But this cannot legally be done unless all the directly affected neighbours give their written consent. Which what Christensen and the SDC originally asked for and was adamantly declined by us)

37) This was our farm and the product of our life’s work we would have been more than happy to stay there if we had not been the subjects of unlawful harassment and danger. With the advice given to us by Fowler/Rodgers it would increase and could not be effectively stopped This danger and harassment purposely inflicted on us by the SDC and a nasty, vindictive, rat cunning no honour, ex cop who not only cultivated and used the undisclosed connection with his long-term and closely associated lawyers. But any other connection he could including this snake individual whose appearance more reassembles a wart than a human. As well I believe this Izone used the connection Schultz had with my elder brother and his wife. To bring about this property developer’s already publicly stated motive in unlawfully acquiring our farm for the minimum possible price.

38) With respect to the ill health of some of our horses under normal circumstances I would have found the problem causing the toxicosis of our horses much earlier. And I would have arranged a suitable yard for our stallion. But this litigation has consumed me concerning our farm.. Learning all this stuff, which I have absolutely no interest and no use for, was extremely difficult. And due to the other things, which happened at the same time i.e. the crash in the scrap metal price, constant raiding and theft of our tools and possessions from our yard, vandalising of our truck rendering it unusable and me in hospital made us completely vulnerable to such a strange and unusual occurrence.

38.1)But as can be clearly shown the majority of our horses were in good to excellent condition the Vet engaged by the SPCA and the subsequent Vet we engaged to inspect the horses did not mention anything about any Iron toxicosis. So although I was remiss in not recognising it earlier I am not culpable and our horses should be returned to us forthwith. It is unequivocal that we were feeding these horses more than enough good quality hay

38.2)As I have mentioned the situation with the stallion I regret maybe we should have had him killed him rather than try and figure out an alternative. I will experience pangs of guilt over this matter for the rest of my life. If I have a problem as a person I am unbelievably stubborn (maybe this is why I like Japanese and the feeling I think (hope) is mutual. In the 20 years I have spent regularly travelling to Japan I have learnt they are without a doubt the most stubborn race of people ever But also the kindest people and most uncorrupted society that could be imagined constantly they are exposing business and government officials for even the most trivial form of potential corruption, exposure, which never ever occurs here.), I refuse to give up and I have no idea when I am beaten may be this will destroy me. But as I mention I will not be destroyed retreating when I know our cause is just and right, no matter what are the odds or consequences.

38.3) I realise I have no right to make horses suffer unnecessarily because of my stubbornness. But as I have mentioned at what point is it prudent to kill a horse rather than give it a chance to live. My opinion is when the horse no longer has any chance of improving and if in nature would be easy prey for a predator. None of these horses 5 or 6 horse killed by the SPCA had yet reached this point and had we been allowed to move them away from this water all would have more than likely made a full recovery.

39) As to Churchill, [I like Churchill, the mans contribution to our freedom and democracy is underestimated and grossly underrated. Imagine living in a society controlled by organisations like SPCA, Harness Racing New Zealand and most lawyers (not all, many lawyers in New Zealand are just, righteous and honest though there is first a problem to find them and when they can be found they are inundated with work.) with TV3 the only news outlet. Sorry it is not an option for me.] After the battle of Britain, the first allied victory and first defeat of the Germans, Churchill states   “ This is not the beginning of the end it is not even the end of the beginning what it isIs the beginning of the beginning?

39.1)It is an interesting concept as to the failure of the Nazi’s to defeat the British in this crucial air battle. Which consequences of defeat would have most certainly cost the freedom of Britain and an invasion of this island for the first time in 1000 years. Previously the Normans were the conquers of Britain The Normans were French speaking, along with this language brought with them; aristocratic title, imposing stone castles and brutal governance notexperienced before in an Anglo Saxon society which functioned on and by consensus. From this conflicting ideology and culture came the Magna Carta a document that is still specifically enshrined in our law in New Zealand. As I put to the Supreme Court this document has a specific clause, which states the Crown (or Government) cannot take freehold title except by the rule of law. Clearly the Selwyn District Council has violated the provisions of statute and common law in order to illegally pressurise us into selling our farm thus taken our freehold title contrary to the rule of law. It seems these Anglo Saxon nobles could understand the relevance and importance of this matter 900 years ago but these contemporary Judges in New Zealand don’t or won’t now

39.2)But what is most interesting after this conquest of the English by the Norman French. Although after this invasion the English Crown spoke French for 300 years now still we all speak English, the language of the Anglo Saxon from a culture of consensus and compromise. This is the language our laws are written in so somebody needs to inform the New Zealand Courts that this is the language they must be interpreted in as well. We the decedents of British people (who make up the majority of English speaking countries) and/or Anglo Saxon values, do not, have never and will never speak French or any other language as our official language for more than the next 1000 years as well. Just as we in New Zealand speak the language of the British we must also follow the values This is particularly relevant to the Government and Justice system which can be clearly shown these institution have departed from the values of not only the British but any civilised society.         As I have already mention the only place I can think of that this kind of behaviour would be tolerated concerning the pressured sale of our farm, is Zimbabwe.

39.3)It is clear due to the apparent apathy of the politicians that the actions and behaviour of lawyers and judges in New Zealand will eventually render New Zealand the status of a similar Banana republic to the previously mentioned Zimbabwe.

39.4) If we in this country are going to depart from the basic process of other English speaking countries. Whereby Parliament makes the laws and the Judges interpret the laws in sole relation to the will of Parliament. This should be stated loud and clear.

39.5) I am an ardent  Parliamentary, due process democrat. Even the English Royal family are strong advocates of this policy and machinery for Government.

39.6) I understand the cost to instate parliamentary democracy and the cost to maintain and keep it  I quote a speech  of Churchill’s

The Spirit of Britain “    

 We shall go on to the end We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and in the oceans, shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our Island whatever the cost maybe. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets and in the hills .We shall never surrender ………We will fight the menace of tyranny for years and if necessary alone.

39.7) Obviously the principles and values these British people fought for was more important than the real estate. This should be compared against the effort of the French in this same conflict, who surrendered at the first opportune moment rather than see their capital(Paris)damaged. Then a large proportion of France and its population collaborated with the Nazi totalitarian regime. Yet the French claim to be the founders of democracy in Europe and the aesthetics of their capital city was more important than fighting for the continuation of this ideology. This shows the difference between the British and the French. I used to wonder in awe at the bravery of these British who risked so much against such odds without the help of the US. But really it was not bravery as because of what these people are they had no option but to live in a society devoid of the totalitarian and demonic practices which would have resulted should they have succumb no matter what the method. These British as a people and a culture, really despite appearance had no choice, many of individuals involved against the Nazi’s including those from other countries had a choice they were the truly brave ones. This statement in noway denigrates or devalues the British and their culture but what it does is compare the importance between them and the other countries of Europe who not only meekly surrendered to the Nazi’s but also actually collaborated with this ‘menace of tyranny’

39.8) The contempt I now have for these lawyers and their Judges in this country knows no bounds. Despite their platitudes and rhetoric these judges and lawyers are completely abusing and manipulating the democratic process. They remain me of what Al Capone stated about crooked cops that there was no one he despised more. Obviously not even Al Capone could corrupt Judges in the USA as has been allowed to happen in New Zealand. As if he could of he would have put them above crooked Cops.         

 

40)As so to our situation. I will do everything in my power to see the will of Parliament enforced, in relation to the activities concerning the pressured sale of our farm and I will get our horses back and pursue every legal avenue to see those responsible for the libellous and slanderous statements concerning the false portrayal of our supposedly mal nourishing and neglecting these unlawfully seized horses. Which has destroyed our reputation and the relationship with our extended family, will be held to account.

40.1)Most of all when we are finally granted our horses back legally should any of them go missing I will hunt down the thief of those horses, most of whom descend from my fathers horses, if necessary to the end of this earth.

40.2)It is interesting to see that these people from the pony fraternity seem to be taking credit that not more than 6 of our horses were killed No doubt they in their deluded minds think all our horses would eventually die but for these actions This taking of the moral high ground seems somewhat strange. Considering none of our killed horses were in a situation that if being given toxic free water then more than likely would have recovered. The only extenuating factor being the degree of organ damage (liver and kidney) this Iron Toxicosis could have produced in these 6 horses out of 34 mitigating the chances of survival. Obviously all our horses including these 6 would have had access to toxic free water at the new place we had found in Kirwee. As I have already mentioned many horses did improve and become tolerant to this water by their own accord. Notwithstanding TV3 “Campbell lies”emphatically stated not only would our horses have access to no food but no water also, at Kirwee.

40.3)This action by these fanatics resulted in these 6 horses being needlessly killed especially after it was clear to the SPCA we had found another perfect place for our horses.

40.4)With the benefit of hindsight it is difficult to see what else we could have done to alleviate the situation but move all those horses from that property .Yet had we known about the water although difficult, it would not have been impossible to have sourced water from another place even if I reverted back to what I was doing in transporting the water there.. But while they were drinking that water exclusively it would have been impossible to change the condition of the 25-30% of sick horses unless they themselves became tolerant to it as did many other horses previously.

40.5)I first thought the problem was a form of allergy as most of the horses seemed to become tolerant and dramatically improve. This would discount the theory of worm burden as once horses are full of worms to the point it makes them sick it is not logical they will improve.

40.6)These obsessed deluded people speak of why we didn’t ask for help. The only help we needed and subsequently would have been of any use in this matter was to be informed of the toxicity of the water our horses were drinking. As it was, I discovered this myself.

40.7)The offer is still there to the demented neighbour and Subrensky or any other interested party “put your own horses on that paddock drinking only that water and see how good they go.”

40.8)Maybe these Vets from Canterbury Equine Clinic can be involved in this trial by ordeal as well with some of their horses. I am prepared to put my [last] money where my mouth is I say $25,000 the value of our truck and excavator that we almost lost due to these dishonest lawyers. Like I say Vet Billy from Canterbury Equine Clinic is an enthusiastic and focused punter

40.9) “how lucky do you feel Billy, come on make my day. $25,000 would be nothing to you and your ilk

40.10) To John and I it our last means of survival but I’m calling Billy and that mealy mouthed, Hamish Ranken that works for him and is part of the cause of this nightmare for us, out.

Put your money up and…. let the games begin”

40.11)This should be no problem for these vets, Billy (Goat) used to be a mountain climber or something like that. I had a good friend at school who was a mountain climber, problem was he was a kleptomaniac, he just could not stop shoplifting. No doubt when he was finally caught and asked by the Cops why did he steal so much his answer was

                                     “ Because it was there”

40.12).Now he is successful and prominent in his sports medicine field and for some reason goes way out his way to avoid me seeming oblivious to the favour he asked me and I obliged way back in those days at Cashmere High School. (I seem to have a negative affect on people I go out of my way to help.).

40.13)I don’t expect Billy to front up on this; maybe he is only an enthusiastic punter when he has a chemical advantage. For the first time we have the chemical advantage and it is Fe (Iron) in the water.    

40.14)These disgusting people they are good at talking the talk in cowardly destroying somebody else but I guarantee not so good at walking the walk. Obviously in the light of the true situation it is not acceptable for anybody for any reason to put horses back in the circumstances of drinking that water.  But what is just as unacceptable is what has been done to John and I. These lowlife trash are so adamant John and I are solely responsible for this situation with our horses I wonder if they are so deluded in exposing their own horses to the same crystal, clean water our horsed were inadvertently forced to drink. As that piece of trailer trash neighbour states publicly “we subjected our horses to a starvation diet” at least 15 kgs of good quality hay each and every day per horse when the stated requirement from the SPCA of 2 conventional slabs would be lucky to weigh 5 kg.

40.15)Realistically the only possible way it can be established that we are not fully absolved due to the Iron Toxicosis. It that it is found there is not significant amounts of Iron in the water contrary to what the test results I have produced state. To expose any horses again to this situation is not acceptable and as the Professor states, should not be allowed.

40.16)Also I welcome oral submissions in person from any men especially those cowards mocking, ridiculing and insulting my brother John and I, on the TV3 Website. As for that Campbell what an absolute “Von-womble”, if his namesakes and assumed ascendants in Scotland were anything like him no wonder they had to resort to heinous deceit and treachery against the Mac Donalds. They certainly were be no match to face the Mac Donalds like men as was latter demonstrated when the Mac Donald’s exacted their rightful revenge. I am proud to say our great grand mother was a Mac (I think Mac Donald) or something though definitely not Mac Kenzie. And there is definitely no Cambpells (reporter) or Cameron’s (lawyer) in our heritage. If there was I would have a surname change to a complicated Transylvanian name (like Kirk Douglas had) so there could be no dispute I have no connection with this despicable Campbell or Cameron breed.

40.17) I will not engage with any woman over this matter what so ever, except in and by writing. I am way too angry.

 

41)Despite constantly being described as illiterate through out my education. I love to read a lot especially about History here are two outstanding but contrasting quotes that have stuck with me all these years. And my interpretation of them

 

42“It is not he that can inflict most, but it is he that can endure the most who will prevail.” De Valera of the Ireland Republican Army of the early to mid 20thcentury. It’s a pity they (the IRA) did not stick to this philosophy. Maybe a lot of innocent people would have lived the lives they deserved.

42.1)But no better subject for this quote can be applied to the 10,000-day struggle and the million+ deaths of the people of Vietnam. Most of these Vietnamese people didn’t understand the writings or ideology of Marx, Lenin or Mao. Only they wanted to be free of Imperial rule and followed the Communist cause as a means to this end and they at huge sacrifice in life, as De Valera predicts, prevailed.

42.2)Most of the American soldiers (many of them civilian soldiers or draftees, ) didn’t understand the rights and wrongs of this war but just followed the decisions of their Government, as had their fathers and Grandfathers generation in a similar situation.

42.3)More than 50,000 US soldiers died and 100,000+ badly injured I do not think these people died or suffered in vain. The war against Communism by the free world, just as the war against fascism and the Nazi’s in previous generations eventually needed to be fought. I just feel the USA government picked the wrong place. Vietnam was neither the time nor the place. But due to the anti communist frenzy created by  (Reds under the bed) Mc Cathy and his Domino theory. Obviously the more rational in the USA government had few allies.

42.4)Had Vietnam and Cambodia been abandoned cheaply after the French had left. And a concerted effort of defence had been launched against a possible, probable, subsequent Communist insurgence in Thailand. A country, which has never been subjected to prolonged Imperial rule. History would have indeed judged the USA’s involvement in SE Asia in a different more benevolent light. But the people of Thailand may not have been so enthusiastic about such a war’s occurrence in their country if it could have been earlier fought in Vietnam. Obviously this would be for self-interest reasons.

42.5)This is the predicament for the USA, had this country intervened in Europe shortly after 1933 when the minority Nazi party took power in Germany there would have been no second world war. Had the USA immediately come to the aid of the British and France on the declaration of the Second World War in September 1939 maybe France would have never been occupied and this war and the Nazi’s who caused it quickly eradicated.   But the USA developed a specific isolationist strategy, which from their own perspective is the best policy to have as no European, or Asia country could or would be a treat to the USA homeland security with regard to invasion. The USA was neither willing, able or ready to embark on any kind of war not associated with direct threat and attack on their own country. The Japanese attack on the USA was more to do with trade embargos imposed by the USA and Japanese victory disease than the realistic expectation of victory over let alone the possibility of invading the USA “ Yanamoto the brilliant Japanese navy commander stated unless Japan could defeat the USA within the first 6 months Japan had absolutely no hope of anything but its own defeat. Hitler in a drug crazed rant declared war on the USA after Pearl harbour, had he not done this the USA would have not been able to enter the War against Germany under any circumstances unless they had been attacked. This was due to a complicated law similar to our nuclear free policy that was enshrined and could not be changed by simple Congressional majority. That stage in world history and its aftermath (1900-1945) where by the USA did every possible thing to abstain and refrain from becoming involved in any foreign conflict. Can and will be categorised by the 2 most brutal and catastrophic conflicts even seen and more than likely ever to be seen in human civilisation. The USA then changed this policy to try to prevent such events occurring by early intervention and get blamed for all the worlds’ problems. I actually empathise with the USA because unlike most who criticise I understand this situation.”      The initial successes of the Japanese were all to do with the unprepared ness of the USA and the combat experience of the Japanese.

42.6) Yet after this catastrophic war, when the USA changes it policy at a cost of trillions of $ to become proactive and trying to stem the escalation and possibility of such conflicts of the magnitude and madness, such as WW1 and WW2. They are vilified and demonised by countries such as France who owes their freedom and democracy to the soldiers of the USA, Britain and Canada many of whom are dead and buried in France. With the USA homeland and civilians now being attacked by complete and utter lunatics with as much rational and ability for reason as a live hand grenade. With the European countries such as France and Germany gloating and critical of the USA’s involvement in international politics..  Anybody with any perspective in history would understand how unfair this is. Churchill said after the battle of Britain  ‘Never has so much been owed by some many to so few ‘referring to the fighter pilots who fought this Battle made up of all nationalities including American, Czech and Polish. That could be reinterpreted in the liberation of Europe by the Allies to ‘never as so much been owed by so few to so many” In this case the few is the portion of French and other European citizens that actuallydeserved to be liberated from tyranny and the many is the Allied soldiers mostly young Americans from,someplace USA who died doing the liberating.

42.7)Joe Frazier and Muhammad Ali fought their 3rd and last final fight in Manilla. After 14 gruelling rounds Joe Frazier did not get up for the 15TH. For those with any knowledge of heavyweight boxing would know Joe Frazier would be the last opponent who would ever fail to get up to face Ali if it was at all humanly possible. What Joe Frazier lacked in size, brilliance and boxing technique compared to Ali he more than made up for in courage, will and doggedness. But unfortunately for Joe Frazier Ali possessed these same qualities also in abundance. Ali though along with an innate degree of skill and ability maybe that will be never seen again from a heavy weight boxer, had an unbelievable degree of dour courage and durability, which can be shown in statistical analysis of his career. Notably he was only stopped (10 of 15) once in his whole career (second last fight by TKO to Larry Holmes). Ali still managed to go the full distance against a young Trevor Berbick in his last career fight. Muhammad Ali really was an unbelievable athlete he would taunt his opponents as a means of extracting excellence from himself As Hemmingway states there are only 2 real sports in society, boxing and bullfighting as there is no place to hide for the unprepared and or inadequate. As I am not a reader of fiction and I am more interested in the substance of a current affair article than the author, so I am not really familiar with Hemmingway’s work except for “For whom the bell tolls” But I agree with his appraisal on boxing but I think bull fighting or any other form of killing animals for sport is disgusting and abhorrent.     And as Churchill states “courage is the human quality I admire most as it guarantees all others.”  After this fight with Joe Frazier, Muhammad Ali, the victor stated he now knew what death felt like and was required to spend 2 weeks in hospital. Obviously both men were never the same again.

42.8)After the Vietnam War was won by the communists. The USSR communist block, which was the main supporter and supplier of Communist North Vietnam, never again successfully established a functioning state anywhere. As this ‘personification of evil’ had previously done every 12 years in Hungry (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968) and Afghanistan (1980 attempted). The Vietnam War was the end of successful Communist expansion and the beginning of the end of the Communist block. Rightly or wrongly we have the USA government and all the soldiers who fought in Vietnam   to thank for the defeat of communism. Which posed as much a threat to our way of live and democratic principles as the wars against Fascism and German National Socialism (Nazi) had been in previous generations.

42.9)What the SDC and other Local authorities are instating with these Industrial park schemes is no different from communism. Government’s responsibility and obligation is to govern not become involved in property development. Manipulating and abusing legitimate process and destroying anybody who gets in its way.  For its and its close property developing cronies own unlawful ends.

 

43“Never in the history of human conflict has a people fought so hard, so well and so long for a cause that is so bad” Union General Sherman speaking of the American Confederacy fight to retain slavery in the American Civil war. Something’s are just indefensible and wrong. Slavery, Fascism, National Socialism (Nazi), Communism, denial of basic human rights for the Palestinians, indiscriminate targeting of innocent civilians in terrorism and any kind torture, state imposed and sanctioning homicide (execution) are some of them.

43.1)Corrupting the process of justice and Local Government in a democracy is another. Denial of access and the machinery and process of Justice (as has been done to John and I with the theft of our farm) is an abuse of human rights and is prevalent in this country of New Zealand due to type corruption I have explained. That is indefensible and wrong. But as is shown extremely easy to conceal and achieve successfully.

43.2) I don’t want to change the world I don’t necessarily even want to understand or explain the world.

43.3)I just want our horse’s back. I want the legal procedure concerning the pressured sale of our farm reviewed. And a stop put to the cheating and abuse of process in Harness Racing. I also think some focus should be put on the drug/alcohol and gambling industries for the disproportional harm the do to the innocent and/or weak in our society.

43.4)These should not be considered unrealistic expectations as Christensen described publicly, our wish to receive a fair price for our farm on the basis of potential Industrial land. Well before we became involved with his own personal lawyers and associates supposed to be arguing on an undisclosed basis against such rationale and pontificating Record and evidence of these biased and slanted statements were put to the Supreme Court and relevant Government Departments. But still these Courts are adamant Christensen stayed out of this matter. These same Courts are resolute the SDC did not use their position to unduly influence the proceedings and Fowler/Rodgers were strong advocates for our cause. Yet on critical analysis (uncontested evidence put to all Courts) we received $156,000 for the value of 18.5 Ha (46 acres) of land in the heart of Christensen’s/SDC Izone Industrial park which latter this same alliance goes on to sell 4 ha (10 acres) to Solid Energy for several million $$’s Yet these same letters of advice which were originally omitted quote “It does appear that anything short of a negotiated settlement will mean staying on the site and living with the operation of the distribution centre adjacent your property.”

44.1)There is no evidence or indication of any of this so called strong advocate advice (courts description of Fowler/Rodgers effort), at all of the $55 Environmental Court Enforcement orders (or anything like them) to ensure we have access to protect our right to exercise and train our horses in safety,through out this whole affair.

44.2)One would expect a Judge acting in the interests of the application justice to question not only why this advice was not forth coming but actually grossly and criminally misrepresented. As with Fowlers/Rodgers advice from an omitted letter  “It is apparent that the Council is endeavouring to drive a hard bargain” As I pointed out to Fowler/Rodgers at the time. In this situation Local Government is not entitled to be hard but must be fair and reasonable. And obviously had the $55 Enforcement order process been advised to us and obviously enacted what ever the SDC were endeavouring to do would have been of no consequence.

44.3) Fowler/Rodgers(omitted letter) go on “In our view, you are unlikely to achieve an outright win through these negotiations. By this we mean that your expectations in respect of settlement figure are very unlikely to be realised”  As I state to the Supreme Court, obviously this ‘we ‘Fowler mentions, which is enunciating this advice, includes Christensen as well as his lawyers Fowler/Rodgers. “However, a settlement with the Council is not with out its benefits. Even if you are required to make concessions on value, your overall position is likely to be improved by a negotiated settlement.” This is an interesting piece of written advice removed from the file by (we) Fowler/Rodgers and possibly Christensen. It obviously concerns the most pressing factor that pushed us into this situation. The constant and illicit danger and harassment these lawyers were allowing Christensen and the SDC to place upon us.

44.4)This read together with the evidence I have produced which shows how easily, cheaply and quickly this whole illicit construction thus the danger to us should have been stopped. Had Fowler/Rodgers given us the correct and proper advice (the substance of which I latter found through my own research 6 years too late) puts this whole situation in perspective.

44.5)Fowler/Rodgers were constantly stressing and pushing we had no chance of stopping the danger and harassment the SDC/Christensen were able to place upon us preventing us from safely exercising our horses, on our tracks. “Secondly in our view a negotiated settlement even at a figure less than your expectations(emphasis added)…. would provide you with certainty of outcome a new farm not affected by the Industrial park.” Why would or should we be worried about the effects of the development of this Industrial Park to the point we are being advised to move from our farm at making “concessions on value” if the provisions and safeguards of the RMA are correctly and prudently enforced.

44.6)(it should be noted that when Fowler speaks of concessions on value it has nothing to do with potential industrial value but concessions on the value as a lifestyle block and horsetraining farm due the presence and proximity of unlawful Industrial harassment nuisance and danger. The proper rationale and methodology for Potential Industrial Value of that farm was never ever explained or put to us. But this crucial factor was infact consciously and criminally misrepresented by the SDC, as well as Christensen’s lawyers and all the Valuers concerned. )

44.7)Enforcement of these RMA provisions and safeguards is first the responsibility of the Consent Authority (SDC) and secondly the requirement and duty of the lawyers we engaged to ensure this was done. If this was notdone as can be clearly shown it wasn’t how possibly can the rulings of the High Court and The Court of Appeal stand. That the SDC have not abused their position and Fowler/Rodgers were strong advocates for our cause. These rulings can be shown unequivocally to be nothing more than condescending nonsense by these Courts towards my brother and myself. I take extreme offence at the way and manner these Courts have treated my brother and I. And the grossly incorrect and clearly wrong and misrepresentative rulings issued by them.

44.8)The insult and contempt these Courts have for us is exposed by the ease in which these key ruling can be refuted. Why don’t these Court’s just state what they really think? That my brother and I are just subservant state school attendee peasants that do not deserve even a modicum of consideration in New Zealand’s justice system as regards to the statutes and legislations of Parliament. Nor any rights or access the conventions of British jurisprudence and common-law that are available to everybody else in this country including heinous criminals and suspected illegal immigrant terrorists.

.

45.1) High Court judges ruling on us being advised of the potential increase in value due to subsequent zoning changes “In agreeing to proceed with the sale, having been advised by their solicitor concerning the issue of future rezoning and potential impact on the value of the property”What we were actually advised was exactly the opposite, as shown in some of these omitted letter of these solicitors

What ever settlement figure is achieved, we are certain that it will be substantially more than the Council want to pay. From the Council’s perspective, this issue was unplanned and constitutes an unexpected expense. We do not consider the Council perceive the possible purchase of your property as a potential ‘windfall’ opportunity but rather as an unexpected cost.”

 

45.2)This should be read together with the constant litany of rhetoric that the SDC had no commercial use for our property. And written negotiation comment by the SDC on the subject of rezoning if it did occur would be many many years away and could not justify any increase in the value of our property above the base lifestyle block value. Which lifestyle block value both valuers drastically reduced because of the immediate and adjacent proximity to the SDC Industrial park and the unlawful nuisance, harassment and danger the same SDC was creating. Substantial written evidence of which that was put before these Courts and Government departments. I would be interested of anybody producing any conclusive evidence of what this particular Judge is ruling on this matter. That we were specifically informed of the future potential valuation issues concerning the rezoning of our farm to commercial by the SDC.

45.3)What I am supposed to do after irrevocable evidence has been produced to show these rulings are so manifestly wrong is at the moment beyond me. Just like trying to explain to Duncan Webb partner of Lane Neaveand Professor at Canterbury University specialising in legal ethics. Concerning the Legal complaints review of the Law Societies white wash of this affair. Why lawyers would remove crucial letters of advice from the file. The substance of which would strongly prejudice the same lawyers defence against collusion with their undisclosed associates interests over their fiduciary duty and trust to us, their clients. These letters also show a clear abuse of our confidence by Fowler/Rodgers and a criminal conspiracy to defraud us out of the true and correct value of our farm to the favour of Christensen and the SDC.

45.4)Why would Fowler/Rodgers omit them from the file? Asks this Professor and Legal Complaints Review Officer (now retired). Why would lawyers commit forgery and conspiracy to defraud? Maybe, because these lawyers areplainly dishonest, perhaps and the system is so corrupt that these lawyers, like Harness racing participants flaunt, revel and advance according to their propensity for deceit and dishonesty. I note Fowler was promoted to partner of Anthony Harper after this performance.(I have already mentioned if crime, deceit and corrupt is allowed to and in fact does pay it will multiply this is as sure as night follows day). Prof. Webb can possibly ask one of his students the essence of, ‘what would the motive be to remove these letters from the file,’ if he can’t figure it out himselfAll I can say as those legal Professorships must come cheap at Canterbury University. Like those Chinese licenses the international students used to buy for a few bucks. Less if you were pretty, young and female. Webb himself describes in one of the academic papers he wrote, the need for some lawyers to become “consummate liars”. Or something to that affect I am not particularly interested in his rubbish to find it to quote him exactly. . Professor, “what possibly would be these lawyers you mention, motive?” As was put to me by this professortorial genius of these lawyers, as regards to the crucial omission of the letters of advice.

45.5) The machinery was in process to put this matter concerning our farm right. And we did every possible thing to comply with the protocols of the system. We first engaged expensive, reputable and specialists’ legal advocates. These lawyers abused our trust on behalf of the undisclosed valuable client and associated we were against (Christensen).

45.6)This valuable and long-term client had already been individually dominantly involved in this matter with us and evidence was produced of his strongly and completely contrary interests in this matter to that of our own. I then tried to resolve the problem with that Lawfirm. When this failed I went to two other expensive and supposedly reputable Lawfirms. When this failed, I complained to the relevant Government Departments concerning the behaviour and abuse of procedure by the Local Government. When this failed I set about learning and trying to produce a case in defence of the SDC eviction. I went to the Community Law Office for guidance first they agreed to help then changed their minds. I complained to the Law Society and asked if they could recommend a ‘honest’ lawyer. The Law society could not recommend a honest lawyer stating I would have to find one myself. I am not sure of the significance of that instruction. I complained to the Legal Complaints Review Officer (Webb) the Judicial review officer and the Valuation review board as well as the Ombudsman and Auditor General all to no avail. I then put a substantial case to the High Court, which is 100%, composed of my own study and research.

45.7)The High Court Judge dismisses these submissions with ridicule and derision; I quote the High Court Judge on my submissions “most of which can be disposed of quite briefly”. Rubbish is disposed of, I do not consider any of the submission I put to this Court rubbish. This High Court Judge’s compelling judgement included impossible eviction conditions and crippling indemnity costs. Considering the SDC could only be deemed partially successful should have resulted in no cost awarded

45.8)The Court of Appeal merely mimic’s and reinforces the High Court judgement, which in turn is almost a verbatim copy of the SDC lawyer’s submissions.

45.9)Despite applying for a stay to Appeal this matter to the Supreme Court based on amongst other things. That a vital part of the negotiations entailed should the need arise after the expiry of the occupational agreement we could remain in occupation of that property on a commercial lease arrangement. The SDC forcibly invaded    this property and ruthlessly evicted us Then the SDC sells the front 4ha to the neighbour Solid Energy for several million $ as industrial land. The SDC immediately changes the zoning as soon as possible. Something this same Local Government strongly argued they would not do for a large indeterminate period of time (if at all), as leverage to ratchet down our price expectations. Demonstrating a method of negotiation clearly contrary to statute. Most importantly this crucial piece of misrepresentation as regarding the future no potential commercial use of our farm by the SDC was backed up and strongly pressed by our supposed legal advocates with a close and initial undisclosed connection to our opponent.

45.10) Yet these Courts all push that the advice Fowler/Rodgers manipulated us with was a strong case for our cause. The SDC could not pay AH/Fowler/Rodgers enough for the degree of benefit accrued by this corrupt Local Government in the conspiracy to pressure us into selling our farm criminally undervalued. As these lawyers unlawfully betraying our trust were in the complete destruction of our cause.

45.11) More importantly these Lawyers of Christensen’s supposedly representing us destroyed our confidence in any expectation we could remain on that farm in the future in peace and security, while we were still the owners of that farm. In contradiction to Christensen’s clear intentions of getting it for the minimum possible price.(please compare this situation  to if we had been properly advised of the $55 Environment Court Enforcement Orders which would have completely changed the strategic reality as well as the perception of the circumstances in our total favour)

45.12)Christensen’s personal motives and intentions can be seen from the public statements made in Oct 2002 (which clearly prove Christensen’s contradictory evidence of 2008 to be perjury as blatantly pointed out to the Supreme Court but ignored).{Appendix 29Christensen’s contradictory evidence accounting to perjury by a Government official} Along with the pathetic and insulting offers Christensen personally presented us with in winter 2002. And most importantly the influence and input Christensen had into the clearly corrupt valuation of Telfor/Young specifically done to be used as an antagonistic negotiation tool allowed so by Fowler/Rodgers pathetic purposeful ineptitude. In the evidence put to the Supreme Court of the connection between AH and the SDC it is clear this lawfirm has garnered potentially millions of $’s of work from this apparently corrupt Local Government obviously this huge amount of legal work is in gratitude for the excellent job done and complicity, concerning the stealing of our farm through abuse, manipulation and misrepresentation of process.

45.13)Despite screeds of evidence most notably that of a completely independent RMA expert .The Supreme Court denied us the right to the basic and fundament foundation of our      justice system. To have this matter heard and tested by trial. The only way the Supreme Court differs is instead of the $6200 indemnity costs claimed by the SDC this Court awards $2500.Are we supposed to feel grateful

46.1)The SPCA despite numerous requests under the Official Information Act(OIA)  continually refuse to produce the Affidavit evidence used to grant these warrants to seize our perfectly healthy horses. Under the authority and presence of the Police. Then this nutcase bunch of fanatics tried and almost succeeded in perverting and preventing the course of justice. By denying anybody not associated with them immediate access to photograph and professionally evaluate the true condition of these horses. Then these backwoods fanatics have also denied requests under the OIA to produce the photos and condition scores of our supposedly “malnourished” horses in a serious condition.(As reported in the Christchurch Press Appendix 30 )The photos of all our horse’s taken on the days of seizure  would unequivocally  authenticate either their claims or ours. Where as the true condition of  the majority of our horses can be attested to the Vet Dave Senior’s first impression of them 3 days after they were seized  ( Appendix 31Transcript of Vet Dave Senior’s telephone message dated relating to inspection of these photo’s or the horses shortly after seizure)

46.2)Most importantly the SPCA has ignored requests under the OIA to produce photos of the horse they shot, previous to this execution.(I nor anybody else never once saw this horse close to this state) Whereby this organisation states this horse was incapacitated on the ground. They have also failed to forward a reason why they did not comply with Section 138 of the Animal Welfare Act as to contacting us before this execution was preformed.

46.3)Harness Racing in New Zealand is dependent on the proceeds of gaming machines to fund the exorbitant stakes the rich and famous compete for. While even with the proceeds of these ill-gotten gains .The majority of participants in Harness Racing are struggling with this minute % of affluent and well connected get richer with the manipulation of the process and use and abuse of all and every chemical enforcing agent available. It sounds like India, the political structure and governance of Harness Racing in New Zealand is an oligarchy with less political enfranchised entitlement, involvement and consultation with its greater participants than any society’s political structure, known yet to civilisation.

46.4)In Harness racing crime and corruption pays and cheats prosper; democratic process, universal representation and full enfranchisement are dirty words and forbidden concepts with anybody who speaks of these basic values denigrated, ostracised and denied the basic fundamental rights of due process. And they constantly expect government handouts and gaming concessions to fund this disproportionate regime and abhorrent culture.

46.4)The Selwyn District Counsel’s involvement with these property developers in abuse and manipulation of process and non-adherence to the law is just disgrace.  The Courts and officers of (lawyer) as well as the Government departments I complained and highlighted this situation too, are not far behind. But no doubt given time and lack of abatement and scrutiny, they will catch up.

46.5)The Courts (High Court and Court of Appeal) have clearly misrepresented the scope and involvement of Christensen. First the HC referring to Christensen as only an officer of the SDC this being up graded to a Councillor. Both Courts wrongly rule and the judgement disingenuously rank Christensen as similar to an impartial observer with very little involvement in this matter. As I repeatedly state if this position taken by these Courts is correct. Why was this so called impartial connection of Christensen to Fowler/Rodgers not disclosed to us initially as the statute governing both Local Government and Lawyers strongly and unequivocally requires it must be done. When these Courts of New Zealand don’t have an answer for people they consider peasants what the do is simplyignore and disregard it

46.6)Despite strong evidence to counter these two lower Courts ruling on this matter put to the Supreme Court. Including that of an independent expert. In common with the lower courts in dealing with conflicting evidence to that of the SDC and Fowler/Rodgers legal position and constitutional integrity. The Supreme Court has completely ignored and disregarded this evidence.

46.7)It is just plain impossible there was not a potential conflict of interest in this matter. Of crucial importance is the meaning of the word potential. Because of the inclusion of this word in the classification in matters concerning conflict of interest, the law requires full and frank initial disclosure in the first instance possible. And just as importantly our full informed consent given and recorded. Whether it was or wasn’t a conflict of interest is not the issue. What is crucial is the matter of disclosure and informed consent.

46.8)And as the Supreme Court states in another case “Proof of that disclosure is on the agent” That is pretty self-explanatory. The only thing this agent (Fowler/Rodgers) can produce, as proof is email supposedly written by me well after the deal was completed. This dubious email contained legal terminology not in my vocabulary at the time. Proper forensic investigation will categorically show part of this email (used as the sole disclosure evidence) was not written by me. I did not write e-mail in March 2004 stating full and frank disclosure was made of Christensen’s involvement in this matter, initially.  The contents of this email which states this was written by somebody else and examination of the proper authority with integrity and independence will beyond any doubt show I not only would not write this I could not write this. That e-mail is not any kind of evidence of disclosure or informed consent it is a forgery. And can easily be shown to be so in the correct forum.

46.9) IF this so called full and frank disclosure was made by Fowler and Rodgers as this e mail I was supposed to have written states why is there no evidence of it produced by Fowler when it has been done in the case of the SRS. When SRS connection was of no consequence in this affair and obviously I was fully aware of the relationship between Fowler and SRS.

46.10)Concerning the obligations of this Local Government there is no dispute the SDC never at any time mentioned this connection and association of their chairman, initiator and key negotiator to his own lawyers.. Supposedly representing us against the Izone Committee, Christensen had the scope of complete control over. This is uncontested in all forums

46.11)It would be just as important to the SDC to make this disclosure in the first instance, as Fowler/Rodgers .So if the latter made it as they claim why didn’t the former.  As my evidence shows Fowler/Rodgers in their initial terms of engagement makes full written disclosure of the connection with our neighbours the Shands sawmill. Fowler/Rodgers also asks for our informed consent over this matter with the sawmill.

46.12) I thought at the time this was strange because obviously we were aware of the connection and the sawmill had nothing to do with this situation with Christensen or the SDC. But in this engagement document dated Feb 2003 not one word or mention in anyway of any connection to Christensen what so ever. Obviously this shows by Fowler/Rodgers own evidence the e-mail used by these two corrupt and dishonest lawyers is a forgery. As   this confirmation of instructions document concerning conflict of interest matters that completely neglect to mention Christensen. Proves beyond reasonable doubt this crucial matter concerning Christensen’s close and valuable association with these lawyers was never mentioned to us. So obviously I did not write any email stating it was.

46.13)First I believe in the fundamentals of democracy, justice, transparency, integrity and fair play. Then I am a New Zealander. As can be seen from this site, obviously in some situations, which are conducive to ambiguity, distortion and manipulation by the rich, powerful, influential and or plainly dishonest these concepts of integrity and that of the power structure of New Zealand society are neither mutually compatible nor interchangeable.

47)I have some question that I will not relent until I have answers

47.1)Why can a Local Government (SDC) and Consent Authority purchase a huge tract of agricultural land next to our farm and horses training tracks. Agricultural land the Consent authority (SDC) destined for an Industrial Park. . Without first any consultation what so ever with us, the owners of the horsetraining farm directly adjacent. We didn’t have the first idea what was going on with this Izone Park until well after this huge piece of land next to us had been purchased by the SDC. Obviously once this huge tract of land was purchased the effects on us concerning the proposed Industrial Park were a low priority 

 

47.2)Why can this Local Government appoint a property developer in charge of this huge Industrial development and leapfrog the Town planning ordinance of the District plan by instituting 2 Variations and do so without serving the adjacent and most affected neighbour (any) notification of these variations.

Variation2 and Variation 3 were not in anyway served on us through no fault of our own. Of this there is no dispute. This is indefensible as the SDC admit the notification in both cases was returned to the sender (SDC) undelivered Which is already established proof we did not receive it.

 

47.3)How can the SDC be allowed to work the process by manipulating and abusing the RMA procedure with devolution of non-notified Resource consents, which completely take us out of the entire process concerning these non notification RC’s. Removing our democratic and property rights to be heard in these non notified RC matters. When it has already being established that we were a directly affected adjacent neighbour.  Non-notified resource consent is a misnomer. They are actually limited notified and can only be granted on the basis of that all the affected neighbour parties concerns are settled and written consent given. It is indisputable and uncontested that we were the most affected parties and not only was our consent not gained It was actually refused so the SDC/Christensen instead of dealing with us legally simply unlawfully removed us from the process.

47.4)Why did Commissioner Robson who granted these non-notified resource consents have absolutely no consultation with us to explain what was going on or allow us to voice or hear very real concerns our concerns in respect to the safety of exercising our horse next to this colossal construction.

47.5)Why was the SDC allowed to continually harass us with illegal construction machinery disturbance when this is a key point of RMA procedure that needs to be fully tested and explained and potential of fully mitigated. Before issue of any resource consent is even considered.

47.6)Why did the SDC knowingly engage with the longstanding and closely linked lawyers  of their chairman ,initiator and chief negotiator of  this Industrial park and a person  who  had a huge  personal interest  and involvement in its subsequent success or failure of this venture. When it is clearly unlawful for them to do so.Especially on an undisclosed basis as was the case in this situation.

47.7)How can a Judge of the High Court of New Zealand and held on appeal to the Court of Appeal and in application to the Supreme Court. So strongly state that there was no inequality of bargaining power and no misuse of the SDC of there position.

47.8)Why was this Judge appointed to hear this when he stated he had very little knowledge of RMA matters and is infact an Insolvency Judge.

47.9)Why did lawyers Fowler and Rodgers not follow the legally correct procedure of gaining our informed consenton the basis they represented and had a valuable long term association to the key individual we were in fact in these acrimonious negotiations against.

47.10)Why do these Courts laud the so-called achievements of these lawyers when the evidence clearly shows they neglected to and actually completely misrepresented the most crucial matters of $55Enforcement orders to stop the danger and harassment on us and potential Industrial valuation of our farm to clearly ratify the correct legal value of it.

47.11)Why can these dishonest lawyers put forward the only tangible means of dealing with the constant danger and harassment being inflicted on us by Christensen/SDC unlawful construction activity was to take the best offer we could get for this farm from the SDC and move away.

47.12)How can these Courts state that settlement for the unlawful abuse and manipulation of process, which amounted to harassment and coercion, was made with us by the pressured sale of our farm. When uncontested evidence show we received $156,000 in real terms for our 18.6ha (46 acres) in 2 titles with 7500sqm of already industrial zoned land on it. Then SDC straight away as soon as these same Courts had evicted us sold 4ha (10acres) of what was our same farm for several million $ to the existing neighbour Solid Energy.

47.13)How can a Local Government in New Zealand do this when again uncontested evidence showed the constantly reiterated they had no commercial use for this property so the could only pay the minimum value for it.These misrepresentations were backed up and constantly pushed and reinforced by Fowler/Rodgers Christensen’s lawyers to ratchet down our expectations.

47.14)Why did these Courts not recognise and act of this deceit when it is clear all along we did not want to sell this farm but were pressured into it by the danger and harassment these lawyers let be inflicted on us. The same lawyers with a valuable undisclosed association to the Chairman of this alliance that was doing all the pressuring yet these matters are completely absolved by the Courts.

47.15)How can the initial lawyers we engage omit crucial letters of advice and include emails supposedly written by me the full contents of which were impossible for me to write. And not be held accountable for these dishonest and deceitful actions.

47.16)Why when I complain to all the relevant authorities of this file doctoring and alleged forgery is it completely ignored and disregarded.

47.16)How are the lawyers we subsequently engage to take up this matter able to not only keep the contents of a crucial RMA report from us but also actually criminally misrepresent that report? And the Supreme Court and relevant Government Departments ignore the report and significance of the withholding and misrepresentation of its contents.

47.17)How is any small land owners supposed to stand up to the abuse and manipulation of process by these property developing local Government with their apparently corrupt property developer cronies in charge and more in tow, when all the lawyers and   experts bow in political abeyance to such an alliance.

47.18)Why are the Courts and relevant Govt Dept not alive to this obvious fact of political human nature in New Zealand.

47.19)Why have these Courts denied us even the right of trial on this matter concerning our farm so the clearly false evidence Christensen and abuse of process by the SDC has put before them can be tested in the proper manner. How can we be denied this right to have these matters properly tested at trial when we only need to show we have one arguable point and also one piece of conflicting evidence for this to be legally guaranteed.

It is an extremely low threshold to have summary judgement dismissed except in the case of a simple debt or where there is not one piece of conflicting evidence.

47.20)How can the Courts disregard the will of Parliament on this matter and go so far as to state our case is hopeless. When clearly the SDC have acted contrary to statute and this is highlighted by reputable expert opinion

47.21)Why are these Judges unaccountable and no scrutiny placed on the accuracy of the reporting of their judgements. When they are clearly shown to be human like every body else.

47.22)Who is responsible for the integrity of fresh, clean, clear running water coming out of the ground in Canterbury.

47.23)Who ever would have thought Iron, an expensive supplement could have had such a devastating affect on our horses.

47.24)Who in their right mind would suggest that all our horses are in a state of malnutrition or neglect on viewing the true and correct photos of their actual condition.

47.25)Why did the SPCA go to extraordinary lengths to avoid letting anybody not associated with this demented organisation inspecting all our horses and photographing them.

47.26)Why did the SPCA only allow one person to inspect these horses and then delay and deny so this inspection was not allowed until 10 days after the seizure.

47.27)Why was the Vet (Dave Senior) the only person the SPCA would allow to inspect our horses .Why as time passed did this same Vet become reluctant reticent to take any photos and give any written report. It is irrefutable that Dave Senior’s initial telephone message on the condition of our horses greatly contrasts that of the final written report.

47.28)Why have the SPCA not released the photos they are legally required to take of these horses on the day of seizure.

47.29)Why can the SPCA act in contravention to the Animal Welfare Act and not be held accountable.

47.30)Why did the SPCA state in the Press newspaper straight after seizure all our horses were malnourished and in a serious condition. How is the Press newspaper allowed to do that on review of the actual condition of our horses verified from the photos on this site? And the same News Paper not be held accountable.

47.31)Why can TV 3 make such a deceitful and dishonest program based on the opinions of apparently illiterate profanity espousing trailer trash pony girls using different photos of the same sick horses in different formats at different times and not explaining this, to completely distort the reality of the situation.

47.32)How can TV3 state at the new place we found for our horses that we were so relieved to get away from Halswell where some horses were doing so poorly. There was no food and no water when clearly this is categorically wrong.

47.33)Why did TV3 assure to give a fair and balance programme and pledge focus on the horses in excellent condition. Yet show only fleeting visual reference to the healthy horses galloping in a group. But not at all mention the condition of the vast majority of our horses.  Then distort my quotes and manipulate my brother conversation to appear he was saying the complete opposite of what he actually stated. By omitting the last part of his sentence and deceitfully putting him on TV. When it was clearly already agreed by all that I would front up to this terrible and distressing situation.

47.34)Why do the Courts issue these orders to seize all our horses with the power of the Police. When clearly Parliament has given no authority to any Government agency to seize such healthy horses.

47.35)Why wont the Courts clarify the situation in respect to the evidence they have acted on to issue these Court orders.

47.36)After devoting seven years of my life fighting this Governmental corruption in New Zealand. After having to endure all manner of unlawful abuse and neglect of proper process by the Government and it agencies. Losing our farm to the Government, losing our business, losing most of our tools and possessions, losing any further contact with our extended family, losing our horses most that originated from our father’s horses and almost losing our parents house because of blatant abuse and manipulation of vital process and procedure. Then the complete and utter disregard of these Courts and relevant Government Departments to act on this blatant corruption.  Why should I think this situation with the issuing of a Court order to seize our horses should be any different from the litany of previous corruption and abuse of process we have constantly had to experience and endure?

48)Despite many visits to the District Court to rationally discuss this matter and show the photos to them, they just completely refuse to attempt to authenticate the SPCA evidence, which has resulted in all our horse being seized. The District Court state as did Fowler/Rodgers on the abuse and illegality by the SDC .The only chance we have of having this matter tested is by Judicial Review When by far the majority of these horses were perfectly healthy and the same number as were sick were in excellent to immaculate condition. Who in their right mind would suggest by the appearance of their condition that the majority of these horses needed to be destroyed or were in need of constant veterinary supervision. Which is the Animal Welfare Act only specific conditions whereby they could be seized in such away.

48.1) What Government would even condone or sanction these seizures if based on false evidence when it can be clearly shown was caused by an extremely rare unlikely unforseen occurrence of toxic water. That in reality the same Government is responsible for the undisclosed presence of.

48.2)But what Government would every let the SDC/Christensen and Fowler/Rodgers away with what they did let alone praise them and laud their performance as have these Judges in New Zealand.

48.3)For me this whole matter has become a crisis of identity, which eventuated from the manipulation and abuse of process by the Selwyn District Council and it crony property developer, Christensen.

48.4)It has highlighted the corruption of the important processes of justice and administration in this New Zealand.

48.5)I remember reading the e-mails in the file when I first realised many of these e-mails contents were infact forgeries. Then I realised two things, firstly, no matter what the consequence I cannot give in and walk away from this and secondly the stakes have become extremely high.

48.6)It is past saddening that lawyers from such a reputable and notable lawfirm would not only do this but worse still ever think they could get away with it. It is irrefutable these same lawyers have manipulated the file by omitting crucial letters of advice from the same file. Yet this along with my complaint to the Law Society and the Legal Complaints Review Officer, a despicable individual call Webb. These are dismissed without any due consideration or investigation.

48.7)Then the actions of the subsequent lawyers Russ and Cameron of not only with holding the crucial RMA report from us which denied us the opportunity to expand and investigate these crucial matters.

48.8)Then the Courts of this country purposely misinterpret, misconstrue then misrepresent the basis of the whole situation starting from Christensen’s involvement in the matter to portraying us as disappointed vendors.

48.9)But most importantly the Courts completely ignore and misrepresent the wishes of Parliament on this whole matter and completely deny us the basic fundamental of access to the Justice system that being the right for these matter to be examined by and at trial.

48.10)I see a lot of similarities between lawyers in this country and Harness Racing participants. They are simply dishonest and deceitful as a broad group and the judges and controlling authorities are either involved in this dishonesty or don’t want to stop and prevent it.

49)I never paid much attention to my Scottish heritage until I saw the film ‘Brave heart’ I am a New Zealander by birth and owe allegiance only to this country. But there is an interesting except from that film which has been an inspiration to me “Together in the fields of Bannockburn, starving and out numbered gathered a group of men to fight for their land, their freedom and their dignity against the English. They fought like Scotsmen and won the day. “  It is amazing and an irony that such a noble and fitting passage could come from such a disgusting individual as Gibson maybe that is more a testament to this individual’s acting skill and scope, than any award..

49.1)The struggle of my ancestors(as my fathers family originates from a place not far from Bannockburn)against the English invasion so long ago has been an inspiration to me in this matter. But also much more of an inspiration is the defiance the English people showed in 1939 against the tyranny of fascism and German National Socialism. Obviously the other British countries also stood beside England. But with out England’s concerted and stubborn determination in this matter Britain would have been easily defeated or worse still meekly succumbed(as did France) to this demonic evil Nazi ideology and the face of Europe and maybe the world changed forever. In these matters all of Britain and its Commonwealth but most importantly the English fought and suffered in the spirit of the Scotsmen, Gibson’s film depicts. Why did these people do this and risk so much (total annihilation) when unlike the other adversaries of Hitler it appears they may have had a choice. This is easy to answer, because it was right. I must admit I have a deep respect for the English and their undeniable sense of justice and due process, which has been so strongly adopted by the land of my ancestors (Scotland) and should be granted as of right to every citizen in this country. I saw a T-shirt worn by a Maori stating “ I practice the religion of the custom of my ancestors” Well I follow and respect the process of justice of the English, as does the land of my ancestors. As to religion, other people’s religion is none of my business or mine, any body else’s. So long as no body is being hurt, abused or brainwashed for bad, I believe each to his or her own

49.2)Right like fair are 2 indiscriminate words in the English language but say so much about us as a culture. What has happened to my brother John and I first concerning our farm then the seizure of our horses is neither right nor fair. For this reason no matter what the odds or consequences I am not entitled or availed to the choice of giving in. Because too much dues be paid before right back to the time of our Scottish ancestors at Bannockburn who were fighting for these same principles obviously due to the invaders aberrance of English doctrines of social equity, we now have all come to expect.

49.3)I have always believed every body should be prepared to fight for what they believe is right not just on a personal level but what is right for the greater good and a better more fairer society. I am different from most people, as I have no fear of consequences mainly because I have nothing left to lose. I have a very easy rule of commitment that governs my behaviour If I engage in any kind of confrontation and I get knocked down I get up and no matter how many times I get knocked down I keep getting up until I am no longer physically capable to get up there is no compromise or rationalisation on this precept or condition.

49.4)This is what a man does, this is what the English did when they stood against Nazi Germany alone accept for the Commonwealth and according to Gibson’s film this is what my ancestors did when they stood against the English. This is what John and I are doing against the Government of New Zealand and its widespread insidious corruption. If an honest person is not prepared to keep getting up when they are knocked down or once finally defeated they have something left they are not right and should not be fighting in the first place.

49.5)I remember watching a discovery documentary Churchill asked Dowling the chief  of the Royal Air force during a crucial  air battle  I think on the 18th August 1940 when the Germans launched over 1000 planes against England ,  “where are our  reserves” Dowling replying “what reserves”  I like that style.

49.6)May be I should have given up this struggle against the all manner corrupt Selwyn District Council/Christensen /the lawyers and Judicial system. Maybe I should have disposed of our horses when we got evicted of that farm or immediately killed the small percentage as they showed symptoms of the Iron toxicosis in the water. Maybe I should have taken the risk of leaving the stallion in a yard or destroyed him, rather than keep him in the hope things will get better. Maybe some people are not designed to give up and maybe the body responsible for monitoring the quality of the water coming out of the ground should inform unsuspecting citizens of the potential danger.

49.7) This matter concerning our overlooking of the impurity of the water is no better demonstrated by the warning continually broadcast after the earth quake in Christchurch “to boil water for at least 3 minutes before drinking” along with the comment from the person from the health department giving the warning “We take the state of our beautiful water in Canterbury for granted”

50.1)Whatever the outcome or the consequences to me or my brother John. It will be said that I Douglas John Williamson fought this matter concerning the pressured sale of our farm and apparent corruption of the legal system. Like a Scotsman as I sure my ancestors did at Bannockburn against the invading English. And the reason we have sacrificed so much is because we are right and the cause is just.

50.2)As to the matters concerning harness racing; drug cheating, abuse of poker machine proceeds, lack of equitable distribution of stake money and lack of democratic governance. As well as the destruction of the basis of our society by excessive and unfettered consumption of alcohol, drug abuse and the proliferation of gambling.

50.3)I have more important things to worry about at the moment.

51)But as I have mentioned How could Harness Racing New Zealand (HRNZ) on one hand refuse to inspect these horses for verification of the true and correct condition at the time of seizure. A refusal based on their contention they (HRNZ) have no jurisdiction over it. But on the other hand be quoted on a reputable Industry web site (HarnessLink) as one of the main drivers behind the seizure Specifically quoting the CEO Rennell and Racecourse detective as the main instigators. Then when this point is put to HRNZ and a suggestion with what they are strongly claiming to me that the information on the website is wrong. They are not prepared to contact this website to have the allegedly incorrect information removed. And they still expect me to believe them.

52)In the aid of completeness I with explain two things

52.1) First Dyslexia. In my situation every time I look at something I write or every new time I read something I see it differently.

52.2)In my writing I will write ‘so’ instead of ‘some’, often I will write ‘did’ instead of ‘did not’ or we instead of wereand no matter how many times I proof read this I do not see it.  No doubt there are places in this site I have succumb to this mistake The reason a computer is such an immeasurable help, is that initially I do not know I am spelling words wrong and I cannot see the mistake when I proof read. Yet if I look at the same piece I have written another day some of the spelling mistakes blatantly show out.  Also I cannot recite the alphabet so I take an inordinate amount of time to find words in the dictionary. Obviously I do not do a job, which requires the absence of these characteristics. To buy and import Japanese trucks and machinery takes a skill nothing to do with reading and writing in this situation.

52.3) I mention this because, I was easy preying for Christensen/SDC and Fowler/Rodgers to deceive and steal our farm because of this natural impediment I have and the inherent trust we had in the process. Yet as I have already mentioned it was not my responsibility to be able to read and understand these matter at the time to the degree I can now. It was solely the responsibility of the expensive and experienced lawyers we engaged. As I have mentioned Fowler became aware of this weakness by his own observation and then this was exacerbated by the constant litany of documents being feed to me and the constant changing of the goal posts by the SDC/Christensen/Fowler/Rodgers.

52.4)It is interesting that in his oral comments on praising my submissions The High Court Judge commented on the amount of reading I must have done. This I feel was a disparaging and condescending remark at my claim of dyslexia. Just as this HC Judge admitted his ignorance of RMA matters I also appears he is not aware of the difference between dyslexia and illiteracy. I am not, have not and hopefully will never be illiterate in fact the opposite is the case I spend hours and hours reading and greatly enjoy reading. This web site is solely the product of my work so that can be the judge of my writing ability. The person who conducted the dyslexia test commented on the high standard of my vocabulary which is understandable considering the amount of reading I do and have done in my life. The one thing that can and does make every single one of us equal in this world is access to the power, resource and knowledge of the written word. I really respect and admire people who for what ever reason did not have access to a good education but have endeavoured and in many cases surpassed that by being humble enough to read and learn from the written work of others.

52.5)The counsel for the SDC tried a cunning ploy by getting a document of valuations (incorrect) faxed to the courtroom during the hearing and gave me a copy. Obviously in this situation I could not read this document to acknowledge the mistake so the High Court Judge contrary to the evidence I had already presented wrongly included these figures in this Summary judgement. As I put to the Supreme Court, if Buddle Findlay had put to the HC and Court of Appeal. My brother and I were in fact ‘Dancing Zebras’ these Courts would have ruled as such and the Supreme Court would still have failed to grant us leave to appeal to argue and produce evidence to substantiate the fact we were not  ‘Dancing Zebras’. So according to the New Zealand justice system and the New Zealand Government we would be ‘Dancing Zebras’ based purely on the submissions of this lawfirm Buddle Findlay. I ensure one and all my brother and I are not the equivalent ‘Dancing Zebras’ and I will not stop lobbying until the truth of this matter becomes unequivocal.

52.6)In some situations concerning stress I cannot read or comprehend anything in other situations on things like politics, history, basic legal principles and in this case RMA matters when dedicated, focused and singled minded I feel I can match any human being on comprehension and understanding, provided there is no time limit involved.

53.1)I know am right on these matters I argue concerning the negotiation of our farm and the scope of summary judgement The key issues here, such as Conflict of interest, the Local Government Act and Summary Judgement are not complicated, made so for obvious reason. For these Courts and Government Departments to disregard these basic and fundamental principles in favour of the SDC and their Old boys network lawfirm (AH) can only be corrupt. The RMA matters are more complicated though I would expect Supreme Court Judges to understand RMA matters. Even if they have no understanding of these, a report of an RMA expert clearly shows the SDC did not make the threshold of the LGA in application of their responsibilities and duties as Consent Holder as well as the crucial ways they conducted the negotiations. That is being Open, Transparent and Democratically accountable. The SDC had 2 strict thresholds to meet.1) application of the LGA in the way it conducts its business and 2)enforcing procedures of the RMA more especially as it was in the scope of its own Industrial Development, which clearly is a conflict with its LGA responsibilities. Again this is nothing more than commonsense that a relatively bright junior high school student could figure out. Yet the Judges from the Highest Courts in New Zealand ignore and dismiss it with derision and contempt. Stating in our argument of these matters amongst other things our  case is hopeless.

53.2)From the correct interpretation of this situation it is irrefutable the Summary Judgement should have been dismissed and these matter tested at trial.

54.1) With respect to the situation concerning our horses because the condition of them is the qualification for this SPCA seizing them and they publicly stated all these horses were in a serious condition of malnutrition it is again just plain commonsense we should have immediate access to experts not connected to this demonic, demented organisation to access and more importantly photo the condition of the horses. To deny us this for 10 days and ignore our requests under the Official Information Act shows the SPCA to be perverting and preventing the course of justice added and abetted by the NZ Police and the NZ District Court.

55.1) I cannot distinguish my right hand from my left instinctively and my handwriting is almost illegible (even to myself) unless I practice it every day. And as constantly mentioned to me by my many adversaries on the chat sites I was banned from My spelling and grammar with out the help of a spell check would be pushing that of a 10 or 11 year old. But I am an inventor I have figured out a way to solve the water problem in Canterbury and a means of renewable tidal energy that will change the face of the world energy spectrum. The problem I have if I patent my inventions anybody or anything can steal them off me and I have to rely entirely on the justice system to seek redress.

55.2) We had our farm stolen off us by a corrupt process abusing, procedure manipulating Local Government/property developers and relied to the New Zealand Justice and Judicial system to seek redress and put this matter right We then had our horses stolen on the basis of false and misleading evidence with the help of the New Zealand justice and District Court system. Nobody but nobody is going to steal my ideas or inventions. I contacted the Ministry of research and development to inform they of the inventions I have, especially concerning tidal energy. Outlining the concerns I have concerning the theft of intellectual property. The best they could do was referring me to the Auckland inventors club. Yet some guy gets millions $ for the development of a Jetson’s type helicopter pack which appears about as much use a flying teapot

55.3)I also wish to clarify issues according to my personal values. These Values have come as a direct result of my upbringing whereby my father did not gamble nor drink any alcohol and my mother a devote Christian, didn’t gamble and drunk very little alcohol obviously both of them did not smoke cigarettes. Plus the fact I detest the smell and taste of alcohol and resent the peer pressure in this country to become involved in the consumption of it. Gambling I just don’t like. Lotto is a prime example if someone was dumb and stupid before they won lotto they are just as dumb and stupid after. Poker machines and Casinos, as I have mention I absolutely detest. I don’t eat pork or seafood but that does not make me Jewish or a Muslim. So why are people judged in this country because they choose not to drink alcohol or gamble.

55.4)The only benefit to the community of any gambling. Is by a form of taxation but as I have mention this Poker machine structure takes money from the weak and vulnerable and lauds it on the rich and affluent. Such a process should not be allowed let alone condoned by a responsible Government in a Democracy. If such demon machines are allowed they should only be allowed in affluent communities and every cent of proceeds should go to investing in thing to improve the state of lower socio-economic decile or perceived disadvantaged communities. E.G. Concerning Christchurch, Poker machines should only be allowed in Fendalton, Ilam and Merrivale and all the proceeds should be distributed to the community causes in places like Aranui.

55.5)Should this be the case I guarantee Poker machines would be banned by the powerful and vociferous of these affluent Christchurch communities. Just as they managed to get the proposed railway station moved away from the perfect place it should have been located in. Yet the residents in my community, South East Christchurch have to put up with the location of potentially the world’s biggest Probation centre and all the scumbags that go with it. And we are denied the chance to have our concerns heard in the proper correct manner before the decision became a fait accompli.

55.6) I have strong opinions on the sale and abuse of alcohol but I want to make it abundantly clear. Just because I have strong opinions on something like this doesn’t mean I judge, or expect others to share these opinions. I have absolutely no problem with people who enjoy moderate consumption of alcohol and hurt or offend nobody. Though I cannot see the distinction between alcohol and other illegal drugs but understand the concept of the 1000’s of years of acceptance and consumption of alcohol in our culture and if it was a more contemporary drug like LSD or P it may well be also banned.

55.7)I make no real judgement of the people who work in the alcohol or gambling industries just that I would not do it my self. But that is testament to nothing there is a lot of things I would never do including being a lawyer.

55.8)The fact that we have spent so much effort, money and time involved in horse racing which is directly related to gambling seems a paradox to my values. I only race horses I have nothing to do with gambling if people want to gamble on and the government allows this activity it is no reason I should not continue to racehorses. As I mention if gambling stopped on horse racing thus the income stream it would not change our situation or involvement in horse racing.

56.9)Analysis of the cost compared to rewards ratio would be in the magnitude of 100’s against not including our time. So it unequivocal we have contributed vastly more to providing the product for horse racing than we have ever benefited by the proceeds of gambling. As I have mentioned I would be more than happy to racehorses where no gambling was involved and everybody was on the same level with minute or no stakes. We would be certainly much better off and it may cause many of the cheats that dominate harness racing to look for some other scam they can be involved in.

57.1)I do however judge the Government and politician in this case the Clarke Labour Government that allowed proliferation and escalation of the sale and purchase of alcohol unfettered and unrestrained taking absolutely no notice of bodies like the Police and Community welfare groups opposed to this policy. Who have to deal on an ongoing basis everyday the consequences of the politician’s ill-conceived liberalisation of the sale of this mind altering and in many cases destructive drug There is a big difference between banning something and making it much more easy to obtain and accessible to the wider community, which is one of the hall marks of the Clarke Labour Government.

57.2)Yet this same Labour Government overnight destroyed our business by banning the importation of diesel trucks over 5 years old, effectively banning all larger used diesel truck imports from Japan. In the misguided belief it would improve the environment. The Minister responsible for this ban stated that it would save the lives of the 5 people per year killed by the inhalation of diesel smoke. I am not sure the back of what Pub toilet wall the Honourable Catherine Tizzard got that information from   but I hope she was not driving the same night she read it. Yet there is no restriction on burning that disgusting smelly coal on the West Coast, a Labour strong hold. If diesel engines over 5 years old from Japan cause 5 deaths per year from the air pollution. The smoke that billows out of those fires on the West Coast could have been used in the holocaust with much better results than cyanide

57.3)What this Labour Government did was over night destroy our business and the 20 years of experience and contact we had built up on the basis of some toilet wall reasoning uttered by a politician with serious substance abuse issues. Surely if the exhaust smoke of these older Diesel engines were exclusively responsible for even one death per year it would warrant not only the ban of their importation but also the actual ban of continued use. This law was absolute garbage because all that will happen as did before these trucks were allowed (20 years ago) that old trucks will be used longer and longer and replacement engines of the same age put in them.

57.4)Yet the same Government removed any restrictions from this deadly substance (alcohol) the same Minister I speak of had issues with.  So this substance, alcohol could be sold anytime any where and almost anyhow This is a product which is directly responsible for 100’s of deaths per year and millions of $’s of damage combined with untold grief to families and the innocent in our community. What does the Clarke labour government do, ban dependable and durable Japanese diesel trucks Then think of ways more alcohol can be sold and more families can be destroyed by poker machines. Plus what Government in their right mind would let multi national companies make millions out of the sale of tobacco?

57.5)It is lucky that they were put out of office, as no doubt the Labour Government would have instituted some scheme where by alcohol could be subsidised and reticulated into houses and where that couldn’t be achieved special subsidised home deliver of alcohol. Like the milk used to be.  Especially in the lower socio economic areas where all these bottle stores and poker machine outlets have multiplied and proliferated. That’s until some drunk driver killed or injured one of Clarke’s or Cullen’s relatives or loved one.

    

58.1)I sincerely thank the two people I have known in Harness racing that contacted us to offer friendship and support. I won’t name them for fear of recrimination from the twisted fraternity they are involved with. Anybody else I know in Harness racing I would really appreciate you ignore me from now on as I will do to you.

58.2)Our long time friend, Stan who immediately reached out with his hand of friendship offering help.

58.3)Vivienne, (who also straightaway contacted us to reassure us with her friendship)

from the ‘Move over probation centre group’ (of which I used some of the RMA information I have learnt in this battle with the SDC to hopefully contribute to our community. In highlighting the abuse of process by the Christchurch City Council in the granting of this PD centre Resource Consent on a non-notified basis.Which will render the community I have lived in all my life nothing more than a penal colony for the client criminal dead beats and their families of the rest of New Zealand. With out the lawful residents of this community having any say (being heard) or opportunity to test the false and misleading assertions used and evidence presented.)

58.4)Drew the builder, who made a point of contacting us to inform us of the fact he knew this Campbell program was not true, as he had witnessed how hard we worked to care for and feed our horses in the past.

58.5)Jenya, John’s Russian friend who John enlisted to frantically try and save a injured young horse at another place we were forced to keep our horses at And after witnessing John’s commitment just refuses to acceptCampbell lies for anything else but exactly what it is.

.

58.6)I thank the people in Harness Racing I sought out for help in the clarification and qualification of the condition of our horses and unlike HRNZ they did not refuse, including the lawyer, my friend Bruce Pengelly.

58.7)Terry Wilkinson in Marshlands and Sayuri Machida with her husband from Japan who have rendered us unqualified and unconditional financial assistance and support before this matter was highlighted and with out being asked.

58.8)But most of all I thank my brother John, for being strong and my sister Desiree for being the best sister anybody could ever ask for. Without a doubt she is our mothers daughter.

 

59.1)Speaking of my late mother. It appears some of our distracters brought our late mother into this. Inferring on the TV 3 website our mother would be so ashamed of us. Even though this post was removed from this vulgar stations web site I feel compelled to defend John and I and consequently our mother against such cowardly accusations and insinuations. I know where they originated.

59.2)For a start had our mother still been alive, like my sister she would be resolutely beside John and I in our time of need. Nobody more than our mother would have realised the effort and sacrifice we have put into caring for these horses over the years. To suggest our mother would do anything other than support us in the same manner as our sister. Is a manifestly false cruel, cowardly and derogatory statement to be made against our late mother.

59.3)We have lived in this house in Opawa Christchurch for over 50 years in that time (apart from being a full time mother) our mum served the community and every and any charitable cause she could She would have stood in front of a machine gun for each and every one of her 4 children. The perpetrators of these cowardly comments about our mother had a problem with me before now they have more than a problem. It is indeed interesting one of them have a common Scottish clan name in common with a lovely picturesque NI city, no doubt there are some Cambpells, and Cameron’s in their ancestry. The others on this TV3 station’s chat site who seemed to know so much about my personal situation stating the so-called disgrace to my whole family in a generic context I am not so concerned about this. For one the source of these comments come from a family of thieves. Secondly, I don’tnow give a damn what the rest of my extended family except my sister, brother John and my late mother think of me now. A comment on what my wider family think of John and I. From a bunch of chromosomally challenged oddball thieves, is water of a ducks back to me. I bear no malice towards these same oddball thieves, like their malcontent snake associate they get their comeuppance each time they look in the mirror, there no need for me to waste any effort on their due.

59.4)I saw my neighbour from our home in Opawa recently, one evening he was walking past our house. They are also constantly complaining to the relevant authorities about John and I due to the untidiness of our house, with his fat ugly fishwife constantly yelling abuse and making mention of our late mother. I was going to speak to him for the third time about this matter concerning the involvement of our mother in this argument, which has subsequently upset me. But his little boy was with him I choose to leave his children out of this argument we have, because unlike the scum who has bought my mum into this matter, I chose to walk with honour not talk about it like the Judges and lawyers in this country.

59.5)So long as I do nothing dishonest, dishonourable or immoral, our mother would not be upset with me and would like some of the other people especially or sister, realise what a fabrication this whole TV3 programme was. John and I choose to conduct our lives in accordance with our mother’s wishes for our own reasons not hers. Obviously she would not be happy with the state of her garden and lawns but as I say I prioritise things while she was alive her garden was a high priority but now it is extremely low, if at all. I  think and hope she would understand this but I know not lightly.

59.6)All mother’s are special but ours was extra special I take an extreme and protracted view to anybody who in anyway implicates or misrepresents her in any other light than she really was. Especially cowardly using her name in vain on an offensive TV3 web site.

59.7)I became involved in the Harness Racing chat sites only because of the endemic drug cheating. When I review my writing without the help of spell check I am astonished my spelling could be so bad.(how on earth I achieved the academic results at school I did with spelling like this is completely beyond me, maybe the teachers felt sorry for me because I tried so hard But obviously like my hand writing while at school I was practicing for many hours a day so I just got by.)  As mentioned I was permanently banned from these web sites for my forthright and out spoken views on most things actually not just drug cheating.. Many of these things were right, some were wrong I regret some of the postings I made in the heat of the moment but most I don’t. But I do say I have never posted or did anything, which I have not put my full and correct name to. As is the complaint to the Police about the Vet Bishop concerning involvement with drug cheating and the numerous complaints to different organisations about the Amateur Harness Racing drivers accessing the Poker machine money to fund their hobby. Are testaments to the very few complaints I have ever made in my life.(these are the only 2)   I have never made any complaint about anybody that my name and address has not been attached too. If I have a problem with anybody I state it to them and I don’t speak behind peoples back or become involved in malicious gossip. I don’t cheat, steal or lie in any respect and avoid at all cost any kind dishonest involvement I am not sure where these characteristics comes from maybe they are along with the stubbornness and refusal to ask for or take any benefits, are good Scottish traits. It is certainly a burden in New Zealand society but I know my mother would be proud of them.

60.1)As to the situation and condition of our horses A picture speaks a 1000 words or in this case a 170+ pages. I wonder if it is possible to airbrush photos of horses to make supposedly malnourished horses look like the condition of the vast majority of our horses depicted in the photos we have posted and the other the SPCA won’t release. If it is no doubt this motley collection of trailer trash will be vigorously and loudly proclaiming that is theonly reason for the condition of these horses in these photo’s

60.2)Like I say, trailer trash put your money up and put your own horses in the situation they are forced to drink that toxic water as were ours. Or shut up and walk away like the cowardly lowlife you are. That goes for Punting Billy the Vet Bishop and his employees also and everybody else including the other drug cheats that are behind this.

60.3) Work hard and in everything do your best. Fear no enemy Force no friend and take no benefit from the state. Ask nothing but offer assistance at first instance. Be honest and honourable but most of all true to your self and the people you care about, which included my 2 brothers and my sister.

That’s what my mother taught me.

Photo of Joyce Williamson our Mother.

Doug Williamson 

 To any body who has taken the time to send me a comment recently I am sorry if I have not replied as unbeknown to us the comments function has some how become disabled .

If somebody takes the time and makes the effort to send me a comment I will always  take the time to reply and thank them .Except in the case of the abusive comment I received from one of these Halswell pony owner, neighbours. As part of her rant she stated I was deluded in claiming this sickness in the minority of our horses was caused   the  Iron Toxic water.

As part of the evidence the Canterbury Equine Vet had 2 livers and 3 kidneys as well as some of the bone marrow analysed  Part of the symptoms of Iron Toxicosis  is it  distorts the liver and the horses suffers and produces the same symptoms as liver failure. I am not sure what happened to the other 3 livers or 2 kidneys but the results of these ones show the presence of brown granules in ALL the liver and kidneys and brown leaching through out the bone marrow.

Anybody with even a faint understanding of chemistry knows that brown is the colour of Iron Oxide or rust.From my studies on this matter If the water is brown i.e the Iron has already oxidised(Rust) it is not dangerous  As maybe the horse will not absorb this through the intestine. But in this case the water was crystal clear and the Iron had not oxidised so in some cases the iron absorbed into the blood then oxidised resulting in the livers and kidneys basically being poisoned by rust. I did not know Iron could exist in water without oxidising but obviously it can and in some cases will not oxidise until it reaches a much more Oxygen rich environment, like the air or in this case blood.For some reason all the horses where affected differently a suppose similar to hay fever in humans

As I mentioned in this web site I tried to get TV3 to run a similar article about this matter to inform and warn anybody else who had to experience such a nightmare They first did not reply then stated under no circumstances would they be giving me any right of reply or issuing any such information.

Yet it is interesting TV3 are constantly running stories promoting harness racing out of all proportion of harness racing’s following .Recently from another source I saw a segment Where they were pro porting   99.99% of HR’s participants to be honest. What an absolute joke in the light of the Lance Armstrong affair. This is when the benefits of  cheating in HR far out weigh cycling and those cyclists are like compliant choirboys and girls compared to the participants in HR.Plus the people sticking this stuff into horses are not going to be affected by any side affects so obviously they are much less concerned about adverse reactions or in many cases with horses sudden unexplained death.

I have thought up a good description of HR

 Deceive to receive 

Look in the eye and lie 

cheat to compete

repeat to elite

or face certain defeat

juice to produce

inject to collect 

 

lie to deny

intimidate to exonerate 

 

IT IS ALWAYS SOMEONE ELSE NEVER “ME”

 

I can see why TV3  have become so closely associated with HR “like minds think together”

 

A brave Australian Journalist,Andrew Rule of the Sunday Herald Sun has recently written an article

How Lance Armstrong’s drug of choice has turned horse racing into a sport for cheats and what must be done to fix it “Nov 11 2012.

This  title about sums it up. I don’t need to say much more .But I have spent the past two years apart from driving a truck, researching  and developing my renewable energy inventions,researching the amount and type of things these people are putting into these horses.

It is just mind blowing;all human treatment, from any and every breathing medication to heart and blood pressure medications,  to exotic opiate painkillers, growth hormones and mood altering relaxatants(better blockers) to stimulants and anti depression drugs, amphetamines like  Ritalin,  compounds similar to  cobra snake venom and a strong pain killer derived from a South american frog and baking soda to Bleach yeah Bleach (Janola)

Even if I wanted to cross the line and become involved with the antics of main stream HR I couldn’t, I think it would take years of experience to actually perfect the cocktail of doses. Or otherwise have the services of a very experienced,talented but most of all corrupt VET. This very situation lends its self to the clandestine nature of HR They are an extremely closed group and never speak out against the status quo of their group. They pay there dues to their group, keep there mouth shut,respect their own hierarchy, wait their turn and all do very well financially .It is a very similar situation to the Italian mafia.

They are not all actually bad people. I could tell by the positive reaction of a very few of them to me who in 25 years I had never spoken a word to. Just as I could gauge the same converse reaction from people I called my friends when I started to publicly speak out against the drug cheating.But they are all involved in a bad situation and a dishonest activity .Which will never change unless it is stopped from the outside.

When the Queen of England’s Thoroughbred horse trainer is a convicted drug cheat and the Chief Justice of New Zealand has Thoroughbred horses trained by people I could teach nothing about drug cheating I realistically think there is very little chance of anything  changing in the foreseeable future.

Most of the participants in HR are just like Lance Armstrong; deluded lowlife motivated by winning at any cost without any contrition, compunction , compassion or conscience . But as Armstrong states he never considered it cheating, but what everybody else he was competing against was doing.

This to has now become the rationalization of these HR participants.

I would like to get one thing straight. I spent 30 years of my life devoted to this activity and not only never once produced a horse to race outside the rules I never once contemplated doing anything which would give our horses any kind of unfair advantage against honest participants  .Which are now few and far between.

One of the people I still call my friend in HR, in my opinion has well and truly crossed to the dark side and I told him to his face the last time I saw him. But he willingly helped us when we were down, this I will never forget and it will always be the foremost in my mind of my opinion of him. So on the other matter I keep my opinion to my self and do not mention his name in connection with this drug cheating matter.

Just as it states in the Australian article it is very easy to recognise the most skilled and proficient drugs cheats simply by analysis of the winners to starters ratio .

I feel it has been impossible to compete in HR without the best performance enhancing drugs since the early 90’s .So anybody who has been in anyway competitive has been so on this basis.

I feel these advanced blood boosting drugs have been available  to a select few well before that time.It is difficult to establish exact when they came available but more than likely were a result of the immense pharmaceutical research and development of WW2. My guess is they first  came available to select trainers in the USA in the mid 60’s  and made it here about 5-10 years later.This is not a wild guess but based on the rise to prominence  of certain USA trainers and the way their horses were driven compared to the status- quo at the time. One famous trainer who rose to prominence at this time by requiring his horses to preform previously thought impossible feats of endurance during the race. Had a very close relationship with the most prominent, experienced and knowledgeable vet in USA harness racing at the time.

Obviously there has been a huge improvement of the latest generation of blood boosting drugs so as I mention in this web site As each generation of these drugs improves so to it gives the people who possess it an advantage over the other cheats .But again as Armstrong states it is not actually an unfair advantage so by his rationalisation not cheating.

It  is only an extra unfair advantage over people who are stupid enough to obey the rules and compete honestly.

As well the side affects of these latest generation of illegal drugs have become much less .Which makes it even harder for honest participants to remain sustainable.

In the real world even a child knows that anybody who breaks the rules is a cheat The rules of the game define its terms of reference,break these consciously by the letter or the spirit then this is cheating,plain and simple.In Harness Racing the best cheat wins.

What any honest participants in HR need to question is, how did it get to this point and who is responsible.

From my perspective it is simple; The governing body,Harness Racing New Zealand and the media are responsible for this evolution and development of endemic  cheating in HR. Then followed by the Government who sanctions and receives millions of $’s in tax from harness racing, thus is ultimately responsible.

One thing I tried to stress on the HR chats site I spoke out on was not only do I object to being beaten by cheats I more object to these same cheats being upheld as the paragon of the virtues; of work ethic ,dedication and supreme talent. When the truth is these people are cheats,liars and thieves.Plus they are cowards.

At least Armstrong personally confronted his accusers and actually threatened them to their face albeit he made no distinction between male and female which says a lot about him. As I state in this site not a single person  has ever faced me in an uncontrolled situation whereby I could retaliate in kind about the allegations I have made.This is because the gutless cowards all know what they would get .Our horses have been made a fool of competing against the chemicals these lowlife are putting into their horses .But the brave men with needles into defenseless horses are not so keen to take me on personally at any odds.

HR participants much prefer the backstabbing and kicking when down scenarios.

This Harness Racing has become way too hard for me. John and I have spent the last 30 years of our lives trying to compete honestly against these cheats and this stuff. I don’t intend wasting any more time getting my head beat in and not being able to fight back. As well I have come to realise that being so intensely involved in Harness racing and being completely honest is a mental disorder This is exasperated by my brother John’s dedication and determination and my stubborn refusal to give up .Also I  am an incurable dreamer but now that dreams over,destroyed by cheats.

I think all inventors and creative people are dreamers that is why we no longer live in caves because some people dreamed of a better way. I can imagine the people that used to watch birds for hours and dream of powered flight by humans or people who stare at space and dream of what is beyond. Some dreams come to fruition most off course don’t.But when we humans stop dreaming of a better way or an aspiration that will be the beginning of the end.

One thing I could never figure out until recently.When I first started in Harness Racing in the early 80’s our horses were much more competitive.Being trained from a sandy paddock close to the beach. Since then we have invested in a purpose built farm plus $100,000’s  into special track mulching machines,graders  for building mulch tracks, building 120 metre straight swimming pools,underwater treadmills and all manner of electronic therapy and training device .Plus i have spent 1000’s of hours researching modern training techniques and nutrition.

Obviously the answer is easy, with the evolution and common use of these illegal performance enhancing drugs. No matter what the ability, dedication or investment it is now impossible for honest participants to be even marginally competitive in HR.

Every facet of HR is defined by illegal drugs ,obviously training but also driving.These so called top drivers can drive these horses like motorcars and they never stop or tire and they are heralded as geniuses.Sometimes these drivers even have difficulty stopping the horses at the end of the race

Breeding also is influenced by the drugs the progeny have available to them as well as yearling sale presentation with the use of growth hormones to make these young horses  look more mature and precious and calming drugs to make them appear tractable.

Up until recently when I discovered the wide ranging and   comprehensive nature of this drug cheating I was still stupid enough to think we could find a way to be competitive again honestly,now I am cured.

Now my dreams involve developing wave and tidal  power inventions and a new form of hydro electricity without dams which ruin rivers forever.

Solving the worlds renewable energy and global warming problem is very difficult but competing honestly in Harness racing  is plain impossible.

If and when we ever get our horses back I am giving my share to my brother John.

As I have stated when I became certain of what was happening in Harness Racing I went onto the HR social media and stated to these individuals “My name is Douglas Williamson and that not only were they cheats but they were worse than cheats they were lowlife scum sticking that stuff into dumb, defenseless animals for greed and ego.”

As I have stated on this web site Some of the things I stated on those chats sites were wrong,some inappropriatebut the above statement does not qualify for either judgement. 

 

Nor does my opinion of the Vet; Bill Bishop and Canterbury Equine Clinic

Now we are starting to prepare for the up coming Court case where we are being prosecuted by the SPCA evidently it will be for 5 days sometime in March.

What a strange world we live in.John and I are being destroyed by the state and the SPCA being accused of willful animal cruelty   with the main thrust of evidence coming from the employee and company of a man I outed as the apparent  king pin of illegal performance enhancing drugs in HR with a detailed complaint to the police.

I would not even kill a fish let alone willfully do any kind of cruel thing to an animal.

I do not put drugs into my self so I wouldn’t do it to horses unless it was legal medication e.g penicillin or sanctioned anti inflammatory    . I  have never participated in the drug cheating culture and did my very best to first identify it then change it.

Just like John and I did our very best for all of these horses and no matter how bad our situation was. They all would have ALL been fine  had it not been for the fact their(20% of these horse) livers were getting poisoned by rust caused entirely by the iron toxic nature of the clean fresh well water they were inadvertently forced to drink.

It has certainly been an education having to turn up to this Court every 5 or 6 weeks first we had to go to the Maori building in Bexely because the Court buildings in Durham street owned by the Maoris was out of action due to earth quake damage.

Then more recently back at Durham street. The Maori security guards just could not get their head around the fact my artificial hips were not concealed weapons .One almost made me take all my clothes off.Yet many times I have been through airport security without being scrutinized even close to this(strip searched)

So long as there is no authourity involved I get along with all people of all races fine. But when I encounter Maori’s with any kind of authority over me some of them seem to have one hell of a problem with me. I have no problem with any authority which is fair and just and doesn’t have a problem with me. I don’t make any distinction on race.

Having had to mix with these professional criminals in this environment has given me an appreciation of what a difficult job the Police have in dealing with  the bad side of these individuals day in day out and the frustration they must feel at any  and every trick and process used to get clearly guilty people off.

It has also given me an appreciation of the good work, the Salvation Army do in offering a hand of help and compassion for anybody at this place who needs or wants it.When finally my renewable inventions reach fruition I will definitely give a sizable donation to these people.

From my experience watching the Salvation Army at this Court they are the epitome of the Christian spirit.As well as the values my dear mother possessed.

Unfortunately I do not possess this quality of unqualified forgiveness That is why when I look at the work these Salvation Army people do I realise in all respects they are better people than me.

After this experience of having to front up at this place and mix with so many professional criminals so many times is enough of a deterrent to put me off any thought of crime no matter of any penalty.

Originally the SPCA charged us for every horses about 37 in all but there were 45+ charges. Then(Sept2012) they charged us with only 12 or 13 which would be the absolute limit of any of our horses in poor condition.

Now recently, they have increased that to 18 horses with the subsequent charges including some horses which are potentially very valuable like “Maybe means no” and the Sundon gelding “Sundan”.

It is interesting  I have since learnt that horses are graded from 0—5 with 0 being very thin to 5 being over fat. The Government recommendation is horses should be kept between 2 which is moderate and 4  which is fat.

Of the horses we are being charged with many of them were classified in grade 2 and others because the SPCA’s stubborn insistence that nobody not associated  with them could view photo and individually grade these horses,where not graded.

Of the 12 horses from Kirwee that were properly graded and appraised  only 3 were under the Govt standard being1,1 and 1.5  none were 0

So fundamentally we are being prosecuted and destroyed by the Crown and the SPCA for horses that were in legally acceptable condition by the NZ government’s own standard. The 12 horses from Kirwee were the onlyones properly appraised. Of the others that were not graded due to the SPCA refusal and despite our best efforts. As can be seen from the photos, some would actually qualify as 5 which is too fat and sums up the lunacy of this whole situation.

So the reality of the situation is that only 10 of these horses out of 37 where classified under the NZ Govt standard of  legally   acceptable condition (thus unacceptable) and based on the 12 Kirwee horses none of them would be below 1 .

This more than anything demonstrates the motive of lies and deceit by the SPCA,  Bill Bishop’s Canterbury Equine Clinic  and TV3  in that they have to enlist horses which are in fact legally acceptable condition as a means of making up the numbers to prosecute against us.

What about the 20 + horses these people stole from us which even by there own twisted logic there was never anything wrong with. Where are these horses and why can we not have access to them immediately.

What about the accountability of the media reports which were so completely slanted they had all my own family except for my sister believing it .The Press stating SPCA inspectors removed 21 malnourished horses from a property in South Christchurch. Or Campbell’ s constant ranting of “dozens” of starving horses combined with  his program’s  manipulating the images to reinforce this gross lie and the Broadcasting standards authourity dismissing of our complaint with such deliberate and blatant distorting of the situation. The High Court in Wellington refusal to hear our appeal on the basis I served the BSA instead of TV3.Then the Court of Appeal denying a hearing because the papers arrived one day late even though I had to do this immediately after the Feb 22 Christchurch earth quake.

Yet be a criminal in this country like the organised drug dealers setting up an off shoot of the Hell’s Angels motor cycle drug supply franchise, that the police cleverly infiltrated closed down and prosecuted Yet one of these High Court Judges dismissed all charges and ordered one of these drug dealer criminals to be released even after he had already pleaded guilty. 

This was solely on the basis this Judge felt that the false search warrant the Police used and and the false charges laid  only against the UNDERCOVER COP was an abuse of process. Bear in mind nothing the Police did in this operation infringed on the correct process as it related to the criminals. No innocent or guilty person was disadvantaged by any abuse of process as obviously the undercover cop agreed with these false charges and search warrant issued against himself, as a means of enhancing his credibility thus safety.

Yet this same Court complete ignores gross manipulation and abuse of process of the Selwyn district Council to steal our farm and clearly false and misleading information put to it by the SPCA to steal our horses.

If the 9 or 10 (which are just under the recommended condition score of 2)  of these horses were so bad as these people say in April of 2010(which they weren’t). We should of had the opportunity to put them down or get a second opinion of another Vet not associated with Bill Bishop and the Canterbury Equine Center. If we didn’t or wouldn’t do that, this SPCA organisation only had the right to take these horses and only these horses.

Instead they take every one of our horses with the power of Police enforced Court order and with the help of a malicious media vendetta constantly stating  all our horses were in a serious condition caused by malnutrition .But this SPCA, will under no circumstances allow anybody not associated with this bunch of freaks to view,photo and appraise them objectively.Until finally due to the dogged determination of our dear sister Desiree we managed to arrange limited access for the Vet Dave Senior and his employee,10 days later. Which as I previously explained was far from satisfactory. But had that not been arranged and those limited photos taken of the true and correct condition of our horses recorded. I have no doubt we would have been charged with every single one of those horses And as they  have been proven in Court to have done in the past. As they did right after seizure. The SPCA would have completely misrepresented the true and correct condition of those horses and not just by factor of 1 or 2 on the scale.

Then it has taken almost 3 years before we can have an opportunity to get to Court so the full and correct facts of the case be examined and by these freaks own admission and own qualifications they can not sustain charges for more than 22 horses that by all accounts of these consummate liars at the time of seizure ” all of these horses could barely stand up”

Yet these same Courts we are going to have to appear in, bend over backwoods to see that organised criminal drug dealers walk free on not even a marginal technicality but a pedantic interpretation of some lack of respect for the Court process by the Police.What kind of power trip are these corrupt lawyer judges on that they will jeopardise the safety and well being of the community as a whole, due to some perceived lack of respect of this Court institution by the Police.

If the Police are not allowed, according to these Judges  to use false search warrants and false criminal records for their undercover officers. Why are they allowed to use undercover officers at all.   And if they still are allowed to use undercover officers against drug dealers. Why don’t the undercover cops have to give their correct name and date of birth to these criminals.As we in NZ could not be seen to allowing the police to act dishonestly or dishonorably towards these individuals in order to make it safer to apprehend them. L.O.L

While in no way infringing on the due process of these criminals. Creating a charade to gain the confidence of a criminals is not abusing anything except the rights of these criminals to destroy our society Which these Judges seem hell bent on preserving.

As I put in one of the many other documents on this site.Adolf Hitler a history renowned authority on lying stated “If you are going to tell a lie you might as well tell a big one. And if that lie is repeated over and over enough by many different people sooner or later everybody will believe it.”

 

This is what the lawyers,Selwyn District Council,Government Officials, Politicians a most importantly Judges and anybody associated with them are  doing concerning the theft of our farm.

Now the SPCA and every body associated with them are doing the same thing concerning this matter with our horses

Coupled with my recent experience with these Courts and Judges concerning the matters with our farm and the Selwyn District Council . That is quite a daunting  and scary situation.

As I put to the Supreme Court Every single submission no matter how unlikely that the Selwyn District Council put to the lower Courts was emphatically believed and ruled on and everything I put was dismissed with derision and ridicule.I stated that if the SDC put to these Courts my brother and I were 2 headed Zebras that also would be ruled on and believed .

No doubt the same will apply in the SPCA’s contentions about the condition of our horses and our frantic attempts to rectify the situation. Like the SDC evidence was full of contradictions,so to is the SPCA evidence. But all these SDC contradictions were conveniently ignored or misrepresented by the corrupt Judges I appeared before.

The same rules apply concerning the SPCA so far

As of April 2013 the animal abuse trial of the century has been adjourned till July due to the SPCA

an Crowns request.This begs the question they have had our horses 3 years but still are not ready to prosecute us If after 3 years they are not ready when is it reasonable to expect they will be.

I have just recently received the decision on my complaint to the Legal Complaints review Office concerning Dean Russ not unexpectantly  my complaint was dismissed.

It is interesting to note that Dean Russ is a member of the Law Society reform committee  concerning Civil Litigation and tribunals 2011-2013

“This committee considers and make recommendations on all issues relating to the administration of Civil justice”

From our bitter experience Dean Russ is well vexed along with Grant Cameron in how to destroy their clients legitimate expectation to receive anything close to the quality of process and procedure of Civil Justice as it was designed ,envisaged and required to be implemented.

Paul Rodgers one of the original lawyers along with Chris Fowler who were responsible for the theft of the potential industrial value of our farm,  is a member of the Law society’s Environmental Law Committee “The Environmental Law Committee makes submissions on environmental and resource management legislation”.

From my dealing with this Law Society, obviously these lawyers are a good choice to complete and continue their crony dominated pure and unadulterated graft and corruption perpetrated by this (out)Law Society

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

123b Complaint about legal representation put to the Supreme Court 23/12/2009

Hits: 568

This in essence was the problem.These lawyers  Paul Rodgers and Chris Fowler of Anthony Harper lawyers now   first disenfranchised us in favor of their long term valuable and closely associated client Jen Christensen  on an undisclosed basis. And have subsequently derived huge benefit for them selves gleaned for Christensen and the Selwyn District Council.  Then after a disastrous settlement we engaged another Lawyer ;Dean Russ of Dean Russ and Associates now of Fletcher,Vautier,Moore in Nelson .Russ stalled and delayed and when he got the evidence and opinion of a notable Resource management expert not only did he not forward that document or any of its correct contents  to us he actually  misrepresented them.We then engaged another Lawyer. Grant Cameron,GCA ,Christchurch he did the same as Russ but charged us about 3x as much for the same job he also misrepresented Mr Glasson’s report  and failed to forward it to us Until,after a fortuitous telephone conversation with it’s author realised it would be completely different from the views stated of it by these Lawyers.Cameron was very reluctant to finally forward it to me and his reason in reply to my complaint the fail was due only to administrative mistake.Then after I finally get this report and realise the enormity of its analysis not only does Mr Glasson want nothing more to do with this matter no other of the more than 5 RMA consultant firms I contact will either.We paid for these Lawyers with our own hard earned money. it was worse than money ‘down the drain’ so I after I became aware that Fowler/Rodgers had forged and changed emails I had supposedly written.I started to research this matter and embarked on a DIY mission to defend our selves. Then the Judges in New Zealand’s 3 Highest Courts delivered a litany of corrupt fantasy decisions which are so completely devoid of the true and correct situation it is actually frightening.  

Index ,Complaint in relation to legal representation

 

1)     Summary of complaints to law Society p1-5

 

2)      Summary of letter to Press and denial of democratic rights p6,7

 

 

3)     Letter to M Ellis Canterbury District Law Society concerning lack of correspondence regarding complaint against Fowler Rodgers p8,9

 

4)     Letter CDLS summary para [2] page 2                                 p10-12

 

 

5)     Additional to Complaint concerning Fowler/Rodgers p13—18

 

6)     Complaint against Dean Russ                                      p19—–26

 

 

7)     Complaint Grant Cameron November10 2007            p27—–31

 

8)     Comment on this complaint November 2009              p32

 

 

9)     Complaint against G Cameron                                     p33—–48

 

10) Law Complaints Review Officer                                p49——53

 

11) Decision of CDLS 26th March 2008                            p54——61

 

12) Decision NZLS  21st October 2009                            p62—–63

 

13) Letter to Christchurch Press reporter Van Beynen     p64—-65 

Complaints in relation to legal representation

Please refer Section 6 Book 2 for initial complaint to Law Society about Fowler/Rodgers.

1) This section highlights the difficulty we have had in getting access to process of the judicial system which is clearly designed to exclude lay self litigants. This difficulty is solely due to the all the Lawyers we have contacted either with holding their services or corruptly misrepresenting them and actually acting do our distinct disadvantage   It is fundamental that advocates are available to pursue all and any cases without fear or favour. With out this premise the adversary system would breakdown. The judges I appeared before seem totally oblivious to this difficulty we faced in being force to pursue our own case, as have the Government departments I have complained to. When it was put to the HC Judge that these lawyers just would not proceed against AH or the SDC but worse still would not even offer a defence to the unreasonable and unlawful eviction. His reply was “they wanted to save you money”. I would be interested to get this mans profound wisdom on why these same lawyers not only misrepresented the crucial RMA report of Mr Glasson’s but also failed to forward or discuss its substantive contents with us in anyway. 

 

 2)These matters concerning legal representation is highlighted and explained in my HC submissions (138,139)but again ignored with derision and contempt. “Sun Poi lai v Chamberlain 106]  The cab rank principle has been conventionally advanced in support of immunity. It is a professional obligation to facilitate they administration of justice .It is not overstating the obligation to call it one of the cornerstones of a free and democratic society…Although the courageous traditions of the bar may prevail for a generation or so, fundamental protections of a free and democratic society must last immeasurably longer.”  Obviously like many of the statutes made in Parliament and the tenets of Common Law, ignored by the Judges we appeared before. This situation does not apply to my brother and myself.

 

3)I put it to the HC Judge,  it is a basic fundamental that we should have had access to a lawyer that would have advanced our case forthrightly and robustly in our favour His reply was it was only our right to consult a Lawyer inferring what the lawyer did or didn’t do was up to that lawyers own discretion. But I would have thought that as with Russ and Cameron had they been in effect functioning for the SDC we were entitled to be told.

 Yet this is contradicted by Justice Hammond at 188 Sun Poi Lai “ The qualification I would add is that a professional should never in a tort liability case, be entitled to set the ultimate standard for itself. That is for the Court.” In our situation not only has the professional set the ultimate standard they have through misrepresentation, deceit, deception and fraud actively destroyed our case in favour of our opponents.

 

4)Yet despite comprehensive complaints to the Judicial review officer, the Ombudsman, the Auditor General and the Law Society absolutely nothing is done or suggested to remedy this abhorrent situation.

 

5)This section includes example of some of the several letters I have made to the Law Society to try and get some direction on how to address this latent corruption amongst these lawyers As yet I have had no substantive reply on the file doctoring, omission of key letters of advice and forgery of emails.  

 

  [1] Letter to M Ellis Law Society This letter highlights myconcern at no response as to complaint about file altering and interpretation of degree of independence required by Lawyers plus interpretation of matters that touch on or affect the loyalty of the lawyers and duty to disclose. Again ignored by the Law Society.    

 

  [2] Letter of Complaint to M Ellis Executive Officer of Canterbury District Law Society(CDLS)  a)As yet unanswered questions as to why evidence of independent expert Mr Glasson was completely ignored.

b) Why was no mention made of false and misleading evidence by Fowler of full and frank disclosure being made to us on Jan 14th 2003 when I produce 2 file notes of this meeting with no mention of such disclosure. Confirmation of instructions Feb 3rd 2003, no mention of association with Christensen where connection to neighbours, which we were fully aware of, is noted. With informed consent requested over a potential conflict of interest matter.

 

c)Why no engagement or mention by the CDLS over the matter of the doctored files, forged e-mails and omitted letters.

 

d)Why no mention or examination from the CDLS of the false and misleading advice re Ex parte enforcement orders and complete neglect of correct Valuation technique. When clearly stated by Mr Glasson “Part of the review of the valuation would also need to take account of the rezoning of the land to Industrial which was clearly going to occur as part of the process” yet no comment from the CDLS on why this matter is completely neglect by Fowler/Rodgers

 

[3] Additional complaint concerning Fowler/Rodgers .This matter concerns the situation of the Lawyers interest that touches on the matter and the duty of disclosure

Clearly shows Fowler/Rodgers culpable and guilty of conspiracy to defraud

This also shows Fowler guilty of putting false and misleading evidence before the CDLS complaints committee in relation to the crucial Ex parte enforcement order process that we were never ever informed of in any way shape or form.   

 

[4]Complaint against Dean Russ first contacted 22/6/05

a)For one year D Russ did nothing of any significance despite repeated requests to launch some kind of proactive course of action against the SDC.

b)He failed to ratify the authenticity of the Files received from Anthony Harper even though he was placed on notice that AH were taking an inordinate amount of time to forward these files to him. Obviously he was aware that this delay by AH , would have been due to the time required to doctor these files by Fowler/Rodgers.  

 

  c)May 2nd 2006 Russ e-mails asking my permission to engage specific RMA expert who is familiar with the situation and individuals involved. Notice no name Next day 3rd May I reply please proceed. 16th June Russ conveys advice from still unnamed RMA expert that RMA matters have been “handled properly (effectively undoing possibility of undoing sale)” Yet he does not receive report until July 14th, which signifies and alludes to the opposite.  As well this report expands on and highlights matters concerning conflict of interest and the Valuation methodology. Which Russ takes absolutely no heed of but more significantly purposely neglects to mention and denies us access to this vital information.

 

d)Russ receives report on morning of July 14th signifies confirmation of reading it yet does not mention it to me nor the authors name in the subsequent correspondence of that day or any other Until he refers to it generally (again with no mention of the authors name) in Sept after I signify my intention to terminate Russ’s firms involvement in the matter.  

 

e) After receipt of this report in July. Russ then withdraws from the negotiations in favour of his assistant until I e-mail him 5th Sept informing him of my discontent. Russ’s reply, wrongly and disingenuously states, we wanted to refrain from litigation against the SDC

 

f)Russ is clearly negligent at not pursuing action against the SDC concerning the Local Government Act Fair trading Act and Contractual Remedies  . As well on conflict of interest and the Valuation matters as Mr Glasson suggests. Most importantly Russ is negligent in not forwarding or discussing the contents of this report to the authors full name or us.

 

g)Russ has also doctored his files by omitting e-mails. Obviously this is common practice amongst lawyer in Christchurch.

 

h)Russ never ever forwarded neither the contents nor full name of the author of this RMA report he is clearly  guilty of conspiracy to defraud the potential Industrial value of our property  from us.  

 

[5]Complaint against Grant Cameron 

a)Cameron is either a complete idiot or a deeply corrupt and deceitful individual. He did a better job in protecting and promoting the interests of the SDC and AH. At cost to us, in money, opportunity and time than any lawyer engaged by these adversaries to us could ever have done.

 

b)Cameron was also obviously in possession of Mr Glasson’s report but misrepresents it to such an extent that I cannot understand in most cases what on earth he is talking about.

 

c)I feel this was a devious and cunning bluff by Cameron. Assuming we would consider the evidence Mr Glasson produced was so overwhelming against our position, even though I had never seen his report. I would not bother to make enquiry to him about its contents. This is obviously why Cameron did not forward the report to us, until after I had fortuitously spoken to Mr Glasson.  Maybe this is why Cameron used Mr Glasson’s names to reinforce his misrepresentations not only did he and his assistant consider me as stupid they considered me a coward as well. That I would not follow up this matter.

 

d)It is significant to the culpability of Cameron in this conspiracy to defraud to compare his advice at 103 of my complaint and compare it to the report Cameron was in possession of, criminally misrepresented and neglected to forward to me along with the important RMA documents pertaining to it. It was not until I fortuitously spoke to Mr Glasson was I able to access, read and study this report in conjunction with the RMA documents for the first time. Did I grasp the severity and extent of the SDC illegality as well as the degree of collusion of Fowler/Rodgers with Christensen and the SDC in this whole matter It is important to note I did not get this RMA report or any idea of its contents until mid 2008 July/August

 

[6] Complaint to Law  Complaints review officer

 

This basically highlights the contrast and contradictions between the findings of the CDLS and the independent expert opinion of Mr Glasson on this matter. As well as the blatant disregard of the evidence I put before the CDLS in favour of everything Fowler/Rodgers state.

 

[7]Finding of the CDLS 28th March 2008 a)Held  that this situation  is not even potential conflict of interest sono requirement for us to be informed. But on the basis of Fowlers evidence adamant that Fowler/Rodgersdisclosed this matter to us. Fowler states this was done at meeting on our farm of Jan 14th 2003.

 

b)Fowler states and presented letter of 16th April confirming this matter. CDLS held that we received this letter with this information about Christensen but there is absolutely no acknowledgement of this from us in anyway. Including no mention of this matter in any of our subsequent correspondence. It is significant that I have evidence of Fowler/Rodgers altering the files to pervert the course of justice including omitting key letters of advice and forging e-mails. Yet everybody believes all the evidence produced by Fowler with out any corroboration what so ever. Nobody has been able to find any fault, inconsistency or contradiction of any of the evidence I have produced but not one bit of my evidence or extensive submissions is even considered. 

 

c)As regards to the termination of the retainer. Brodie the AH senior partner demanded we give our informed consent. Concerning the matter with Christensen not being a conflict of interest. This is something we would notdo, so Brodie suggested the termination. This should have been done initially but this matter is cleverly misrepresented in order to disguise the neglect of implementation of this legally correct method at the outset. (I will hand it to these Lawyers; they are extremely adept and cunning at hiding and transposing their fraudulence. They have certainly learnt not only, never to plead guilty, but how to alter, disrupt and distort the process. The fact these notable and so-called reputable law firms are closely acquainted to many of the Judges certain helps in this quest for successful unbridled corruption. Again I would be interested to know why a Bankruptcy High Court Judge heard this matter admitting he knew nothing about RMA matters Why was this bankruptcy Judge so forceful and adamant we had no chance of any claim against AH when very little evidence pertaining to AH was put before him. Maybe this Bankruptcy Judge can advise me what we should do about the doctoring of the files through omission of key letters of advice and forging of e mails. I am sure in the course of his commercial judgements he has come across such behaviour I hope he is more forthright and understanding of such matters than he was concerning RMA matters. Considering Fowler/Rodgers were engaged as RMA lawyers, again I am confused at the Judges blunt and candid opinion of extolling AH’s sterling performance on these RMA matters when he admitted he knew nothing about such)

 

d)Comments on the standard of work can be exposed by comparing the result based on the comparison of the property being valued and sold on a potential Industrial value basis. As Mr Glasson states it should have been.

i)The neglect of Fowler to explain ex parte enforcement orders. Application for Declarations plus other Environment Court and RMA procedure.

ii)The neglect of Fowler to explain or implement the Public Work Act purchase criteria.

iii)The neglect of Fowler to mention or challenge the dubious variation 3 which was specifically introduced to circumvent the correct and proper procedure as regard the Warehouse Distribution Centre height non compliance.

iv) The neglect of Fowler to challenge or explain the non-notified Resource consents that so aided and assisted Christensen in his previously stated need for rapid unencumbered establishment of the Warehouse Distribution centre. As well as Christensen premeditated and obsessive stated desire to purchase our farm as cheaply as possible.

v)Fowler/ Rodgers purposeful  gross neglect to apply the adversary principles resulted not only in deceptive and misleading conduct. Also makes them criminally culpable in the conspiracy to defraud the potential Industrial value of our farm from us. In favour of their long time valuable client Christensen and the SDC.

 

[8]Finding of Law Society 21st Oct 2009-11-27

a)Despite evidence put to the Complaints committee of the file notes of the meeting of Jan 14th which show beyond any doubt that Fowler is dishonest in stating we were informed of the overriding and dominant association between Fowler/Rodgers and Christensen.

b)Despite evidence of the full and legally correct disclosure of our neighbour SRSL at confirmation of instructions by Fowler/Rodgers

c)Despite evidence of forged e mails and omitted letters of advice

 

d)In spite of a full and comprehensive report by an independent RMA expert familiar with the situation and the individuals involved put to this Society. Summarised in a email by Mr Glasson to Russ  “The valuation and conflict of interest seems to be the crux of the issue. Given Christensen’s involvement I just can’t see how they can argue there is no conflict of interest. The valuation process and values needs closer attention “ 

  e) The Society states,  “ The present complaints to the Standards Committee do not raise any new issues that require the Standards Committee to address.”

f)I think through conventional means such an attitude is impossible to contend with. This is clearly the antithesis of a fair and just standards review committee. And drastic measures should be taken to ensure such a corrupt abomination to the function, workings and machinery of justice is no longer able to continue or perpetrate such corrupt betrayal to the normal anticipation and expectation of our way of life.

g) With regard to the actions of these Lawyers and the subsequent lack of censure by the complaints process. I am unsure which emotion inflicts me stronger, surprise or disappointment.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[9] Letter to Martin Van  Beynen reporter at Christchurch Press

a)Mr Glasson in our one and only conversation suggested I contact this man. So I sent this letter to him although I don’t refer to him by name on it because I became aware my computer was being hacked.

 

b) Despite sending my HC and CA submissions as well as a comprehensive overview of other documents and submissions including Mr Glasson’s report, this esteemed reporter failed to even reply to me.

c) Then after 5 or 6 weeks when I re contacted him he stated his paper was not interested in this information.

d) So not only have my brother and I been denied access to the RMA process which abuse  created so much danger and harassment.

e) We felt intimidated and coerced into selling our farm woefully under valued.

f)We are then denied access to a robust and proactive legal advocate instead had to endure deceitful, misleading and fraudulently corrupt legal representation.

g)We are then dismissed, vilified and almost destroyed on the basis of a ambiguous and flawed summary judgement ruling from a Judge who admitted he knew nothing about RMA matters and relied on the plaintiffs submissions for the substance of his judgement. This judgement is mimicked and mindlessly reinforced by the Court of Appeal.

h)We are then denied access to a free, fair and impartial press, as a last resort to have our grievances, heard and judged by the public at large.

i)Every single democratic process has been denied us and the SDC has abused the very basis of our democratic rights and legitimate expectation. This is done by not only enabling the SDC to steal our farm on the basis of a flawed Summary Judgement by a Judge who admitted knowing nothing about the vital RMA process which was illegally abused. Reinforced with unjustified and excessive indemnity costs awarded by these Courts.

j) The SDC instigated bankruptcy proceeding against us when they were still in possession of almost double the account for costs. Which the SDC through more of Christensen skulduggery were able to dishonourably drastically reduce but were still required to refund $5000 after all cost were paid.

k)How the SDC can possibly justify issuing bankruptcy proceeding against us under these circumstances is completely beyond me. Maybe the bankruptcy Judge could inform me.

l) Yet it seems the most prominent, notable and only significant Newspaper in this city of Christchurch is not the least bit interested in this matter.

m) It is significant to note that on p16 of my assessment of AH “acted for Sydney based property developer Ganellen on its purchase and $150 million development of  a seven building complex in the heart of Christchurch’s CBD(2008)” This Ganellen purchased the Press’s old buildings in the heart of the CBD in 2008 it is fair to assume on balance AH acted in this transaction as there were not that many building in this area, sold in this time span..

n)p6 AH assessment  “David Gould Managing Partner .David is a partner in Anthony Harper’s Corporate Advisory team ,and has been managing Partner of Anthony Harper since September 2006”  Goulds’ used to be the owner of the Press, what an amazing coincidence   

 

To some it could seem irrelevant the mention of the neglect of the newspaper to take up this matter even after Mr Glasson recommended I contact them. But it is particularly relevant to demonstrate the power and influence this corrupt alliance, of SDC/Christensen/AH, wields in Christchurch. It also demonstrates why no lawyer would vigorously pursue action against this same corrupt alliance. In a free, fair and truly democratic society, a robust and objective judiciary would recognise this and the almost insurmountable problems we faced. Except for cursory comments by Justice Baragwanath these Courts have completely and utterly sided with and legitimised this corrupt alliance.

While I was in Japan siting in a train I read an article about a brave woman Journalist in Russia who tried to target and expose the latent corruption in that country and was gunned down in her car. This was maybe 3 or 4 years ago. I was so incensed by the article I wrote “It can be guaranteed the forces of evil in this world that wish to impose their will of corruption and infamy on honest citizens Target the 3 groups, which can suppress them;1)Politicians,2)Judiciary 3) Journalists. These people are targeted in a devious and cowardly manner. Their lives should not be the price paid for democracy. The mantle of democracy is the burden and responsibility of every citizen who is fortunate enough to benefit by it. 

One only has to go to China to test the potential level for human corruption. The power, wealth and influence has passed from one group of greedy despots to another. They both have fundamental element in common, by all means, suppress and control the independent judiciary, run the media, crush free speech and control by fear. It is the duty of every individual in a functioning democracy to work to ensure the checks on corruption and totalitarianism are not only supported but remain strong and vibrant. It is the responsibility for the present generation to pass on to the future, the results of the sacrifice of our past generations, in the fight against totalitarianism and corruption, which has in part created and preserved this functioning democracy. 

All Judges in New Zealand should learn the story of the Italian Judge Falconi who dedicated his life to bringing the Mafia to justice in Sicily. Against all odds he did and he paid for this with the lives of not only himself but also his wife and assistants. This man is beyond doubt the antithesis of the individuals from the SDC and AH involved in this matter. This Italian Judge Falconi is truly a hero and an inspiration to freedom and democracy. Judge Falconi and the like of the Russian journalist, I more than respect I would gladly bow to such people.  What has happened in this case with AH/Fowler/Rodgers /Christensen and the SDC is the complete opposite of such vital tenets of a free and properly functioning society.

In this situation with the SDC the Local Government and politicians are corrupt the Judges strongly ruled for the corrupt Local Government on the basis of a flawed Summary Judgement. And the one and only prominent News paper has decided to completely ignore the sorry state of affairs.

 It was the SDC/Christensen/Fowler/Rodgers choice to become involved in the matter undisclosed. Not ours, by the time we became aware of the situation it was too late. From analysis of the subsequent lawyers performance on review, the situation for us would have been worse had we changed lawyers. The fact that we did not change lawyers, in no way constitutes our acceptance of the situation. As we should have never ended up in that position in the first place, had the SDC abided by its legally accepted statutory obligations of Open, Transparent and Democratically accountable. That the SDC chose to openly violate and defy these obligations makes this contract contrary to statute. Thus under the illegal contracts act, Null en void   

 

        

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

140c Summary of complaint to Auditor General

Hits: 568

Summary of complaint to Auditor General

 

In substance this complaint highlight the abuse of process combined with the ineptitude of the relevant Government Depts to properly identify thus remedy this clear abuse of process.

 

It also highlights the role of the Courts to legitimise the unlawful behaviour of the Selwyn District Council and not only condones the atrocious performance of the Law firm Anthony Harper notably Fowler and Rodgers who entered into this potential litigation with a clear conflict of interest/duty/role being AH long time influential client who was the Chairman and initiator of the Izone Industrial Park as well had made a number of personal statements from his own experience as related to how we should be treated.

 

From the standpoint of the way a Local Government should legal act this clearly amounted to bias and would suggest Christensen would use the strong connection with this Law firm supposed to be acting in our best interests to have the subject and motive of those statements ratified ultimately in the SDC and Christensen best interest at the direct detriment to us.

 

The most import aspect is that in the SDC not informing us of the connection between their outspoken, well known, Chairman and the Lawyers supposed to be representing us. The SDC has failed to comply with the basic and fundament element of acting in good faithas well as a requirement under legislation to conduct their business in an open, transparent and democratically accountable manner. A Local Authority must also conduct its commercial transaction according to sound and prudent principles.  But like everything else of any detriment to the SDC because the Courts chose to conveniently ignore this and cherry pick any other matters, which can conform to their slanted verdict.

 

Much of the basis of this complaint is concerning contents of a report done by a RMA consultant Mr Peter Glasson commissioned by the first Lawyer we enlisted to review this situation, D Russ. It is significant Russ neither shared the contents of the report with us, or the author’s full name. Russ also disingenuously misquoted one line of this report. To dismiss any chance of our challenge to the situation, which at the time was fatal to our cause. Then the next lawyer, Grant Cameron completely misrepresented the substance of the report. This was not difficult to do considering we had never seen this report, did not know the authors full name, or had any communication with the author or either lawyer about it.

 

From the standpoint of the abuse of process by the SDC, the most significant is the granting of the Non-notified Resource consents with out our (the affected party neighbour) consent. Nor was there any mention, consultation or considerations of our unmitigated horse training operation, adjacent. I have out lined this in detail.

The next significant thing is the actual abuse of the RC terms and conditions this is clearly admitted by Brathwaite(for the SDC) in a letter of April 8th 2003 but the photo clearly show this was occurring in 2002.

This was exacerbated by the purposeful ineptitude by Fowler and Rodgers not to do or explain anything could be done to stop this abuse, which was causing us extreme anxiety and concern. Which is high lighted in an Affidavit of Greg Hope a Horse trainer I was require to take our horses to for fast work (exercise) This was not only inconvenient, time consuming and irritating, but irksome.  

 

I have clearly shown that applying to the Environment Court for an Application of Declaration could have easily and cheaply assessed all this unlawful construction, by the SDC. Then it could have been stopped in 2002, had we been made aware of the easy, cheap ($55) and quick method to deal with this. An Ex parte Environmental enforcement order, Fowler neglects to mention this. Instead informing us that a judicial review would be the only course, but this would not stop the construction and likely result in a huge cost bill for us and possibly against us from the SDC lawyers. This can be clearly shown in the many letters of advice Fowler and Rodgers have chosen to omitfrom the files, which we are in possession of the signed originals. The only other course of action Fowler and Rodgers suggested we could take, was to wait for the Environment Court hearing whereby if we won the Court may order this illegal construction be reinstated. He also states that there is very little chance of either with a good chance of a significant costs claim against us because of the circumstances of us appealing against the consent Authority.

 

All the time this unlawful construction was intimidating us with a real threat to our safety. Because of Fowlers advice and actions it was felt we were left in a helpless and hopeless situation. The way these circumstances manifest themselves was entirely plausible due to our preconceived notion to trust our Lawyers, Fowler/Rodgers and ourmistaken belief that in New Zealand government was totally unaffected by graft and corruption (this was a harsh expensive lesson). It was suggested by Fowler we should cut our losses and take the best offer we could get(compromised settlement) from the SDC in order for us to be able to move. As according to Fowler/Rodgers moving under this condition would be a far better option than staying. It was agreed the SDC would make us a loan in order to help us to relocate at a lesser figure as the SDC constantly stated they had no commercial use for this property so could only pay us a minimum by a legal requirement to rate payers. This offer of a loan was withdrawn at the last minute under false premises. But we were ensured that should the need arise if necessary we could remain in occupation of the property on a commercial lease basis, for as long as required. This seemed logical from the SDC’s statements and assurances of no commercial use for the land.

 

Fowler did not however get this ratified in the agreement so when the occupation agreement expired the SDC set about what we consider harsh and unreasonable eviction terms which resulted in us to having to kill many of our horse while 60% of that land has been left vacant and the other front portion (4ha) has been subdivided and sold as business 2, land for over $2.8 million to the neighbour Solid Energy.

 

 It is shown that through out this whole affair the SDC has misrepresented, deceived, lied and perjured them selves and the same can be said for Christensen. But the SDC lawyers, High Court Judge and the Court of Appeal have not been able to identify one piece of incorrect or contradictory evidence in our case but have chosen to completely ignore the SDC misrepresentation and deceit.

 

As reference in this complaint I have used the 1) Office of the Auditor Generals own Guidelines on managing Conflict of interest.

2) The guides to the RMA from the Ministry of Environment web site.

3)The State service code of conduct.

4)The OECD Guidelines for managing Conflict of interest

5)Laws of New Zealand

6)United Nations Convention against Public body Corruption  

 

All these authorities stress the importance of the highest degree oftransparency and good faith in dealing and workings of Local Government.

 

 What I have set out to ascertain with regard to the conflict of interest situation, is what was told to us and when by Fowler/Rodger, the SDC and Christensen.  It is clearly established this association between Christensen and AH was purposely and deviously kept from us by not only AH but also the SDC. When they were both legally bound and obligated to inform us of it. For this crucial reason   these investigations and legal proceeding should have been conducted on the basis of why we were not informed of this situation. In Christensen’s own evidence to the RMA hearing of early 2002, he states of the pressing need for expedient and unencumbered establishment of this distribution centre, which was the subject of this RMA matter. Obviously the SDC utilised this connection to in order for this objective to be realised. This is clearly obvious and how the SDC utilised the undisclosed connection of Fowler/Rodgers to achieve this as Christensen states crucial objective is unequivocally set out. The method used of the SDC utilising the connection of its Chairman to the lawyers supposed to be representing us, is clearly contrary to the essence of every Authority above that I have mentioned.

 

This association between Christensen and AH also enabled the SDC to exert gratuitous harassment, duress and coercion on us to pressure us into selling our farm so under valued. Achieving this objective of being able to purchase our farm so under valued seemed something Christensen along with Branthwaite were obsessed with added and abetted by Fowler and Rodgers the lawyers supposed to be representing us. This can be clearly seen in Christensen’s own evidence to the RMA hearing of Oct 2002. When he specifically makes mention of, my (Doug Williamson) unrealistic expectationsand his (Christensen) experience as a property developer. Obviously in his experience as a property developer he would be well aware of the concept of land bank calculation. This provides a tangible and realistic method of calculating the valuation of land, potential commercial Industrial (business 2). Our situation was made more relevant when we were basically surrounded by Industrial land,7500 s/m of our property was business 2 land and the adjacent neighbour on our SE boundary was negotiating to sell 3ha of undeveloped Industrial land, (basically just a farm paddock)and it was sold in the same time frame giving a clear expectation of the potential value of our land.  As this neighbours 3ha property sold in the vicinity of $25/sqm as I have clearly presented in my Valuation complaint this would give our land a minimum value of $15/psm. It is also stated that this method of valuing potential commercial land, is shown to be well tried andaccepted by the Courts. But Christensen calls this expectation of ours, to be treated fairly and equally before the Law, unrealistic.  Fowler/Rodgers seemed to develop amnesia on this vital methodology of potential commercial valuation, as I can not imagine, what is stated to be the leading commercial property legal firm in the South Island(AH), would not be aware of this formula          

 

Christensen’s relationship with Fowler/Rodgers enabled the SDC misrepresentations made in the course of the negotiations to go unrecorded and unratified so when it can be clearly seen for what they were. The SDC is able to hide behind a cloud of ambiguity.

 

The Office of the Auditor General report on managing conflicts of interest also points out that with the establishment of these public/private partnerships, which this situation could fall into, it has created grey areas, which are difficult to correctly define .So it is essential to err on the side of caution when it comes to disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Because para 157 of complaint “conflict of interests are not easily managed by a simple set of rules, because they can arise in all sorts of situations”

 

The same Office states that what may be acceptable in private or commercial business may not be in Public entities. But this same Office in charge of the scrutiny of public entities seems unable, incapable or unwilling to simply inform us as to why the full association between Christensen the Chairman of this Industrial park and the lawyers we engaged, in dynamic, offensive and antagonistic potential litigation, was not told to us by the Selwyn district council. When the SDC were in a position of such vulnerability in relationship of the need, to the granting of Non notified resource consents and the abuse of process.

 

 I question if it acceptable for Lawyers to omit key letters of advice from the files, and forge emails, which clearly relate to the local governments abuse of process and unlawful construction. This type of devious behaviour surely suggests the SDC has been involved in a situation which is way past unacceptable

 

I show why this law firm would do this, yet the High Court and Court of Appeal state they were strong advocates for our cause. I show why would this Law firm need to do this if as the Local body and the Chairman of the Local Bodies Industrial development state in their evidence This Law firm who this same Chairman had an undisclosed significant association with, where strong advocates for our cause. The most important question in this whole affair is why did they (AH and the SDC) just not tell us of this situation, which would have allowed us to make the informed choice, if we wished to continue. It is not a matter of interpretation of the word potential it is about our right to informed choice, this has clearly been removed and our democratic rights violated, sanctioned, condoned and legitimised by these Courts.   This informed choice is the very basis of our democratic society so in denying us this choice the SDC have clearly acted in anundemocratic manner, which is clearly contrary to the Local Government Act.

 

I have attempted to answer the question but Christensen gives the answer in his evidence to the RMA hearing Oct 2002 (appendix6 para5) “At the time it was critical that the distribution centre be established as quickly as possible As a result we sought that the application be processed on a non-notified basis.” This clearly would relate to why they would want to be involved with a Lawyer who would notvigorously challenge the legality of these unlawful Non notified Resource consents as they transpired in the evolution from 1 originally to at least 4 This was possible due to Fowler/Rodger’s attitude, of not proactively challenging anything on these matters unless it was mentioned specifically by me is clearly shown through this whole affair.

 

Also in relation to the valuations and the price we feel we were forced to accept Christensen states in the same evidence.19) “For most of this year Ihave been negotiating with Mr Williamson and his brother to purchase the property….To date we have not been able to agree on price.”

20)This has been due and caused in part by Mr Williamson unrealistic expectations.” The only expectation we had in this whole affair was to be compensated for our land according to legally viable potential industrial value. This was not unrealistic but by Christensen and the SDC remaining quiet about his close association with the lawyers we mistakenly chose. He and SDC were certain this expectation would never ever be reached, obviously as we were totally unaware of how this potential Industrial land could be calculated.Christensen same evidence  “20)From my own experience as a developer Iknow that”   How can anybody in their right mind state Christensen stayed out of these negotiations  So therefore what happened in reality was the 18.5ha we owned was devalued even below base rural because of the perception of the nuisance caused by this Industrial development.

Basically I have unequivocally shown in this complaint that the SDC and Christensen subverted the process, abused the law and convention in order that they could cheat us out of our farm.  A farm they have already in part and will go on to make many multi million dollars profit from the development and sale of as Commercial Industrial subdivisible land. Obviously and undeniably this is not acceptable for a statutory body or Local Government to do in New Zealand by abuse, subversion of process and violation of legislation and common law.

 

I am extremely disappointed with the Office of the Auditor General as they have already laid charges against Christensen so must be aware of his methods and motivations. As I have shown at Para 108) whereby Christensen had after already being refused a deputation to speak at an Ecan hearing, re the Resource consent process, rudely interrupted the meeting to bully the legitimate adjudicators concerning his industrial Park. To so strongly suggest that this same person stayed out of the proceeding concerning our situation and both him and the SDC did not use his dominant and close connection to AH notably Fowler/Rodgers as everybody has except Mr Glasson is and has been shown as purely impossible in the truest and most real sense.                    

 

                  

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Analysis of false and misleading information in Selwyn District Council Statement of Claim

Hits: 630

 

1) This statement of claim is indicative of the motive and style of the Selwyn District Council and its agents throughout this affair.  It not only indicates the disdain this group have for my brother and myself but he complete contempt and lack of respect for the Judicial system and process and their own Local Govt.Act obligations.

2)My analysis shows the SDC’s attempt to disguise the abuse of process by evolving what should have been oneresource consent for the establishment and operation of this Distribution centre. To a whole manner of unlawfully non notified resource consents (3) with the last resource consent cynically notified in an attempt to legitimise and sanitise the whole sordid affair.

3)The motive for this complicated and convoluted process. Was Christensen’s already shown publicly stated biased statement. Of the critical need for rapid establishment of this Warehouse distribution center  who was the anchor tenant of Christensen’s/Izone Industrial park, plus removal of my brother and myself from the RMA involvement. A process nobody can deny we were directly affected party to. The reason for this was to ensure that my (so called) unrealistic expectations as to the sale price achieved of our property. As described publicly by Christensen, would not be in anyway achieved.

4)It is significant to note that the reality of our expectations at the time were in line with the law. Not only in the price we should receive if we decided to sell this property. But most importantly, no small landowner should be able to be put in a position especially by a Local Authority and Consent Authority. Using the methods and tactics of dishonest, underhand bully property developers. That they feel pressured bullied and compromised into selling their property, which as it transpired, was hugely illegally under valued.

5)The Statement of Claim  lists  the first consent as R305468  which was granted and according to this statement of claim we (the defendants) appealed this first consent.

6)This is grossly false and misleading. As the evidence shows the first consent was (R305388) which was a application by the Warehouse and the Selwyn district Council. This was refused on the basis of non-notification as my brother and myself were deemed affected parties.

7)Rather than do the legally correct and proper thing by negotiation with my brother and myself or following due process .The same applicant(Warehouse and SDC) reapplied, this time with a devolution of multiple non notified resource consents which not only could my brother and I not appeal we did not know the first thing about.(It should be noted we knew absolutely nothing about this process as we had inquired to the Selwyn District Council about the commencement of construction activities which were causing us so much danger and concern.All replies stated that this could be conducted ‘as of right’ Obviously this is incorrect as if it was right there would be no need of any resource consent or this convoluted process adopted by the Selwyn District Council. 

8)These included; (R305468) land use, Non Notified 

                          (R305387) Subdivision (SDC) Non Notified 

                          (R305457) Earthworks(on exactly the same position as (R305661) Non Notified 

                          (R305661) Northern Hardstand on rural land (notified)

9)(R305468) land use.(468) This by far the most significant as it established the right to build and operate the Distribution Centre with out due process.(468) evolved from the denial of(388) and the refusal of Christensen and the SDC to legally negotiate with us according to our legitimate position as an Affected party.  In order for this to be achieved and this resource consent granted. This hardstand, which obviously the distribution center cannot function without, was positioned in an area deemed the Eastern hardstand. This can and is to be shown as a complete scam and fraudulent deceit of the process. Which could only be achieved by the active corruption of the Consent Authorities Officers. The SDC also used a dubious variation 3. Notified 3 days before the amended application for land use. Introduced solely to deal with the height non-compliant issues of this building .Mr Glasson comments on this variation 3 Bk1 p5 first para “A more thorough analysis of the reasons for the Variation and the robustness of the resource management principles for the Variation should have been examined at the time of the notification of the Variation “

10)As is shown this Variation is actually illegal not only due to the matters Mr Glasson raises but more importantly we were never notified or served of it in any way. The first we knew of it was on receipt of Mr Glasson’s report in mid 2008.  Obviously this is unacceptable from a consent authority in New Zealand. As well as begging the question why Fowler/Rodgers did not mention this Variation 3 when it was so pertinent to our situation and critical to Christensen’s and the SDC abuse of process. Obvious this neglect by Fowler/Rodgers to mention this is linked to Christensen’s public statement of critical need of rapid establishment.

11)The SDC state we appealed this first consent. Which is clearly false and impossible to show as anything else 

12)(R305387) Subdivision(387) . As mentioned this was the first consent as can be determined by 387. The Commissioner used this as a means as excluding us from the process. This was achieved subdividing a portion of land adjacent to our boundary so the SDC could be deemed the neighbour and obviously gave its written consent for these unlawful non-notified resource consents. Obviously if everybody could do that, everybody would. Becoming the only affected party of their own developments. This is unlawful and can clearly be shown in substance with my complaint to the Auditor General re Affected person consent.

11)An illegally subdivided vacant bare strip of land adjacent to our boundary, did not preclude my brother and I from being directly adjacent and affected neighbours of this scam. This action alone of the unlawful subdivision implicated all concerned in the criminal conspiracy to defraud our farm from us. And by no stretch met the standards required by the SDC of the Local Government Act and common law obligations and is completely contrary to the aims and requirements of the Resource Management Act..

12)(R305457) Earthworks for Northern Hardstand(457). This resource consent adds to the litany of deceit. Nowhere either in the AEE or Commissioners decision does it actually state that these earth works are for the construction of the Northern Hardstand This is understandable as it is disingenuous as why logically would the SDC need to being doing Earthworks for the Northern Hardstand when the (468) Consent was granted on the condition of the Eastern hardstand being used. It would be expected from an open and transparent Local Authority the Eastern hardstand would be constructed as per the conditions of the (468) consent before the application for earthworks of an as yet applied for (661) consent. As mentioned irrefutable evidence shows this Northern hardstand was constructed well past any credible or incredible earthworks before the application (661)was even lodged. And nothing at all was done in respect to the Eastern hardstand which positioning was used in part to justify the non-notification of (468) 

13) By Christensen’s own photos plastered all over the (661) hearing proves this contention And this Commissioner, with at the time more than 20 years experience in RMA matters, was made more than aware of this

14)  The AEE states at 6.2 “In respect of this proposal there are no affected parties”, this is incredible that it was accepted by not only the SDC as Consent Authority. But also initially Fowler/Rodgers, when we did nothing but complain about the danger, constantly we were forced to endure. Including a complaint to the Rolleston Police in Jan 2002.

15)   at 6.13 In further support of the proposal is that the duration of earthworks shall be a relatively short period ,that of approximately 4 weeks ,and undertaken during business hours ,being somewhat less than farming hours”  As with a lot of what the SDC puts forward there is an element of deceitful truth in this, that being the earthworks  may well of only lasted 4weeks. But what the SDC did as is admitted in attachment 1 was they just continued on building and constructing this hardstand next to us, anyway on the basis of this earthworks consent. As to the reference to a farming activity used by the applicant and Commissioner as a permitted activity. The basis of a farming activity in New Zealand is the conversion of the Suns energy through photosynthesis in plants to foliage. Referring to this activity as similar to a farming activity is no different than using the same analogy to mining or a quarrying. Like most everything about this whole affair it is false and misleading.

16)The Commissioner backs up and reinforces the contentions made by the applicant above but uses an interesting method of identifying the position and owners of the adjoining land . at 1.1 ..”It is proposed to take soil from an area described in the application as area B ;the soil taken is then to be replaced on area A “   I see no description or reference to any  A or B area in the AEE or maps provided  by the applicant. What are being described are the Northern hardstand area and the distribution centre site.

17) At 2.3 ..”As it is my view that the owner of the land immediately adjoining Area B  is affected in more than a de minus way ,it is necessary for that land owner to give written approval. An approval was duly received on 24th April.” This being the approval of the SDC as this adorning owner due to the unlawful subdivision (R305387) 

18)  At 6.3 …” I was provided with  a written approval from the Selwyn district Council as owner of the adjoining land to the west ,north and east… Accordingly, I directed that an appropriate written approval should be given for this earth works from the land adjoining Area B, this was duly provided and received on 24th April.” This is extreme confusing and ambiguous suggesting some body other than the owner of this site, which is the SDC, has given written approval for these earthworks. This is obviously why Mr Glasson states it is unsure whether our written approval was given or not .p15 para 21&22 of Doc 13.. Although it as requested we never ever gave our consent written or otherwise and always stressed we would not do this while we were owners of that farm adjacent  or adjoining this construction site

19)(R305661) Land use consent for Northern Hardstand (661). As mentioned this was the last of a series (4) multiple resource consents the only one, which was notified. It is also significant this hardstand (the actual subject of this resource consent) was more than 50% complete before it was notified then the construction continued until it was 95% complete even while the decision was under appeal. The Izone/Selwyn district Council(plaintiff)  refers to this as the second consent but does not state the reference number. It was in fact the fourth and the fifth application. As mentioned Fowler made a submission to Variation 2 as a late entry and this was not accepted by the SDC despite irrefutable evidence we were not served of this or any other Variation.

20)We made submission to resource consent hearing (661) we then appealed the decision which the plaintiffwrongly attributes to the consent (468) which as already mentioned was non-notified.

21)Page23 Attachment 1 .Is conformation the SDC has built the Northern Hardstand(R305661) on the basis of the Earthworks consent (R305387)

 ”As discussed ,we advise that our clients have proceeded with work on the Hardstand area on the basis of the building consent issued by the SDC. We acknowledge the situation regarding the earthworks permit and have written to the Warehouse advising them all unconsented work must cease immediately on this area” As mentioned not surprisingly the work did not cease but actually increased in intensity and duration. 

22)Page24 Attachment2 Mawhinney v Waitekeri City Council.

Is an example of the evolution of multiple resource consents deemed as by the Court as a variation of a single theme. Amounting to a joint application that was an abuse of process. Such a description applies to this situation and was only possibly able to be achieved because the applicant was the de facto Consent Authority.

23)Obviously this can be nothing other than a misuse of the SDC as its position of Consent Authority. There is nopossible way this could have been achieved had the SDC not been involved as the Consent authority.

24) It is significant to note that the same Consent authority (SDC) is known to be extremely uncompromising and strict concerning other applications that do not involve its own Izone Industrial Park. In the case of its and Christensen’s Izone park SDC will go to any lengths to ensure that the wheels of the tenant are smoothed, to the point that Mr Glasson states “the pressure to work the process and reach decisions within very short timeframes is obvious

25)This matter is extremely significant as the HC Judge who admitted he knew nothing about RMA matters  states at 23]There is no evidence of undue influence exerted by the plaintiff in this case…. I accept the submission that the parties were very much in apposition of equal bargaining power. It follows there was no inequality of bargaining power, nor any suggestion of improper use by the plaintiff of its position.”    The CA 13]…. He also rejected the view there was undue influence applied ….The parties were very much of equal bargaining power. Further there is no evidence that the Williamson’s were in a position of particular disadvantage or that the Council knew of this or exploited it” This can be described easily in one word “wrong”

26) As regard to RMA matters HC 27]” The agreement provided for a resolution of all issues between the parties and require the Williamsons to withdraw their Environment Court appeal, and their RMA objections” Obviously this is assuming the SDC has conformed with its legal obligations as Consent Authority and met its statutory requirements under the Local Govt.Act. The CA17  “The Judge also rejected the Williamson’s attempt to re-open resource management issues that had been the catalyst for the sale…. All resource consent related issues were tied up and settled with the agreement for sale and purchase.” 

27)Again I state the sale of this property so woefully undervalued. Was never, ever a settlement for the harassment and danger the SDC were able to gratuitously place and inflict upon us. This was solely due to the SDC’s abuse and manipulation of its position as Consent holder. The undervalued sale was the result of the culmination and hopelessness we felt due to Fowler/Rodgers advice nothing could be done to prevent the constant danger and harassment. And as we now know and recognise the unlawful construction, was likely to escalate and intensify. Which with us as owners of that property would have most certainly resulted in serious violence.  This is a fact whatever these Judges or Court want to think or write will not change the latent abuse perpetrated by the SDC. And unchecked by Fowler/Rodgers which contrary to the LGA the SDC engaged with, in an undisclosed manner. Without a doubt this was the sole reason for us to being able to be pressured in to selling our farm so undervalued.

28)Page25  Analysis signature on document re Contract and waiver.

 This information I came about from a boxing book is extremely significant

29)“The question must be answered were we free to exercise our will in the light of full informationregarding the transaction 

The Key to the issue is independent legal advice.”

 30) This matter is vital to the whole affair. The analysis of Fowler/Rodgers advice will show it was clearly compromised by their significant and valuable connection to Christensen .We never agreed to any waiver  as ruled by the Court of appeal. We were put in a position due to the SDC and Anthony Harper/Christensen undisclosed collusion, by the time we became aware of this relationship we felt we had no choice but to continue.

31)Because of the lawyers compromised loyalty to Christensen and subsequently the SDC we were never ever in possession of anything like the full information concerning this matter especially crucial RMA matters ,enforcement and injunction measures but most importantly key potential Industrial value issues .

32)This especially pertinent to RMA enforcement matters and injunction process. Plus the unlawful dubious Variation 3 as well as the multiple unlawful non-notified resource consents.

33)Also the pathetic valuations put forward which Fowler/Rodgers condoned and endorsed. Allowing the SDC to ambush the negotiation with a clearly corrupt Valuation of 53cents psm for potential industrial value. When 3 ha of undeveloped farm land directly adjacent was negotiated and sold for around $25 psm at the same time. Which nobody informed us of. The only difference was it had an Industrial zone being adjacent to the 7500sqm Industrial zoned land of ours the SDC unlawfully zoned back to rural in 2001. Everybody concedes the change of zoning to Industrial for our farm would have been a simple and straightforward matter.  

34)Fowler/Rodgers also allowed the myth that the SDC could only negotiate within the terms of approved valuations as regard to their statutory requirement, to be used as a means of stalling the negotiations. Compromising our strategic position of mounting an adequate Environment Court appeal. Despite constant requests we were never forwarded any information as to how such a property could be valued on a Potential Industrial basis (PIV) basis. This despite subsequent lawyers Russ and Cameron being put on notice by the contents of Mr Glasson’s report as regard to this very matter. I myself did not find out about this correct PIVmethodology until mid 2008 by my own research.

The uncertainly created by Fowler/Rodgers collusion with Christensen and the SDC also affected our ability to run our business and severely affected our health and personal relationships.

35) This matter concerning uncertainty is also clearly contrary to the RMA but amongst other things was never ever mentioned by Rodger/Fowler for obvious reasons.

36)I have never been so certain of anything in my life that. Christensen and the SDC cheated my brother and me out of our farm. This matter can be more than verified to even the harshest critic let alone an independent well-informed lay observer. Provided they are prepared to read Mr Glasson’s report with an open mind and compare it to the advice we received from Fowler/Rodgers. Especially the multitude of letters that Fowler/Rodgers chose to omit from the files and forensic examination of the emails these same lawyers have forged. For the SDC to be involved in such maters is not only, obviously contrary to its statutory obligations but criminally liable and culpable.

37)As I mention in HC submissions 182 Amaltal Corp Ltd v Maruha Corp … This is not a case in which there is what the Americans call a “smoking gun”-that is a single document which explicitly states ‘we can rip X of this way Cases in which there is such hard evidence do not get to trial for obvious reasons .A Court has to be drawn on inference.”   This like the rest of these 40 pages of submissions ‘disposed of briefly’ by this HC Judge.  Even if I was required to produce a smoking gun as Russ and Cameron demanded because it is a matter concerning a Local Government .It would be a wrong contention and threshold demanded by these lawyers supposedly working on our behalf, as I only need to show that the SDC has not met its obligations to the Local Government Act and Common Law duties.

38) Because of the principles of Summary Judgement, which seem to apply in other cases I have studied. I do not need to prove the SDC have not met these statutory obligations but only show it is arguable they have not. Unlike the Common Law obligations, which from what I have learnt, are just as important. This has nothing to do with, as the HC judge backed up by the CA stating. I am pleading  like a spoilt child. It’s not fair. HC20] In general, the Williamsons consider they should not be bound by the terms of the agreement or the lease because the whole situation is “unfair”. The CA reiterates this at 12]…He said the Williamsons should not be bound by the terms of the agreement because the whole situation was unfair.”  As I have argued in my correspondence with the SC.Bk4 page 26 para 60. In the nearly 100pages I submitted to the HC and CA I did not quote or expect to rely on any particular edict of fairness or unfairness. This assumption of what I was relying on came from the Selwyn District Council’s submissions and these corrupt judges have put these words into my mouth. I supposed in this country I am expected to accept this from these lowlife people like i am some kind of muted serf.

39)  As I mention I have often wondered why our societies are different from other races and culture, we as individuals are no smarter, no stronger and most certainly no more honest than those of other cultures. But what makes us different is we in this society have an indelible expectation that all forms of our governance will be just and fair. We as individuals look to the Government and Courts to be above all fair ,just and honorable  This is an inherent expectation, because that is what these institutions have been for as long as the type of Governments we in the free and democratic world have chosen to live under.

40)  Fair According to Collins dictionary 1 free from discrimination ,dishonesty; ;just, impartial                                        2)  )In  conformity with rules and standards legitimate (a fair fight)

                                                          6)unblemished ,untainted  14)   a fair chance a fair opportunity 15) fair and square, in a correct and just way .”

 41) Just 1a) Fair or impartial in action or judgement   2) conforming to high moral standards ;honest  3) Consistent with justice 4) rightly applied or given 5) legally valid 6) well foundered 7) correct accurate or true

41) Originally I regarded this perception of my sentiment of fairness. By the SDC Counsel taken up by the HC and CA as derogatory and condescending, but after examination of the full meaning of the word, fair. I could not have expressed it better my self. It is one of the most important concepts we as a society have. Fairness is not what we want to be it is what we are. That’s what makes us different from other cultures. Might is not right in our society what is right is what is fair and just. The most important enunciation of this difference is the system of Justice we have and the quality of judgments given. This is my idea of honor despite the Japanese interpretation of the word. Something can not be honorable that is not fair and just.. What has happened in this matter with the SDC/Christensen, AH/Fowler/Rodgers, Russ, and Cameron the HC and Court of Appeal does not qualify as fair and just. In respect to the quality of the vast majority of other Judgments I have read. 

41)  As I have stated. If my brother and I are to have our farm stolen by the Local Government. And Parliament had not explicitly and implicitly stated how Local Government must Act. If the Courts had not developed a comprehensive set of guidelines on this very situation. Then the problem we would have would be as Christensen suggests, that of unrealistic expectation.  The reality of this situation is quite the contrary. This whole affair is the antithesis of the will of Parliament and Common Law guidelines. Most of the facts stated by the SDC and ruled by the Judges are just plainly wrong. All concerned involved with the SDC including the lawyers we engaged have acted with out honor  have acted unfairly, unjustly and most importantly have acted unlawfully. And have been rewarded for this abysmal conduct by the very Courts whose foundations are built on exactly the opposite principles.

42)  What surprises me about this matter is Christensen et al, the Government and the Courts expected me to walk away from this whole affair. With no hard feelings as if we had be treated fair and square. Or like after some insignificant rugby match. When not only our farm has been stolen from us, also our dignity but most importantly our democratic rights.

43)  In my complaint to the Auditor General I cited the Public Service Code of conduct “New Zealanders expect departments to comply with both the letter and spirit of the law….They expect that public servants will always behave ethically …Generations of public servants have strived to meet these expectations”

44)  Maybe I have to accept being soundly beaten by lowlife cheats like Christensen, lauded as honest and hard working, in Harness Racing, or get out of Harness Racing. But I don’t and won’t from the New Zealand Government. As the last 2 generations of my family left there homes and country to fight for the very processes and values these lowlife are flaunting and abusing. My brother and I would and will if necessary do the same as our father and grandfather.  

 

45) Everything depends on the definition of Conflict of Interest as this decides the quality of advice we received from these lawyers thus the amount of correct information and the qualification of unlawful advice we had while conducting these negotiations.

46) The Rules of Professional  Conduct for Barristers and Solicitors  Whereby Parliament, in theLegal Practitioners Act clearly and unambiguously states,defines and qualifies the situation of Conflict of Interest.This rule and its guidelines defines the basic and fundamental position of trust between the client and the practitioner. It is a basic principle that the client will expect the practitioner to act without fear or favour purely in the interest of the client alone .Without compromise to or by anybody or anything. 

Rule 1.03 A practitioner must not act for any person where there is a conflict of interest between the practitioner on the one hand,and an existing or prospective  client on the other hand.

This rule is qualified with guidelines which are particularly important in our case

“5)It is impossible to detail all the situations,which arise where a practitioner should not act or where independent representation  or advice must necessarily obtained under this rule”

7)In the context of this rule the word “client”must be given an extended meaning .It will  for example include any company,trust or OTHER BODY in which the Client has  a significant interest or exercises a material measure of control. “

47)Obviously this law Society do not take heed of their own rules written ,endorsed and stipulated by Parliament  because Christensen’s own evidence I put to the Courts and this Society undoubted qualify his interest and material measure of control in this matter.

Statement of evidence of Councillor Christensen

2)My portfolio of responsibilities include economic development,employment,tourism and  central plains water enhancement.I am the Chairman of the Councils Industrial Park Project team “

19) for most of this year i have been negotiating with Mr Williamson and his brother to purchase the property… to date we have not been able to agree on price.’

48) Christensen in his evidence to the High Court,Court of Appeal and Supreme Court admits the lawfirm we engaged Anthony Harper was the lawfirm that acted for him .Yet as already mentioned, all concerned neglected to mention the significance of the personal association to these individual lawyers Fowler/Rodgers when they were all legally required to fully disclose this .  I am still waiting for somebody to inform me from Christensen’s own evidence, how the situation between Fowler/Rodgers and Christensen can not qualify as a Conflict of Interest by the Rules I have quoted above as defined by Parliament.

49)As well the report by Mr Glasson clearly defines and explains Christensen’s involvement in this matter and his close  personal connection to the lawyers supposed to be representing us against this Christensen lead and controlled Industrial park.This is also why this report is so significant, with the misrepresentation and failure to forward it to us by the two review lawyers we engaged (Dean Russ and Grant Cameron GCA) culpable.We were not aware of this personal connection until I got this report more than 5 years after we engaged these lawyers(Fowler/Rodgers) and 2 years after the report was presented to Russ.  

50)With the benefit of hindsight, it is also contentious whether or not the SDC were at this time prospective clients of Fowler and Rodgers. Considering at the time they were representing Christensen involving Selwyn District Council matters with the payment being guaranteed by the Selwyn District Council. As can be seen Fowler/Rodgers have since become huge clients of the Selwyn district Council and its affiliates .I feel due to the complete lack of disclosure and then later the misrepresented partial disclosure, it was Fowler/Rodgers and Christensen’s intentions at this time that  the SDC, would, as it has become large clients of these lawyers.So the situation also qualifies as conflict of interest under this definition of rule 1.03

51) It is also important to understand The Selwyn District Council have wide ranging responsibilities and obligations to avoid situations  of actual or perceived conflict of interest .As can be seen from the description of manipulation and abuse of the Resource management process.The SDC is clearly in conflict of interest, as developer and consent holder.Because of this position of the Selwyn District Council it was doubly important that they act completely with in the law. With all decisions and procedures completely beyond reproach.These matters among many others were put to all the Courts but as per usual dismissed out of hand with haste and derision. 

52) This situation is exacerbated  by the SDC  choice to engage with the lawyers of their chairman of this same Industrial park in a completely undisclosed manner. It is common ground that at no time did the SDC disclose this connection. Being more significant was that Fowler/Rodgers were the only people that were in a position to expose or stop the abuse of process which was putting so much pressure on us.

53) This situation with Christensen’s own lawyers supposedly acting against him in charge of this Industrial park was also a conflict of Interest the SDC was under a legal obligation to disclose.

54) As can be seen from the manipulation and abuse of process I have described, as well as what is listed in Mr Glasson’s report. Together with Christensen’s conflicting evidence  which amounts to perjury and Marshall, their manager’s evidence. Which is clearly incorrect and could be deemed perjury. The Selwyn District Council is just a bunch of  dishonest ,deceitful liars.Thus any motives or reason for this non disclosure when it was legally required can be judged at the most devious,cunning and cynical end  

56) As to the Courts Role in this matter which up to now has been nothing short of astounding.

In another case Stevens v Premier Real estate  The Supreme Court Ruled”onus of proof of disclosure is on the agent”   

“Whether there is a conflict of interest is defined by the advice given”.

This  case involved involved the situation of a conflict of interest with a real estate agent.I am unsure as to whether Parliament has drafted and defined the terms of engagement of Real estate agents and their clients  in the detail  of the Legal Practitioners Act.But as put to the Supreme Court and ignored. I demonstrate in detail the scope for harm toward an unsuspecting client of a real estate agent corrupted by conflict of interest is much less than that of a similarly  corrupted  lawyer    

57)In the absence of any definition  this qualification of the advice given is the ultimate test. As had we been given proper and adequate advice which would have resulted in us obtaining a price for our farm in line with the legally correct Potential industrial value of which the vast majority of our neighbours received. Or we had been informed of the cheap easy and quick method of preventing and stopping the danger and harassment being created and perpetrated by Christensen as a means to pressure us into selling our farm.   Any connection of these Lawyers to Christensen would not be so significant.But obviously the very reason for Christensen and the Selwyn District Council’s undisclosed engagement with Fowler/Rodgers was to prevent both of these situations coming to fruition.  

58) Proper examination of the advice we received from these lawyers, especially in the letters omitted from the files. Show the complete theme and mantra of advice we received from these lawyers. Was in favour of, and prejudiced towards,Christensen’s already publicly stated biased motives concerning the critical rapid establishment of the Warehouse Distribution center and the amount my brother should receive for our farm.  

59) Even after all this is put to the Supreme Court in documented evidence proof.Still we are denied even the right of a hearing so the actual advice can be examined in the proper forum.

60) As in this case when the content and standard of advice we received is ignored and discounted . With the basic and fundamental framework of the strict definition between  client and practitioner  described in such detail by the rules of the Legal practitioner’s Act.These Judges and lawyers can not just ignore and discount this situation and substitute a much more liberal definition of their own making for their own and their crony lawyer’s convenience.As they have done in this case and I have seen in no other case involving conflict of interest. 

61) These corrupt lawyers and  Judges in this case are relying on the thinly defined definition of Conflict of Interest in that  Fowler/Rodgers represented Christensen in his personal and business capacity but acted against him as a Selwyn district Councillor.Mr Glasson in his report explains, because of the circumstances such a definition is completely incorrect and unacceptable. 

62) If these lawyers and Judges are right with their limited liability definition of Conflict of Interest. Why then was there no disclosure? Why do the rules of conflict of interest specifically state and define the term of client in the broader sense if no other connection or motive is important?Why is the Supreme Court(ex) Judge Wilson,  who was responsible  for issuing this ruling denying us the right of appeal .The first senior Court New Zealand judge to be forced to ‘fall on his sword’. Due to a situation of him presiding over a case involving his business partner in another venture(horse stud) which had nothing to do with the case involved(Wool board) and he was only but one of the three panel of judges.

63)If things were so easily and clear cut as these lawyers and corrupt judges are portraying it should have been no problem for this ( now ex)Supreme Court Judges to not only continue to be a Judge but also presiding over cases involving his business partner in another venture.

64) It is not easy and not clear cut and it was not acceptable for Wilson to presiding over a case whereby his neutrality and objectivity could be in anyway influenced. Just as noway Fowler/Rodgers should have been involved in this matter against Christensen let alone in a undisclosed manner when they had such a conflict of interest,duty and most importantly loyalty to this Christensen lead Izone alliance . It is purely for convenience, these lawyers and corrupt judges rely on this chorus of limitation, with out even examining the delinquent advice we received and comparing it to the advice we should have received.As these Courts themselves rule is the correct determinant of a conflict of interest in the absence of any other guidelines. Which in this case are explicitly there, defined by parliament but ignored and discounted by these corrupt Courts.

64) But it seems like most all of the principles and processes of our Justice system . Even this examination of the quality advice as a determinate of conflict of interest.  Does not apply to my brother John and myself. When specifically applied in other cases as put before these courts in detail by me. That is called precedent, but again obviously not applicable to John and I.

65) Adolf Hitler speaking on the subject of   lies . A subject he was a history defined authority on.Stated if you are going to tell a lie, it might as well be a big one. but most importantly  if the lie is repeated over and over enough by many different sources sooner or later everybody begins to believe it.

This sums up the situation here concerning this dodgy property developer,the Lawyers.Judges,Government Officials and Politicians and the theft of our farm.    

        

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

121b Jens Christensen’s involvement

Hits: 650

Christensen’s Involvement not withstanding the evidence of October 2002, with Christensen himself stating and qualifying his significant involvement. There are a number of points of written correspondence which show Christensen’s involvement through out this affair.  Evidence of which, was put to the High Court and Court of Appeal  as well as  put to the Supreme Court with Christensen’s conflicting RMA hearing evidence.(Doc121)

 This matter concerning us and the behaviour of this Selwyn District Council(SDC)  alliance led and directed by Jens Christensen (at the time Councillor)  has another dimension as regards the way that a Local Government is required to conduct its business according to statute; that is in an open, transparent and democratically accountable manner. For the SDC to conform to this. They also would have had to disclose the situation between their Chairman, spokesman and key negotiator of this Industrial Park and the lawyers negotiating  representing us against this same Chairman. It is easily shown from the evidence that Christensen was making all the decisions and Brantwaite from Connel Wagner was merely a go between, not withstanding the period that is admitted in Feb 2003 whereby Christensen became openly and directly involved and as is shown by a letter of Feb 13 Whereby Christensen himself decided to completely change the terms of reference by which it had alreadybeen agreed  we would enter these negotiation. That being  initially our facilities we had constructed would be valued at full replacement cost Instead Christensen now arbitrarily decides they will be devalued on an indemnity basis determined by their Valuer.  Despite our  intensely voiced disapproval, this was allowed without any protest  from Fowler/Rodgers which we now realise was for obvious reasons of which at the time we were not aware. .This letter was personally signed by Jens Christensen, Chairman of the project team. At this time we were not aware of any connection what so ever of Christensen and these lawyers or the law firm they were employees and partner of.

It is important to again mention. From the time we first contacted these lawyers until we our selves became aware of Christensen’s connection to this legal firm(Anthony Harper) late in the negotiations nobody mentioned this connection or association in anyway shape or form. Then once we did become privy to this situation  of the connection of the law firm Anthony Harper (only) to Councillor Christensen purely by chance.The connection onlyto the firm  was then casually mentioned and clearly misrepresented by Fowler.

This is despite strict rules of procedure both pertaining to the Rules for Barristers and Solicitors  of what should have been done as soon as we contacted and  before we formally engaged this law-firm.As well as the strict limitations of the Local Government Act (which is stated must be obeyed and followed) ,Common law obligations and directives of the Selwyn District Councils own Code of Conduct regarding potential conflict of interest situations .Obviously the common denominator of all these constraints and processes are:

Full disclosure in a timely matter(at the earliest possible time) 

Written  informed consent of the situation by, in our case both John and I based on all the information fully disclosed and given to us before we became officially involved with any negotiations between these lawyers Christensen and the SDC.

Our decision,if it is to continue with the same representation, would have needed to be scrutinized by an independent solicitor.

It is significant that at no time, not one of these were done and at no time did or has the Selwyn District Council disclosed the true and correct association between Christensen and his long term and valuable personal lawyers who were supposed to be representing and protecting our best interests against this alliance led and dominated by this same man.     

The other correspondence between these Lawyers and Christensen can be shown in the following documents all put to these Courts but ignored ;

 letter SDC –AH(Chris Fowler)   22 Dec“please contact myself Councillor Jens Christensen”

13th Jan 2003 letter AH(Chris Fowler)—DJW(Doug Williamson)“I propose the meeting with Mr Branthwaite and probably Councillor Christensen” 

letters of 22 Jan 2002(Micheal Brantwaite SDC rep)  “We gained a better understanding of the situation and reported back to the Chairman” 

file note12/Feb/03 From John Shipton ,Shipton Davies;He is unable to act in this affair ,subject to some proviso, after speaking with Jen Christensen” 

7th March 2003 CW( Micheal Brantwaite SDC rep letter) to AH(Chrish Fowler) “We would advise the letter has been discussed with the chairman”

10th March Fax /letter   CW( Micheal Brantwaite SDC rep letter) to AH(Chrish Fowler)also forwarded to Christensen so obviously did discuss with Christensen and Schultz Nimbus also client of AH and property developer involved on Izone committee  

 3rd July  CW( Micheal Brantwaite SDC rep letter) to AH(Chrish Fowler) The matter has been taken up by our chairman Jens Christensen.” 

14th July2003  CW( Micheal Brantwaite SDC rep letter) to AH(Chrish Fowler)“Unfortunately our Chairman is overseas at present and we are endeavouring to deal with him via phone and fax

28th July2003 File note “The documents were executed from this office by the Williamsons and uplifted by Councillor Jens Christensen r 

24th October 2003 SDC(Douglas Marshal)—DJW “Thankyou for the visit with Councillor Jens Christensen

It is also significant that on each and everyone of Fowler’s and Rodgers files Christensen’s contact details(address,Phone,mobile phone, fax  and email address)   are at the   top and the most conspicuous .Obviously these contact details were used frequently throughout this  affair. 

 

These are just examples of specific mention by way of reference to Christensen. It is apparent and the evidence shows that throughout this whole matter, nothing was done or agreed with out Christensen’s OK or approval .Yet Christensen put evidence before the HC and Court of Appeal that except for the period in early February with the death of  M Brantwaite’s wife, he stayed out of the matter. Marshal substantiated this for the SDC. The evidence of Christensen and Marshal, concerning Christensen’s involvement was voiced and agreed with by Justice William Young in the Court of Appeal, verbatim. These like many things from these Courts bewilder me as to how they can possible come to this conclusion from Summary Judgement when so much contrary evidence was put to them.

     It is common ground nowhere at no time did the SDC in anyway disclose this matter of the relationship between their Chairman’s(Jens Christensen) and chief negotiators lawyers (Chris Fowler and Paul Rodgers).

Also in the period due to a bereavement, Christensen became openly directly involved obviously the connection with Fowler/Rodgers or for that matter Anthony Harper Lawyers should have been disclosed this clearly wasn’t done. Let alone gaining our informed consent, but nobody from these Courts care to mention this.   

These strict and important rules of disclosure in potential conflict of interest situations don’t discriminate on any reason the parties become involved with one another .Quite simply the full disclosure of the connection was clearly required. This fantasy being portrayed by everybody including these Judges, that except for this time Christensen stayed completely out of this matter is purely ridiculous but doesn’t absolve the need for full disclosure when it is obvious he is involved.  But the truth of the matter was right through out this affair from beginning to past end Christensen was in charge of all aspects of the negotiations .Most notably how much we would be ultimately paid for our farm.     

 

 

It also appears this High Court Judge is critically judging me on the basis of the experience others who are equipped do deal with something which was impossible for me to even contemplate dealing with at the time.I knew absolutely nothing about RMA process and procedure and at the late stage we became aware of the connection of this lawfirm to Christensen for a number of reasons the dye was set.This is no better illustrated by the behaviour and performance of the 2 review Lawyers; Dean Russ and Grant Cameron of GCA, we later enlisted to confront this situation. Nothing had changed but both these Lawyers are adamant and emphatic there was no conflict of interest just as all their brethren Judges are

This also is completely unacceptable judgement by this Judge, obviously had I been armed with even half of the knowledge or information I have now on this whole matter, it would never ever eventuated. Even if we had enlisted Fowler/Rodgers (AH) with their undisclosed connection to the SDC’s property development chairman. Plain and simple in April of 2002(6 or 7 month before Fowler/Rodgers AH, became involved and 16 months before settlement of this farm) I would have instituted a Ex-parte Environment Court enforcement order at a cost of $55, on the basis of this unlawful construction and multiple devolved non notified resource consents plus applied to the Environment Court for the situation to be ratified (Application for Declaration). Who in their right mind would suggest the SDC could sustain this delay. When Christensen’s own evidence in 2002 states  for the critical need for rapid establishment right next to our horse training facilities.

 The initial Resource consent situation,which illegally allowed the commencement of this construction  which completely not only excluded us but any mention of our vulnerable situation directly adjacent it, clearly was unlawful. From that point on we would have had all the upper ground. The SDC could not of continued with its unlawful building as well as gratuitous harassment and intimidation on us, it would have been the end of the story. And it would have forced Christensen and the SDC to act with in and negotiated according to the law. Or more importantly it would have given us confidence in the process which would have been the main reason we would have decided to stay on our farm we had specially constructed for horse training.

 I would be interested to know from these Courts who have so harshly and compelling judged my brother and myself why Fowler/Rodgers two extremely experienced RMA lawyers did not advise us to seek an Application for Declaration as soon as they became involved in this matter in 2002 and never ever mentioned this matter of a $55 Enforcement order. Instead right through out that nothing could be done to prevent this situation. I feel I am entitled to an answer from these Courts considering both Courts I appeared before were glowing in their praise and tribute for these Lawyers. I can prove,these same lawyers(Fowler and Rodgers) have omitted key letters of advice and I can demonstrate they have forged E-mails purportedly written by me. So why no Application for declaration or Enforcement orders in 2002 or any other time.These Judges have plenty to say in their criticism of me and my actions and are glowing in their praise for Fowler and Rodgers but are deadly silent on this matter. 

  The situation regarding the costs awarded against us was a demonstration of the contempt and subverting of the general practice and principle applicable in our legal system. The HC Judge awarded about $30,000 costs against us. These were calculated on the basis of indemnity costs as per part of this agreement, which was never explained to us. I did not really understand the cost structure of the New Zealand Courts. But it appears indemnity costs are usually only awarded on the basis of punishment to vexatious litigation . I realise now that costs awards in the High Court are discretionary so unless a party is completely successful in all its claims I think it unfair that not only were usual costs  awarded but indemnity costs also.The SDC was not entirely successful in all its claims. They claimed basically everything we owned on the property; all our farm machinery, equipment, earth moving machinery and horse gear, which for some reason this Judge did not grant them  so that should be the end of any costs awarded against us.I say for some reason, because this Judge’s  granting of Summary judgement against us on this matter was no less ludicrous and corrupt as if he had vested all our possessions to the Selwyn District Council as they claimed and i had to defend against.

 Also the letter of 3 July 2003(put to all the Courts) 

You mention that properties were difficult to find The matter has been taken up by our chairman , Jens Christensen and he has already visited two properties, both which fall within the overall requirements of the Williamsons …..and each is substantially less than the $740,000 as we have suggested as the baseline” 

I guarantee these properties didn’t have anything like the facilities our farm had which were valued at $439,000 by a Quantity surveyor  I had never met before and haven’t met since  so it would be fair to call him independent.

How on earth can this be ruled as have these Courts that Christensen stayed out of this very matter concerning the price we should receive for our farm. As this  ex Selwyn District Councillor’s sworn evidence to these Courts so emphatically states backed up by the SDC managers Marshal’s sworn evidence to the same Courts. When evidence like this was steering them in the face. 

 It is significant to note that on all   Fowler/Rodgers files in this matter Christensen’s 2 telephone numbers are place first and most prominent along side ours with all the others including Branthwaite from Connell Wagner behind that.

 This evidence of Christensen’s involvement  and subsequent  perjury was put to the Auditor general and the Courts and as usual ignored

 

Christensen’s evidence to RMA hearing 2002

 

2)…I am chairman of the Council’s Industrial  Park Project  Team

 

5). In March this year Eldamos Investments Ltd (an investment company owned by The Warehouse) and the Selwyn District Council filed an application  for resource consent s to develop a Warehouse distribution centre……At the time it was critical that the distribution centre be established as quickly as possible.

 

12)I have undertaken discussion and negotiations with the neighbours adjoining the site ,in particular ,Mr Doug and John Williamson.

 

13) I have known the Williamson’s for a period of 18 months

 

19) for most of this year I have been negotiating with Mr Williamson and his brother to purchase the property ……. To date we have not been able to agree on a price.

 

20) This has been due and caused in part by Mr Williamson’s unrealistic expectations. From my experience as a property developer…..Therefore it is completely unrealistic to expect we will pay the same value per hectare for a 45 acre block as commanded by a 2 acre block.

 

This should be compare with Christensen’s sworn evidence to the High Court 2007 and Court of appeal 2008 as well I presume the Supreme Court of New Zealand.2009

 

5)It is  correct that Anthony Harper are my solicitors

 

7) I refute any suggestion that I endeavoured to take advantage of my relationship with Anthony Harper. While I was involved in the early stages of discussions with the Williamson’s about their property and the development in the area .I had little to do with the negotiations which ensued once the Williamson’s had made a decision to consider selling their property to the Council……. I largely stay out of the negotiations.

 

The High Court in its Judgement 2007

States 9] Discussions were imitated between the parties for the purchase of the Williamson’s land. Some of the initial discussions involved Mr Christensen  an officer of the Plaintiff. The Clear evidence is that the bulk of negotiations involved Connell Wagner “

 

Court of Appeal

21] The Judge noted that the claims about  breach of fiduciary duty do not concern the relationship between the Council and the Williamson’s but rather that between the Williamsons and their solicitors .Further, the Judge found that, although  some of the earlier discussions had involved Councillor Christensen, the bulk of the negotiations involved Connell Wagner Consultants ….

 This is clearly incorrect and can be seen even by the evidence I put to the High Court and Court of Appeal  it should be remembered that as this was a Summary Judgement we did not need to prove or disprove anything only show it was arguable that the evidence of Christensen and Marshal was contestable and able to be disputed.It is blatantly obvious that the Selwyn District Councils own evidence contradicts the assertion Christensen stayed out of this matter.   

 Despite the screed of evidence to refute these Judgements put to the Supreme Court this Court denied us the right even to appeal the Summary Judgement based on false and misleading statements and evidence put to them by the SDC and Christensen.

 For a start Christensen doesn’t mention Fowler/Rodgers are his personal solicitors mentioning only the large firm they belong to. The casual partial disclosure of Fowler/Rodgers is proves the fact that I did not actually know this true situation until I belatedly received Mr Glasson’s report in 2008. I was then able to research the matters concerning the correct RMA procedure and it highlighted the delinquent advice we received from Fowler/Rodgers which was immensely helpful in the fruition of Jens Christensen already publicly stated motives both concerning the rapid establishment of this industrial park complex as well as the price he has decided we should get for our farm..  

 I could go on and show how ridiculous these Court Judgements are. One point which has not been addressed is, if as these Courts so strongly claim, did Christensen not be come involved in the negotiation and dominate the theme of the SDC negotiation as the evidence I put before them clearly shows. If it was not the intention of Christensen/SDC and Fowler/Rodgers to destroy our case from inside to confirm with Christensen’s already biased public statements about the situation and price we should receive for our farm. 

 Why was the association between Christensen and Fowler/Rodgers not properly disclosed to us in the first instance with the advice sort from an independent solicitor? And our informed consent to the situation sort and recorded, as the law for lawyers and District Councils clearly requires in any and every potential conflict of interest situation..

 Why did Fowlers and Rodger misrepresent the situation by only casually and partially disclosing it only after we found out about Christensen’s association with this firm our selves late in the negotiations,by chance?

Why did the Selwyn District Council never disclose this situation in any context and Christensen misrepresent the situation by omission to the High Court.

 Why if Fowler states he informed us of this situation between Rodgers and him initially is there no mention of this in the Terms of engagement, which state he, and Paul Rodgers are the solicitors involved. And 75% of the second page of a 2-page document is devoted to the potential Conflict of interest matter concerning the SHANDS ROAD SAWMILL. But NOT A WORD at all mentioned about the association with Christensen.

 How could there be an e mail supposedly written in March of 2004 by me stating full and frank disclosure of the situation was made to us   when it can be shown I did not know this degree and significance of the connection between the lawyers and Christensen until mid 2008.

Every body including the Judges and Government Depts are adamant Christensen stayed completely out of this affair concerning us and his solicitors.WHY  because Christensen and Douglas Marshal, Corporate Services Manager for the SDC say he did. But every body is silent on the disclosure matter and why it wasn’t done even though Fowler wrongly says it was.

I put forward  evidence from the minutes of the 281st Ecan meeting recording Christensen barging into and interrupting this meeting when he  already had been refused a deputation to speak.Complaining about the delay in the consent process for his/SDC Izone Industrial Park. (see below)

My brother and I due to the proximity and vulnerability of our situation in attempting to train horses next to this Industrial park construction  activity where in a position with competent and honest advice, to completely stop that development for a number of years.Yet these Courts emphatically state that this same Jens Christensen stayed completely out of it and had no influence at all on his long term, valuable,closely associated personal solicitors when all concerned engaged in this on a non disclosed basis.

Why do these learned Judges rule so: because Jens Christensen and Douglas Marshal the Selwyn District Council Corporate service manager say he stayed out of it and that he didn’t use this undisclosed connection for Izone advantage.

As I mention had Christensen and Izone payed us in line with what they paid the other neighbours, none of this would have ever happened we would have taken their money moved away and built a new farm and got on with our lives We would have been happy with less than what we would have been legally entitled to under the legally correct potential Industrial value and less than Izone immediately sold 10acres of this farms 46 to Solid Energy for Industrial use.

But to start with, Christensen personally offered us less for our entire farm than what it had cost to build onlythe facilities and shortly after the SDC offer was only 10% more.It should be noted that all the time Christensen and Izone are continuing with the illegal construction preventing us from safely training our horses.We then decided to seek the services of a RMA lawyer Chris Fowler and Paul Rodgers who just happened to be Jens Christensen’s personal lawyer yet all concerned neglected to mention this important matter at anytime. We did not become aware of it until over 5 years later.

For over $50,000 in fees and after constantly(wrongly) advising us that nothing could be done to prevent the harassment being caused by Christensen’s Izone, so the best thing we could do was take the best offer from Christensen/Izone/SDC we could get and try to move away   Fowler and Rodgers from Anthony Harper lawyers in a period of over 1 year managed to increase the amount we were paid by $300,000 from the initial pathetic offer of Christensen and the SDC .But this still was less than the cost to us initially of buying and constructing the facilities on that farm 5 years earlier .  Which minus the SDC own valuation for the house and the basic cost of our facilities   equates to the Christensen Izone alliance paying about $156,000 for 46 acres of land in the heart of this IZONE. And as mentioned 10 acres of this same farm was immediately sold for several million $ to Solid Energy

These Judges praise Fowler and Rodgers for their (so called) sterling  efforts in this matter on our behalf.Why because Christensen and Marshal say so.   

This matter shows how devious and cunning these judges are.The initial $500,000 offer for this farm in its entirety is comparison to nothing we did not even bother to engage with them as it was less that the actual replacement cost of our facilities. It would have made no difference what the SDC’s offer had been we would not have sold that farm at that time as we didn’t want to sell it for anything these that what we could completely replace everything about it plus some % of its potential industrial value which we were legally and fully entitled to. Had we wanted to sell this farm for less than it in real terms cost us .We could have easily negotiating that our selves without the stress and arguments Fowler/Rodgers purposely introduced to wear us down.

What is a valid comparison to what the Selwyn District Council paid us for this farm? Is what they(the SDC) immediately solid less than 25% of it for to Solid Energy.  As well as  full analysis of what all our neighbours were paid by Christensen’s alliance considering, none of these neighbours were being represented by Fowler and Rodgers ,Christensen’s lawyers. This is a similar scenario as Mr Glasson suggests where by the price should be compared to the situation of lawyers representing us without any connect,thus conflict of interest to Christensen.

That is basic and fundamental but again completely denied John and I. 

Minutes of the 281st Ecan Meeting. 

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

The Chairman briefed Council on two requests for deputations that he had refused 

    Selwyn District Council Councillor Jens Christensen (previously refused a deputation 

by the Chairman) was present and interrupted the meeting to voice concerns 

regarding the timing of the consent process relating to the Selwyn District Council 

resource consent application to discharge stormwater to ground from a proposed 

industrial subdivision at Izone Drive, Rolleston. 

Cr Neill advised that the Regulation Hearing Committee (RHC) was in the process of 

hearing this consent application and Cr Neill advised he would meet with Cr 

Christensen following the RHC meeting to be held at 12.30 p.m. during the Council 

meeting lunch break.  The Chairman commented that the wider issue could be 

discussed at a meeting of Environment Canterbury with Selwyn District Council. 

 

Jens Christensen  and Douglas Marshal emphatically state in sworn evidence to the highest New Zealand Courts. That Christensen completely stayed out of the important negotiations concerning Izone and us and he did not use a valuable, long term undisclosed association to the lawyers we inadvertently chose to protect and promote our strategic interests.Yet here is evidence put to the Supreme Court, of the same Jens Christensen barging into and interrupting a meeting he has already been denied a deputation to. Because a delay to his/the SDC Izone Industrial park Ecan consent process.  

Yet these judges are adamant Christensen stayed out of this matter concerning our situation.

Why; because Jens Christensen and Douglas Marshal say so. 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

With respect to being denied access to our horses straight after seizure to have them properly photoed ,appraised and graded by somebody not associated with this SPCA

With respect to being denied a second opinion on the condition of the horses 

 

1)According to the notice given to me it states “you may obtain the opinion of, and have the animals examined by a veterinarian and/farm consultant of your choice at any time.”

2)The article stated in the Christchurch Press Tues March 30th “SPCA inspectors removed 21 malnourished horses from the property in the city’s southwest on Monday” quoting Jeff Sutton “The seized horses were in serious condition”

3)Yet the SPCA constantly denied us, the opportunity of a second opinion to counter these strongly subjective and emotive statements made against us by the SPCA. Even though it is specifically stated we were entitled to this. Obviously this is denying us access to the process of justice to defend ourselves against these claims. 

4)As already mentioned on the day of the operation we requested our Vet(Dave Senior) be present to check the horses. But obviously he was unable to attend at instant notice due to another urgent job. 

5)That same evening I had a long telephone conversation with Jeff Sutton to try and convince him to allow a Vet of our choice to check and photo the horses. This was denied us. With respect to the horses we were fully legally entitled to move. We explained we would take the Vet to check them and take photos plus a report of the condition of the environment. It is important to understand that these horses were no longer in our care or on a property that was anything to do with us. We were paying to have them cared for. The issue of potential neglect of these horses was nothing to do with us or our as the SPCA state ‘history’

6)As I believed that something or someone was poisoning our horses at Halswell. I implored Jeff Sutton to just allow them to stay at the new property in Kirwee, for about a month to monitor their improvement. This along with everything else was refused. Which is completely unreasonable.

 

7)The next morning(Tues 30th) at about 8am the Vet telephoned to ask us what to do. The SPCA had instructed us they were to kill 4 of those horses so they were legally require to allow our vet to check them. But for some unstated reason the SPCA still denied access of a vet to the healthy horses. 

8)Dave Senior instructed me to contact a lawyer, which I did. The lawyer contacted the SPCA on Wednesday 31 and gained access for the vet to inspect and photo the horses. This was arranged for the morning of Thursday 1st April.

9)On the evening of Tuesday 30TH my sister Desiree who is the executor of the estate many of the horses are owned by, met with the SPCA whereby she was given the run around bullied and threatened by these people. 

10)On the morning of Thursday 1st of April as arranged Dave Senior was ready to inspect the horses and again access was denied so again I have to contact the lawyer to reinstate the right of access to check the condition of our horses. Which again was regained at about midday of Thursday April 1st. Again I contact the Vet who states he is busy for the afternoon and will endeavor to inspect them after Easter.

11)It is obvious why the SPCA has stalled delayed and denied access to an independent expert. Due to the fact they have so grossly misrepresented the condition of the vast majority of these horses .So the longer they can deny access adds credence to the claim they and they alone are responsible for the excellent condition of these horses.

12)The SPCA elude to the fact we will take these horses if we find out where they are assuming our vet will inform us. This is complete nonsense as all of the healthy horses have been seized illegally we are confident in securing the return of they by the correct procedure. But we are being denied the basic right of establishing the condition of these horses.

13)We will not be able to catch or transport them under the cover of darkness

14)Also they will be of no use to us unless we can obtain them legitimately as Harness Racing New Zealand will simply deregister them. 

15)Due to the misrepresentation and libelous statements in the Press I wish the Press reporter and photographer access to these horses so this matter can be put right as soon as possible. 

16) On the morning of April 5th we again had the Vet ready to inspect and photo these healthy horses but this was denied and delayed until Thursday 7th. It is my contention that .It is my contention that Thursday will come and again there will be a stalling or delaying tactic.

17) We also request our lawyer and a horse expert is in attendance as well as my sister. as well as a representative from HRNZ. 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Evidence of Jens Christensen’s perjury put to the Supreme Court ,Government Departments and some politicians

Hits: 807

 This is an example of what a complete farce the justice system in this country is.

Jens Christensen (the then)  Chairman of Izone Industrial Park, Rolleston and previous Selwyn district Councillor, in charge of many important portfolios including Employment and Economic Development. Has clearly and emphatically perjured himself in his sworn evidence put to the 3 highest Courts .

Yet not only have these corrupt Courts ignored this perjury when it was challenged and contested in the lower courts  They have in fact ruled in accordance with the false evidence put before them  being true and correct on the basis of Summary judgement.Along with a huge and crippling costs order for the Selwyn district Council against us.

  Full and complete evidence of this perjury and the reliance of it in the lower Court’s ruling, was put before the Supreme Court in Dec 2009 .But as could be expected, totally ignored and discounted by this Court.

 

Christensen conflicting evidence put before the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court

 

Christensen’s evidence to RMA hearing 2002

 

2)…I am chairman of the Council’s Industrial Park Project Team

 

5). In March this year Eldamos Investments Ltd (an investment company owned by The Warehouse) and the Selwyn District Council filed an application for resource consent  to develop a Warehouse distribution center …At the time it was critical that the distribution center be established as quickly as possible.

 

12)I have undertaken discussion and negotiations with the neighbours adjoining the site ,in particular ,Mr Doug and John Williamson.

 

13) I have known the Williamson’s for a period of 18 months

 

19) for most of this year I have been negotiating with Mr Williamson and his brother to purchase the property ……. To date we have not been able to agree on a price.

 

20) This has been due and caused in part by Mr Williamson’s unrealistic expectations. From my experience as a property developer…..Therefore it is completely unrealistic to expect we will pay the same value per hectare for a 45 acre block as commanded by a 2 acre block.

 

This should be compared with Christensen’s sworn evidence to the High Court 2007 and Court of appeal 2008 as well I presume the Supreme Court of New Zealand.2009

 

5)It is  correct that Anthony Harper are my solicitors

 

7) I refute any suggestion that I endeavored to take advantage of my relationship with Anthony Harper. While I was involved in the early stages of discussions with the Williamson’s about their property and the development in the area .I had little to do with the negotiations which ensued once the Williamson’s had made a decision to consider selling their property to the Council……. I largely stayed out of the negotiations.

 

 

 Even at this late stage (2007), by purposely omitting to mention specifically  Chris Fowler and Paul Rodgers were his;Jens Christensen’s personal Solicitors. Instead referring generally only to this large law firm,Anthony Harper. This is misleading and deceptive by omission and highlights there was a problem with situation being entered on a completely undisclosed basis.

At the very least in 2002 we should have been informed that Christensen was involved with the law firm Anthony Harper. This legally should have been done by these lawyers but more importantly the Selwyn District Council but was notdone by anyone in anyway shape or form.

If Christensen and the SDC had not wanted to take advantage of this situation obviously they would have disclosed it, as they are legally required to do in the first place.

 

 Christensen’s own evidence refutes his sworn evidence to the Courts

 “I had little to do with the negotiations which ensued once the Williamson’s had made a decision to consider selling their property”. / (Countered by the evidence Christensen of the actual and truthful situation, put to the RMA hearing 5 years earlier) “for most of this year I have been negotiating with Mr Williamson and his brother to purchase the property ……. To date we have not been able to agree on a price.

 

 How could anything be more false and conflicting than that?

  Douglas Marshal the Selwyn district Council corporate services manager in his sworn evidence states also that Christensen stayed out of these negotiations .May be Christensen and Marshal  just forgot this matter yet they BOTH seem adamant and emphatic, in their evidence of 2007 that he completely stayed out of the matter.Yet all concerned who knew about it failed to inform us of his close and  valuable long-term association with the lawyers who were acting and supposedly negotiating against him.

 

I specifically remember an article in the News Paper, either before these negotiations started or just at the early stages before we became involved with these lawyers . Whereby Douglas Marshal for the Selwyn district Council was commenting on an insurance policy this Local authority  had to cover Christensen’s legal costs. For the charges laid against him concerning conflict of interest in his role as a Councillor and his involvement in Council decisions concerning land rezoning and his own property development enterprises .(As described in Doc 4 Mr Glasson’s RMA report)

 

Obviously Marshal would have been engaging with Rodgers at least, maybe Fowler as well, over this serious matter. As Rodgers was Christensen’s Lawyer and Fowler, Rodgers  assistant .

 

Unfortunately the Newspaper article I speak of did not mention  the name of the Law firm the Selwyn District Council were paying for Christensen’s defense.  Obviously if it had and we had become aware of Christensen’s connection to this law-firm ;Anthony Harper, to start with before we engaged with these lawyers.Then we would have had nothing what so ever to do with them.

 

What this whole matter turns on is why this connection of Christensen to these lawyers representing us in such an important matter  was not disclosed to us in the first instance. Not only by the Law firm involved but more importantly Christensen and Marshal from the Selwyn district Council. Surely Marshall can not  say he was unaware of it. And have such a statement believed. But considering what has been believed and strongly ruled on by these Lawyers (acting for and against us) and Judges so far. Maybe Marshall and the Selwyn District Council can claim they were unaware of the significant connection of Christensen to Fowler and Rodgers and these latently corrupt Judges will believe and rule that to.   

     

Again I state if this; fallacy,fantasy and fiction which these Judges,Government officials and Politicians have used to dismiss our case.And the subsequent lawyers (Dean Russ and Grant Cameron. GCA)  we engaged and paid for with our own money to challenge and rectify the situation, strongly state was even close to the truth.   Why were the parties who had so much to gain from this undisclosed collusion(Christensen,SDC ,Fowler/Rodgers and Anthony Harper Lawyers)not just be open and honest about the situation rather than never ever admitting it first at all then in its entirety.

 

If what they all  claim of Christensen staying out of these negotiations with us, was even close to the truth of the actual situation. Why wasn’t full disclosure of Christensen’s association with Fowler/Rodgers made in a timely manner and our informed consent sought.That is not with standing Christensen’s own evidence of the 2002 RMA hearing which qualifies his 2007.8 and 9 evidence put to the Courts as perjury.This was  put to the Supreme Court,Government Officials and Politicians by me, where HE himself qualifies his intense and lengthy  involvement directly with us over the purchase of our farm which is completely contrary to his and Douglas Marshall’s evidence to the Courts but more importantly contrary to the rulings of these Court’s .Again this evidence of Christensen’s perjury but more importantly the significance and  validity of its contents is completely IGNORED by the powers that be.

  Marshall adds to this litany of deceit and perjury with his evidence corroborating Christensen’s perjury. 

 

As was put to the Supreme Court in evidence, with duplicates of the file covers. Despite all these claims of him staying out of these matters. Christensen’s full contact details including his home phone number were first and foremost on every one (about 5 all told) of Fowler’s and Rodgers files.

 

It is beyond any doubt and just plain not logical on the basis of reasonable doubt Christensen did not do what is claimed(stayed out of these negotiations). Let alone on the balance of probabilities which is only the threshold of proof needed for us to successfully argue in a civil case.In fact it is clearly obvious that the opposite was the case,he was  deeply and intensely personally involved in every facet of these negotiations.

 

But to dismiss this matter on Summary Judgement whereby we only need to show it is arguable that Christensen’s contention and evidence is incorrect, says more about these corrupt crony aligned and dominated, dictator New Zealand Judges than the English language has words to describe. 

      

 Marshal’s evidence

Page 30 para 46)a…In fact, although Councillor Christensen was involved in some initial negotiation with the defendant ,he had little involvement with the important negotiations regarding price and terms of sale.”

 

Douglas Marshal was a member along with Robin Schultz(another client of Fowler/Rodgers and Anthony Harper) and Warren Bell  of the IZONE committee which was causing us all this grief and harassment with the unlawful construction right next to our horse  training tracks .  At the same time negotiating to buy our farm. Marshall would have been privy to everything and to Christensen’s complete and dominant obsessive involvement in these negotiations with us right through out. And as already mentioned the evidence clearly shows Marshal would have been fully aware of Christensen’s close connection and valuable association with Rodgers and subsequently Fowler at the lawfirm of Anthony Harper.Yet he puts this evidence to the High Court Court of Appeal and Supreme Court with out censure.

 

 As can be now seen from doc 121(c). the same Douglas Marshall is now writing glowing testimonials for Chris Fowler and Paul Rodgers of the multitude of work they now do for the Selwyn District Council in particular IZONE. 

 

The later part same document{121(c)} (Illegal Rezoning  of land in Creswick valley Wellington) gives an an example of the correct processes and standard of work required from Fowler, which should have been carried out AGAINSTChristensen and IZONE on our behalf by Fowler and Rodgers.This would have secured our strategic position and given us confidence we could stay on that farm and train our horses in peace and security. This however would have beencompletely toxic to Christensen’s and the Selwyn district Council already publicly stated motive of critical rapid establishment of the Warehouse Distribution Center. As well it would have been counter to Christensen’s and the Selwyn district Council’s expectation, which I feel developed into an obsession, that they could purchase this farm for their Industrial park and do so very cheaply. 

 

 Had Fowler/Rodgers given us similar advice and taken similar action against Christensen’s alliance, as is shown in what Fowler did for these Wellington residents it would have completely stopped the illegal harassment  Consequently Christensen and the SDC with the help of the lawyers supposed to be acting on our behalf, would not have been able to pressurize us into selling our farm. As the harassment thus danger would have been halted immediately   

 

Luckily for these Wellington residents. Obviously Fowler and Rodgers have no connection in the Wellington City Council and are not looking or expecting work from this Council in the future,as was the case with the Selwyn District Council.  

 

As I put to the Law Society several times and the Legal Complaints Review Officer. Just as the subsequent review Lawyers; first the acutely intelligent Dean Russ. Then after he showed absolutely no proactive desire to do anything other than constantly advise us to give up. We moved on to Grant Cameron of GCA.  Grant Cameron the supposed peoples champion (who never stooped talking about his past so-called achievements. This self edifying paid for by our money Cameron was changing us in exorbitantly pumped up fees. ).  I described  Cameron to the Law Society as nothing more than a social climbing buffoon.

 

Both these review layers should have been alive and awake to the file doctoring and email forging of Fowler/Rodgers. They also should have been aware of the correct process and procedure Fowler/Rodgers should have carried out on our behalf More so when a substantial document written by a Resource Management expert highlighting the manipulation and abuse of process by Christensen and the SDC was forwarded to both these review lawyers. Yet there was not one mention of any of this manipulation and abuse in Fowler/Rodgers file this should have been a huge red flag to these subsequent lawyers about the actual motivation of Fowler/Rodgers supposedly acting   on our behalf against this Christensen led Izone alliance.

 

So what these review lawyers did, was not only misrepresent the contents of the report  but failed to forward it or initally its authors name to us. I only came in to possession of it a full 2 years after its completion Due to a fortuitous telephone conversation with its author

 

We were constantly being bombarded with both written and oral advice from Fowler/Rodgers that the SDC could not be successfully challenged and if we attempted to do so would be financial suicide. So the advice always ended, “the best thing we could do is take the best offer we can get from them and try and move away”.

 

For more than 2 years we resisted this situation but when given a free hand as they were  by Fowler/Rodger. Christensen and the SDC were very adept at placing gratuitous pressure and harassment on us in order for us to conform with Christensen’s already publicly stated biased motives.The Chinese have a good saying to describe this situation it is “Death by 1000 cuts”.  

 

Then what these expensive review lawyers(Dean Russ and Grant Cameron) did as well as ignoring and misrepresenting the RMA report and it theme of content. But used matters in isolation out of correct context, justifying Fowler/Rodgers, Christensen and the SDC’s total lack of responsibility for any culpability thus challenge in this whole affair.

 

Now with the value of hindsight and the huge amount of research I have done on this RMA process.I can clearly see Fowlers/Rodgers advice which remained in the file was specially contrived and tailored to create the self serving affect of absolving themselves of any future scrutiny thus culpability.

 

Instead of actively questioning and investigating the actions and advice of Fowler/Rodgers. Russ and Cameron  supposed to representing our interests , used this fantasy as legitimate  against us 

 

The woman from Wellington in her glowing praise of Fowler’s work to solve their circumstances, which were similar to our own. Describes their predicament, which was much less perilous than ours, concerning the illegal rezoning RMA situation.As ‘alien and frightening’ that is a very apt description of  many RMA situations  

 

It is almost impossible even for a well educated yet inexperienced lay person  to comprehend or understand this RMA process. Combined with the stress and intimidation of dealing with these bully, conniving and domineering Councils at the same time. This was exasperated in our case with the developer being the Council. The body empowered to stop any any manipulation and abuse of process and protect the small neighboring land holders .

 

 Even in a normal situation whereby the Council is only the Consent Holder  the fate of the client is entirely in the RMA lawyers hands.In our case where the Council was the consent holder and developer this was a huge conflict of interest. Meaning the role of the RMA lawyers we chose to protect and promote our interests was crucial that is why the Christensen/SDC never at anytime disclosed the close personal relationship of Christensen to Fowler/Rodgers.

 

As this association was crucial to Christensen’s already publicly stated biased motives of critic rapid establishment of the Warehouse Distribution Center and purchasing our farm, the largest neighboring property and potentially the most significant objector to his Izone Industrial park.For the cheapest possible price.  

 

 What Fowler/Rodgers, Christensen,SDC, Russ,Cameron,these Valuers and the Judges did to us was like “taking candy from a baby”.

 

I will devote my life to attempt it never ever happens to anybody else again           

 

The  High Court Judge actually embellishes Marshal’s evidence, substituting  negotiations  with discussions. As Christensen has described in his Affidavit, in clear contrast   to his earlier evidence

 

.HC9] Discussions were initiated between the parties for the purchase of the Williamson’s land . Some of the initial discussions involved Mr Christensen  an officer for the plaintiff. The clear evidence is that the bulk of negotiations involved Connell Wagner a consultant for the plaintiff.”

 

This is purely incorrect and in part illustrates the reason for the intense contempt I have developed for this Judicial process and all connected with it. The basis for this ruling was the Judges sole reliance on the submissions of the Selwyn District Council as well Christensen’s and Marshal’s evidence. While at the same time these Courts completely discounted my contradicting evidence of Christensen’s dominance and importance in these negotiations.

 

There is no possible way Christensen’s role in this affair can be discounted or misrepresented as  merely “an officer of the plaintiff”. He was the instigator,chairman and main negotiator of this project .But most importantly because of the long term and intense nature of the negotiations which had only involved him this became personal between Christensen and ourselves. It is fair to describe the association becoming extremely acrimonious well before we engaged these lawyers   

 

Initially for more than 18 months the only person we were negotiating with over this matter was Christensen.(Validation of this was put to the Supreme Court in the form of Christensen’s own incontestable public statements,which like everything where completely ignored.)  

 

This initial association with us and Christensen  would have involved over 30 visits by him alone to our farm.He was constantly solicitoring us for  not only a price we would accept for this farm but also questioning us and observing the running of our business and functioning of our  horse training operation.This culminated in Christensen personally presenting 2 offers to us for our farm.

 

 Right throughout  these  negotiations from beginning to end,Christensen was in charge of every part.  As the evidence I put to all these Courts clearly shows.

 

There is also no reason stated why  Branthwaite from  Connell Wagner took over as a go between  when we we still completely unaware of any connection between Christensen and the lawfirm Anthony Harper  let alone  Fowler/Rodgers. Branthwaite was involved in this matter when Christensen and him first visited our farm yet it was not until we unwittingly engaged Christensen’s personal lawyers did he have any communication with us directly. 

 

With the benefit of hindsight clearly Branthwaite role as go between was staged for the very reason these courts have ruled. To create the charade  that Christensen was not in charge and personally involved. 

No way does this absolve the SDC/Christensen/Fowler/Rodgers for not legally and correctly informing us of the connection and the potential conflict of interest.

 

With respect to the Courts incorrect interpretations of this.From our perspective the only reason Brantwaite from Connell Wagner (who had close and significant links to Christensen so could not be deemed independent) became involved, was the toxic and bitter animosity, which had developed between Christensen and ourselves over such a long period of time. Culminating with the insulting offers he personally put to us. It certainly had nothing to do with the perception these corrupt New Zealand Courts are trying create. Of enabling Fowler/Rodgers to preform an aggressive and robust adversary negotiating mentality against Christensen.

 

Everything had to be agreed by Christensen and nothing could go forward till his agreement was given.Christensen was constantly domineering and interrupting, always was he complaining about any price above his own initial offer to us of $450,000 (this pathetic insulting offer was less than the cost of the facilities we had constructed on this farm and these corrupt Courts use the next offer of $500,000 as validation of what a great job Fowler/Rodgers did in getting it increased to the eventual sale price of $800,000 even when the SDC straight away sold 10 of the 46 acres of this same farm to Solid Energy for several $million profit.)  

 

.Christensen strongly vetoed any conditions which in anyway were not extremely harsh on us. Christensen as Chairman of this Izone alliance was constantly changing the goal post to our detriment. This is abundantly obvious by the written correspondence

 

  He could constantly do this as he knew the toll the over 1 year of illegal construction next to our training facilities were taking on us.As well as, because the type of advice and lack of suitable remedies put forward by these lawyers he had a valuable personal association with, Christensen and the Selwyn District Council had absolutely no reason to act within or negotiate according to the law and plenty of motivation not to .  Clear evidence of all these matter was put to all these Courts but again completely ignored.

 

The evidence clearly shows Christensen’s direct and dominant involvement.Document 121(b).  shows and confirms this as opposed to all the courts rulings he stayed out of it.

 

It is no coincidence and the evidence also shows the more we pleaded with these lawyers Fowler/Rodgers to do something to stop this illegal construction the more it increases and intensified next to us.It would not take a genius to figure out how Christensen and the SDC became aware of the extreme toll this danger and harassment was having on us. 

 

Christensen was using this as leverage to pressurise us into selling this farm undervalued. Analysis of the written letters of advice from Fowler/Rodgers,especially those omitted from the file ,which I latter found. Clearly shows the theme and mantra of the advice we received from Fowler and Rodgers was ;”considering we could do nothing to stop this danger and it was likely to increase and intensify in the future the prudent thing  was to  take the best offer we could from Christensen/SDC and try and move away”.This was delinquent and purposely misleading advice.

 

This conflict of interest,  so quickly brushed of by the subsequent review lawyers ,the Law Society and New Zealand’s 3 Highest Courts is also crucial.  

 

The High Court Judgement despite the screeds of evidence and authorities I put to it.Dismisses any contention of conflict of interest due to the wrongassumption and ruling Christensen was not involved in the negotiations.Christensen’s own 2002 RMA evidence refutes this and it is still ignored with out mention by the Supreme Court when put to it. 

 

The Court of Appeal Judge Glazebrook was adamant to the point of  a complete  loss of decorum in a heated verbal argument with another Judge  that it was not a conflict of interest. Yet in her Judgement, Glazebrook states the Court will not decide one way or other  on the conflict issue but it didn’t matter as according to this Judge we gave a waiver.This again is pure nonsense as I later describe.

 

The Law Society is adamant it is not a conflict of interest because these lawyers  represented Christensen in his personal and business context and against him as the Chairman of the Izone. Thus as this Lawfirm had never and did not act for Izone or the SDC according to this law society  it is not a conflict of interest.

 

The Law Society goes on to state that as there is no conflict of interest  there is no need for any disclosure .

 

Again as I latter demonstrate with the Legal Practitioners  Act this premise and subsequent conclusion is clearly wrong.It is also highly contentious that Fowler and Rodgers had not represented Christensen/SDC as his role as a Councillor, as I have mentioned the charges brought against him by the Auditor Generals Office.As the SDC are responsible for the behaviour and actions of their officers and the SDC  would have paid the retainer .It is highly debatable Fowler and Rodgers did not in fact already act for the SDC .

 

It is beyond doubt the SDC  were certainly  potential clients of Fowler/Rodgers which has come to fruition in a huge way.

 

Cameron adopted almost exactly the same approach as the Law Society. His advice being to give up on all counts.Cameron actually became quite aggressive and proactive on pushing this theme for the SDC and Fowler/Rodgers against us.

 

 

Russ was not so sure that we did not have a claim against Anthony Harper Lawyers (Fowler/Rodgers) but was adamant that we had no claim at all against the SDC over this issue.

Because of its obligations under the Local Government Act the SDC had exactly the same obligations,liability and culpability in this conflict of interest matters as these Lawyers Fowler/Rodgers any competent lawyer should have known this.

 

Russ also concludes that although  we did have a claim against the lawyers Fowler/Rodgers it would be much to hard so his advice was along the lines of all his other advice .That was to give up and beg for mercy.

 

It is interesting to compare these different positions, ideas and rulings with what the law actually says

Legal Practitioners Act

1.01 The relationship between practitioner and client is one of confidence and trust ,which must never be abused .

comment

 1)The professional judgement of a practitioner should at all times be exercised within the bounds of the law solely for the benefit of the client and free from compromising influences and loyalties

 

1.03 A practitioner must not act or continue to act for any person where there is a conflict of interest between the practitioner on the one hand ,and an existing or prospective client on the other hand

         

comment

1) This rule is based on the premise that a person who occupies a position of trust must not permit his or her personal interests to conflict to conflict with the interests of those whom it is that persons duty to protect.

 

2) The rule is intended to protect the client in situations where the interest or position of the practitioner would or could make the practitioner’s professional judgement less responsive to the interests of the client.

 

3)The existence of a personal interest of a practitioner should be disclosed to the client or prospective client irrespective of a lack of conflict .The practitioner should consider carefully whether a personal interest is directly or indirectly in conflict with the interests of the client ,and refuse to act if there is any such direct and indirect conflict

 

5) It is impossible to detail all the situations ,which arise where a practitioner should not act or where independent representation must necessarily be obtained under the rule  

 

7)In the context of this rule the word client must be given an extended meaning It will for example ordinarily include any company ,trust or other body in which the client has a significant interest or exercises a material measure of control.” 

 

These regulations drafted by Parliament obviously should be the end of the matter .Clearly Fowler/Rodgers had a longstanding and valuable personal association with both Christensen at least and possibly the SDC which would have huge implications and ramifications in acting for us against them.There can be in no doubt all concerned were in violation by entering into these negotiations and more so in a completely undisclosed manner.

 

This situation concerning the actual relationship to Christensen  is completely different from what Fowler told us after we ourselves became aware of Christensen’s involvement with Anthony Harper late in the proceedings.I quote Fowler “Jens Christensen is just a small conveyancing  client who occasionally deals with the conveyancing department of our firm” 

 

We did not become aware of Christensen’s close personal association with Fowler/Rodgers  or the involvement they had with the SDC until mid 2008 when we finally received Mr Glasson’s report .

 

As I later mention the Court of Appeal Judge Glazebrook  states this matter of Conflict of interest is irrelevant due to her ruling we supposedly gave a waiver to it How we can be deemed to give a waiver to something we legally should have be informed of in 2002 that we did find out about until 2008 is way beyond me. Maybe this Judge can explain this phenomena no doubt it is some kind of extra terrestrial,supernatural, subconscious waiver she presumes we gave.  

 

But the most important comment of these regulations is comment 7)  concerning the wider context of the definition of client.Obviously by his ownevidence put to these courts Christensen has a significant interest and exercised a material measure of control as chairman and chief negotiator for this Izone. Thus Fowler/Rodgers representing us against Izone can not be anything other than a conflict of interest.

 

So that should be the end of the matter.This is also the opinion of the RMA expert Peter Glasson,(Doc 4) familiar with the situation and the individuals involved 

 

Peter Glasson replies to Russ 14th July 9.27 am

 

 

 

     Hi Dean

 

                  The valuation and conflict of interest seems to be the crux of the issue. Given Christensen’s involvement I just cant see how they can argue that there is no conflict of interest. The valuation process and values needs closer attention.

 

I am out again to another meeting –are you swinging by this afternoon after work to get the files

 

Peter

 

 

 

So what the Law society and Courts did, was just ignore this guideline and expert evidence in favour of their more crony convenient definition of client which they happened to dream up especially for our situation.

 

After John and I have been through all this I really wonder why this country bothers with the institution of Parliament When these Judges pay so little heed to it or the laws it drafts .What we should do is just scrap Parliament and let these unaccountable corrupt dictator Lawyer Judges  completely control this place and the money that is saved can be given to other lawyers or these Judge’s pet Maori elite.          

     

 

As I have already shown and put to these Courts. This danger and harassment could,by a competent, honest and right acting practitioner, have been stopped very quickly,cheaply and easily.      

 

Obviously at the time we were asking(pleading with) these lawyers to do something to stop this danger and harassment of the as it was illegal construction.  We had no idea of any connection they had to Christensen what so ever. 

 

 While Christensen had such a dominant and overbearing presence in this Izone Park and these negotiations with us. As well as the personal acrimony which had developed over such a long period of contact(over 2 years, by Christensen’s own account) between us. With such a valuable long-term association, connected personally to these same lawyers, that could be anticipated to escalate in the future (and infact did enormously) As Mr Glasson emphatically states in his email(Resource management report Doc 4) . It was impossible for there to be anything other than a conflict of interest situation with Fowler/Rodgers representing us against this Izone park  Christensen  lead alliance and the SDC, in anyway shape or form..

 

Christensen in his evidence to the Courts 2007,2008 and 2009.  

11]…”I never used information against the Williamson’s, which I gained from visiting their farm. In fact, I am not sure I have ever collected any information from those visits, which was of any direct relevance to the negotiations for the sale and purchase of the property”/

 

(Christensen’s evidence to the RMA hearing 2002)

it is my understanding that they operate a business importing trucks and machinery as well as a racehorse breeding and training operation. The import business involves the repairing of vehicles as well as cutting down of some trucks which are too big for New Zealand roads the aerial photos show the stable, workshop and spray painting booth.”  

 

Christensen’s Evidence to the Courts 2007,2008&2009.)

The Williamson’s property would have been only one of a number of properties that were photographed on the day, for the purpose of identifying property boundaries and the like”

 

As with all the other evidence I put to the Supreme Court, which was ignored I clearly showed that the blown up helicopter photo’s Christensen mentions and alludes to of our farm, plastered all over the RMA hearing wall had absolutely nothing to do with property boundaries, of this there can be no dispute.

 

In these many(around 30) unannounced and uninvited visits to our farm Christensen was constantly quizzing us on the running’s and makeup of our business. With the benefit of hindsight and his experience and reputation as a policeman and private investigator this was clearly to be used against us and our situation involving these  RMA negotiations and the  negotiations concerning our farm 

 

 

 

But not only can the SDC put false and contradicting evidence before the Courts with out the legal sanction of perjury invoked, they can be successful on the basis of summary judgement while doing it as well as garnering a full (indemnity) cost order against us. 

 

Again from the benefit of hindsight and what I know to be the case These Courts,Government departments,lawyers and politicians I have put this evidence to, can only be either incredibly stupid or patently corrupt to not only accept this fantasy put to them by Jens Christensen , Douglas Marshall and the Selwyn district Council,  but actually repeat it verbatim as fact and ruling.

 

If this is common and acceptable in dispute and grievance  resolution in New Zealand. There is no democratic process for some people.As it appears the Judicial system is operated and controlled by a bunch of unaccountable, deviously corrupt, hypocritical dictators who masquerade as upholders of what is right and just. While supposedly promoting our societies historic cultural values yet all the time taking and pursuing  the crony line.

 

I would not be so angry if there was not clear cut protocols and process backed up by statutes to stop and prevent what happened to John and I But because there is strict regulations to prevent this behaviour, what these Judges do, is misrepresent and misconstrue the situation to suit, not what is right or true, but their own corrupt Oldboy Network aligned motives.

 

A good example of this is as I have already mentioned the Court of Appeal Judge Glazebrook stating in her judgement that we gave a waiver to Fowler and Rodgers representing us against Christensen in his role as chairman and chief negotiator  of the Izone industrial park.

 

For a start as already mentioned how can we give a waiver to something we initially had no conception existed(Christensen’s association with these lawyers or lawfirm). Then deep into the negotiations after we ourselves by chance became aware of a connection between the lawfirm Anthony Harper and Christensen. It was still not disclosed by Christensen or SDC and only partially disclosed and misrepresented by Fowler and Rodgers.

 

But most importantly, Parliament has decreed in the Legal Practitioners Actthe correct protocols and procedures that must be followed  in such a situation of potential conflict of interest.The evidence again put to all the Courts clearly and unequivocally shows, not a single one of these things both Fowler/Rodgers and the SDC were required to do was done.

 

As well I put to the Supreme Court. We never agreed at any time in anyway to this situation. Had we been required to give our informed consent(even to only the misrepresented partial disclosure of Christensen’s connection to the Lawfirm)  which is one of the statutory protocols I mention above.  We wouldnot have under any circumstances.A good description of the situation we inadvertently found ourselves in. Due to these lawyers and the SDC’s abuse of process and collusion was “between a rock and a hardplace” 

 

How by any stretch of the imagination can that  be defined as a waiver  as has this Court of appeal is completely beyond me .

 

Yet it appears on most matters concerning this whole affair. What these  corrupt dictator judges want to think is more important than what are the actual facts and what has been decreed by Parliament. 

 

Legal Practitioners Act.

1.07Rule

1.In the event of a conflict or likely conflict of interest among clients ,a practitioner shall forthwith take the following steps

i)advise all clients involved of the areas of conflict or potential conflict.

ii)advise the client involved they should take independent advice and arrange such advice if required 

iii)decline to act further for any party in the matter where so acting would or would be likely to disadvantage the clients involved .

 

It is interesting that when I  recontacted Fowler about 1 month (September 2003) after settlement expressing my displeasure and extreme disappointment at not only the process but also the result.

 

 Geoff Brodie the senior partner of Anthony Harper became involved he tried to institute this protocol and obtain our informed consent  of the matter with Christensen.

 

I replied to Brodie, under no circumstances would we agree that his firm representing us against the Christensen/Izone alliance was not a conflict of interest. And were only prepared to continue under suffrage that an acceptable outcome could be achieved.

 

It is interesting that even at this time the extent of the personal connection between Rodgers/Fowler and Christensen was never disclosed  As well I questioned Brodie why this procedure was not instituted as soon as we contacted Fowler at the lawfirm of Anthony Harper. 

 

On the former Brodie refused to continue any representation on the basis we would not give our informed consent to it not being a conflict of interest and on the later he had no answer  But according to the Law society this disclosure process was never needed anyway so why then was Brodie(The president of the Law society at the time) so adamant it needed to be completed.

 

Also this highlights another matter extremely pertinent in demonstrating what an absolute ‘freak show’  New Zealand’s Justice system has become in some situations.

 

These Courts are adamant we did not raise any concerning about this process until more than 2 years after settlement. This is despite full written correspondence of the communication between Fowler/Anthony Harper and us documenting this very subject starting in September 2003,(1 month after settlement) put to these Courts and completely ignored and misrepresented.

 

I really have no idea how I am supposed to address this if Politicians  and Government officials  continue to refuse to become involved in this matter and the media continues to ignore me. 

 

What everybody seems to forget is it was  John’s and my choice and our choice alone if we wished to have Fowler/Rodgers representing us in this most important matter against Christensen’s Izone. When these lawyers had such a long term valuable and close personal association with the very same Jen’s Christensen.

 

This Choice was taken away from us by these lawyers and this Local Government violating two basic and fundamental principles of or legal system;1) Legal representation without fear or favour

           2)Full and complete disclosure  of not only any conflicting or compromising matters that could affect the ability to act only in the best interests of the principle client.But also any perceived matter that could in any way touch on or influence these basic principles.

 

 That choice could only we qualified by when we were fully informed of the personal association between Christensen and these lawyers.This should have been put to us in Sept of 2002. Instead we were told nothing of any kind of association what so ever of Christensen to this law firm Anthony Harper until late in the proceedings we came aware of an association of Christensen and the lawfirm only. Then Fowler made a vague misrepresented partial verbal disclosure and there is absolutely no evidence of any kind when this was made.

 

As I have pointed out many times. We did not actually become aware of any let alone the extent of the relationship between Fowler/Rodgers and Christensen  until August 2008 nearly 6 years after it legally should have been fully disclosed to us. Not only by these lawyers but most importantly by the Selwyn District Council.  And still the Courts of this country are adamant we gave a waiver to this situation of the valuable personal relationship of Fowler/Rodgers with Christensen.

 

As I pointed out to Lawyer Cameron. Had I had any inkling of any association between Christensen and this Lawfirm when I first contacted them. Let alone a valuable personal connection to the individual lawyers. I would not have just walked away from this lawfirm ,I would have run for my life. 

 

Despite this statement Lawyer Cameron is adamant that Fowler made full disclosure of this matter as well as the potential for conflict of interest  before we officially engaged Fowler/Rodgers from Anthony Harper. 

 

The problem there for all concerned apart from this being totally incorrect.Is the Supreme Court in another case ruled that onus of proof of disclosure is on the agent.Obviously as there was no disclosure of any kind  even partial disclosure at this time.

 

It was not until sometime later, deep into the negotiations. After we ourselves became aware of a connection of Christensen to this Lawfirm

and had confided this information to a person we now believe was feeding Christensen vital confidential information about our situation. Did Fowler then make the partial misrepresented disclosure of Christensen’s connection to their firm.

 

It was not until we received the contents of Mr Glasson’s report in mid 2008 did we become aware of the actual true and correct situation.That is almost 6 years after I first contacted Fowler on the basis of him representing us against this Christensen led alliance.

 

Sometime in the future when finally Cameron, these other Lawyers and the SDC are held accountable for this gross negligence, collusion and conspiracy to defraud us of the potential Industrial value of our farm.

 

Grant Cameron of GCA will have sever difficulty in proving his strong and aggressive assertion that we were fully and completely informed of the connection between Christensen and Fowler/Rodgers at the outset of these negotiations.

 

The reason I know it will be difficult. As obviously we know this didn’t happen and can prove it on the basis of logical deduction which would equate to more than the balance of probabilities.      

   

As for Commercial lawyers,without a doubt their is no profession I despise more. The two review lawyers we enlisted and paid for with our own money; Dean Russ and Grant Cameron of GCA had all this evidence and not only didn’t they inform of these matters they actually misrepresented them.

 

Russ removed him self from the matter appointing his inexperienced assistant and Cameron to the point of yelling at me constantly because I would not agree with his mantra of giving up.  With Cameron GCA also  hydraulicing his initial estimate by almost double without informing us of the blow out thus gouging   us financially at the same time.

 

It is interesting in his 2002 evidence to the RMA hearing Christensen speaks of my(Doug Williamson) supposed ‘unrealistic expectations’ in obtaining a price for our farm we never ever had any intention to sell until he himself initiated and instituted the illegal harassment, making it impossible to safely train our horses.Combined with the advice of Fowler and Rodgers that nothing could be done to stop this situation and it was likely to escalate in the future.

 

We were never ever a willing seller of this farm and only  reluctantly agreed to enter these negotiations on the basis of the conditions which were initially stipulated and agreed .Which again the evidence clearly showed and was put to the Courts, Christensen and the Selwyn district Council were constantly changing to our detriment

 

These lawyers supposed to be acting in our interests not only didn’t object to or prevent this situation( SDC/Christensen goal post changing) arising but actually endorsed this on behalf of Christensen and the SDC against us.

 

The truth of the matter is we would have been extremely happy with a portionof the legally correct potential industrial value of that farm.Just to move away from all this grief Christensen,Izone, Selwyn district Council et al. That does not make us a willing seller.

 

Realistically it is completely untenable to have horses training tracks next to an Industrial park. But when we moved there the land beside our tracks was rural with no future possibility of becoming an Industrial Park.

 

Christensen and SDC should not have been able to just come in and destroy our lives on the basis of some obsession Christensen had to obtain our farm for the cheapest possible price .Had be been paid a fair price in accordance with most all of our neighbour’s much less significant properties It would have been of no consequence to the SDC in the total amount of profit this Local government has already and will in future profit from that farm which was our dream.   

 

 This amount that would have enabled us to move away and get on with our life and would have been substantially less than the price this Christensen led Izone alliance immediately received for but, 10 of the 46 acres   of that same farm  sold to Solid Energy as Industrial land.

 

When all(Christensen,Izone,SDC but most importantly the lawyers supposedly representing us; Fowler and Rodgers) were adamant that they would not be doing this(rezoning it Industrial). 

 

I must admit being born and raised in this country I had many expectations that have been ruefully cut down since 2002:

 

That Local Authorities would act with honesty and integrity in accordance with the law.

 

That lawyers were honorable and honest and Judges would use their abundant intellect and experience to seek out and rule on the truth

 

That politicians would act with the courage of their convictions and on what was right.

 

But most of all I expected in New Zealand that all people would be treated equably,justly and fairly before the law. And when anybody, no matter who, committed an act so fundamentally damaging to the Judicial process as blatant perjury with unequivocal evidence of this produced. As was put to the Supreme Court and Politicians in this case.They would be duly punished and the matter be rejudged on the basis true and correct circumstances.

 

Obviously like all the other expectations I have developed growing up in this country for a politically unconnected New Zealander of  European heritage.These expectations are (obviously) unrealistic.    

 

It is interesting to note that it was described as “cowardly acquiescence” the situation which resulted in the other European powers, notably Britain and France, doing nothing to prevent the rise of Nazi Germany from 1933 till finally acting  in 1939.

 

From my experience with this wholly corrupt and crony Oldboy Network aligned Judicial system in New Zealand. Which through my research I have noted the number of honest hardworking people(all of them of  European descent like John and I) , these patently wrong, crony dominated and subverted institutions of New Zealand Governance have destroyed in similar situations to our own. Cowardly acquiescence is a good way to describe the politicians I have engaged with on this matter, so far.

 

Maybe if any contemporary  parliamentary  politicians had but a fraction of the courage of the people(men and woman) who suffered so this form of Government( Parliamentary democracy with universal suffrage)  could be instituted and preserved eventually we would be all better off as a society that excepting the privileged minority elite and the real controllers of this country; the Oldboys Network club. These groups would be treated equally like everybody else without the trapping of privilege they now experience at the expense of everybody else

 

Yet these same Judges who consummated the theft of our farm, we had bought, built and paid for ourselves, decided that the Maori elite should be able to claim the vast resources of the foreshore and seabed. So in fairness to Helen Clarke(a person I have a deep disliking for) her Government changed the law to completely exclude even the possibility of this. Then along comes ‘Johnny the moneycharger’ (a person who is not much ahead of Clarke in my estimation) What’s the money changer do, what else. Makes a deal with the disaffected Labour party Maori representing this minority elite’s greed, so they can get what used to be the nation’s ocean resources by stealth and ‘Johnny the moneychanger’ can become ‘King John’.

 

Now the elite Maori have become to like what they got from the corrupt Judges facilitation and Johnny’s deal. So now they want more, they want the water, the life blood of any society. Bear in mind that in no place in western civilization going back even to and including the Romans has water ever been owned or controlled privately outside the public domain .But this time there is no positive net gain deal in it for the ‘money changer’ as it will alienate more of his own supporters (National) than the Maori’ party’s support will garner. So now King John says no,no,no.

 

So what the elite Maori say is,  “by the way we want the wind to. But most importantly if we(the special people with some special name starts with T, I think) don’t get this, we will GO TO COURT”. With the inference being that these corrupt Judges facilitated the means for these people to claim  the foreshore and seabed and by portion attain the vast resources of this area, no doubt these Judges will do the same for the wind and the water.

 

Not only have the successive New Zealand Governments gifted billions of $ worth of the nations assets to these privileged tribal elite. It appears every year the Government sets aside millions of $ for legal costs for claims similar to this. This obviously has the legal fraternity involved rubbing their hands with glee.Thinking of the multitudes of new German cars,Italian suits, Swiss watches and Hawaiian holiday homes they can purchase from the proceeds of these taxpayer funded claims.

 

This is an interesting concept.Rich lawyers getting richer by taxpayer funded claims on the nation’s assets and resources. To take from the taxpayer the value of these resources and place them in the hands of already rich(taxpayer funded and founded) Maori elite. That’s  a new take of Marx’s redistribution  of a societies wealth “From each according to his ability to each according to his need.” Instead in New Zealand  we have, from each according to his/her race or heritage and to each according to his  (part)race, heritage, tribe or crony connection . In this case the ‘froms‘ are vast majority of European and other non Maori tax payers  and the ‘to’s’ are exclusively the Maori tribal elite. This is already backed up by the fact this to’s  group already own 52% of  New Zealand’s fishing quota and the vast majority of Forestry plus huge amounts of the most valuable commercial land, all of this gifted by one way or another in so called treaty settlements. I would like to know apart from the value and potential of this, the exact Government legal aid which has contributed to this small group of Maori elite becoming so endowed with such valuable, important and strategic assets.I would also be interested to know the details on how these  majority quota owners actually manage this abundant ‘cash cow’ and how many Maori people are actually out in the sea risking their lives catching this fish.As opposed to lucratively leasing it  to operations akin to Asian slave labour.Yet because Maori are the benefactors of this slave labour,not a word is said.  

 

Usually in our western  society, normal law abiding  (not accounting for Royal families or hereditary)   people or groups become so wealthy by a combination of work ethic, extraordinary organisational skills/or unique creativity and ability. But it seems in New Zealand we have a new concept that of(part) racial privilege and their associated cronies (lawyers)

 

All the time these Maori use the specter of the contrast of poverty in the neighborhoods where the vast majority of the urban Maori population live. To the exclusive urban areas where most of the affluent Europeans and most all Judges and lawyers live. As well we are constantly berated and bombarded with the horrific crime, education,health and youth unemployment statistics of Maori.This being as a rationale why the tribal elite should be gifted more of the nations assets.

 

I have no problem with the government of this country helping out underprivileged and disadvantaged but the opposite is happening in this scam.

 

The more the urban Maori exhibit these symptoms of poverty the more the activitists and tribal elite feel justified in their exorbitant claims.

 

Sooner or latter somebody has to take ownership of the problem and there needs to be some accountability for the huge amount of resources being diverted from the nation as a whole.

     

All I can say is considering what this tribal elite have received already and still the statistics are so bad and getting worse. Unless there is a discovery of oil to the magnitude of Saudi Arabia in New Zealand. Nothing is ever going to change, except the country will be well and truly broke    

     

     

Thanks to the devious Local Government, corrupt Judges and gutless   central Government politicians John and I can not not only not continue  to  own our farm we can’t even own our late parents house Which we had to heavily mortgage to  fund this fight. Then every lawyer we engage and fund from this mortgage, cheats and deceives us in favour of the same Government and dishonest lawyers that have stolen our farm.

 

In the mean time John and I work 7 days a week  to pay this mortgage         

  

The country  is still waiting for a response from King John with respect to the ownership of the water. I’d say he and his  bean counters are doing the numbers. Can he win the next election with out the Maori party or not, will be the rationale behind his reaction.As opposed to Clarke who did the right thing and lost the election as a consequence of those Maori special MP’s (which shouldn’t even exist in the MMP system) spitting the dummy big time and diametrically shifting political alliance.    . Because even after made King, money changers never cease to be money changers as I am sure is still the case with this one.

 

Please compare the analogy of cowardly acquiescence with the rise of Nazi power and expectations after each request was granted then not forcefully refused.To the role,expectations and reaction of Maori,Judges and Politicians in this country. 

 

These Judges in this country consummate the theft of our farm on the basis of lies, illegal abuse  and harassment and even after evidence of perjury which formed an integral part of the lower Courts ruling  is put to the Supreme Court.This Court refuses to even allow our appeal to be heard.

 

Yet this same Court facilitates for a small minority of this countries population to claim and place tenure on something(the Foreshore and seabed) which belonged to the nation.

 

But what would John Key(whose Government gave away the rights to this resource)  or these Judges care. Them,their crony elite and their families will never have to worry about the failing Public health system ,the cuts to the education sector, as they would be patrons of the private system. Nor would these people who gave these resources away ever be  working for a normal hourly rate and paying tax to repay the borrowing which the wealth of these resources could substitute.

 

The beneficiaries of the proceeds of these natural resources that the corrupt Judges and Johnny the monneychanger gifted to the Maori elite. Not only don’t have to worry about paying legal fees they  don’t have to worry about paying tax either. As they are Charitable trusts with the proceeds of the charity going to themselves.

 

But what this Government does  in alliance with a no good, envelope pushing property-developing/Councillor(Jens Christensen) is steal our farm and life’s work

 

Then SDC/Christensen immediately rezone and  resell less than 25% of it for multi million $ profit. When it was specifically stated in writing that we could not be paid any potential Industrial value because the Selwyn District Council were adamant they were not going to do this.

 

All the time Christensen’s Izone alliance is harassing us and preventing us from safely training our horses with their illegal construction next to our training facilities.Even though it was established and eventually admitted in writing in an ambiguous way  by the Selwyn District Council that this construction next to us was unlawful     The only advice we get from these lawyers is “nothing can be done to stop this and as it is likely to escalate and intensify in the future“. These same lawyers(Fowler/Rodgers) suggested the only thing we can do “is take the best offer from the SDC  and try to move away”.     

 

 

And the subsequent lawyers (Russ and Cameron) we engage and paid for with our own money, to challenge this situation,  cheat us over and over.Then when I embark on mission impossible, of representing ourselves. The Judges,apart from misrepresenting and misconstruing the facts and situation. Denigrate,belittle, insult and  punish us more for standing up to it.

 

But worst of all, Politicians who should know better sit on their hands and do nothing and in one case David Carter MP in the electorate I have lived all my life, will not even meet or engage with me at all.

 

Christensen/SDC and Fowler/Rodgers from Anthony Harper lawyers were a law onto themselves the public law of this country was completely disregarded

 

Not only was the deliberate and gross abuse ignored by; these Judges I appeared before, the politicians and Government Officials I lobbied to.But the situation and facts were deceitfully misrepresented, creating thefantasy Christensen/SDC had actually conformed to the law and Fowler/Rodgers were strong and aggressively robust advocates for our cause. 

 

These Politicians,Government Officials and Lawyer Judges had absolutely no concern at all for fact or fairness nor for that matter the rule of law.                         

      

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

RMA report of Senior planner and RMA consultant Peter Glasson highlighting Selwyn District Council manipulation and abuse of process and conflict of interest matter by Lawyers Chrish Fowler and paul Rodgers of Anthony Harper lawyers over thei undisclosed association with Jens Christensen the property developer in charge

This is a vital RMA report commissioned by the first review Lawyer we engaged Dean Russin May 2006.However when Russ got it, obviously the contents did not conform to Russ’s motive.That was for us to completely give up, so he not only did not forward it or a true and correct account of its contents,did not give me the authors full name and actively prevented any engagement with the author.  Russ actually misrepresented the contents  of this report .As did the next lawyer,Grant Cameron of GCA .I did not in fact receive this report nor any idea of its true and correct contents until more than 2 years in mid 2008 after it was written and that was only due to a fortuitous telephone conversation by me with the author.

The email correspondence between Russ and Mr Glasson(which I also did not receive until 2 years later) is vital because it clearly sets out the nature of the conflict of interest of the lawyers acting for us and their close personal association with Christensen. The report goes on to explain this in detail .

Nobody I have complained to about this process seems to be able to render an adequate explanation on why this report, this email correspondence and other vital evidence was not forwarded to me .Cameron,the lawyer responsible for finally forwarding me this information and only doing so after I became belatedly aware of its existence and the potential misrepresentation  First Cameron called it an administrative error then goes on to state the report is wrong so the failure to forward it or a correct version of its contents was and is immaterial.

Russ for his part states he only consulted with Mr Glasson for his own benefit thus I had no right to any access of the correct information in the report. This rationale of Cameron and Russ is reinforced by the ruling of the Law Society who completely agree and rule in accordance with these 2 Lawyers illogical explanations.

This being despite evidence put to the law society of email correspondence between Russ and myself of Russ’s intention to engage with an RMA expert and his indication to me he would be back with more information including cost, a little later.

As well, again the Law Practitioner’s Act specifically states all information concerning the clients affairs must be passed on to the client in a timely manner.

  Along with this report I received documents of Christensen’s RMA evidence of 2002 whereby he specifically states his dominant involvement in not only the Izone Industrial Park but also his lengthy and intense negotiations with me to purchase our farm.Including comments and mention by Christensen of the price we should receive for this farm. And comments on my so called unrealistic expectations. 

This is completely contrary to Christensen’s and the Selwyn District Councils other later(2007)  evidence put to the High Court and Court of Appeal. Being adamant that he( Christensen) completely stayed out of these negotiations concerning the sale and purchase of our farm and specifically stating in this sworn evidence he had nothing to do with the negotiations concerning price .This is so blatantly wrong it is purely unbelievable.  

More importantly this 2002 RMA evidence of Christensen himself is contrary to the rulings of the High Court and Court of Appeal were the Judges have wrongly strongly ruled in accordance with this false 2007 evidence put them by Christensen and the Selwyn District Council   

Really in a normal functioning democracy that(the evidence of Christensen’s and the Selwyn district Council’s perjury and the evidence of his actual involvement as opposed to the fantasy presented and ruled on ) should be the end of it but the Judges in the High Court and Court of appeal maintain (wrongly) the negotiations were carried out on behalf of Izone by Michael Branthwaite   thus absolving Christensen’s dominance this is despite screeds of evidence put to these same Judges of the contrary. Branthwaite was introduced merely as a go between and the evidence clearly shows he is constantly referring back to Christensen and delaying things until Christensen’s approval is gained 

The subsequent lawyers and the law Society are just as adamant that it is not a conflict of interest as they state Fowler/Rodgers were representing Christensen in his personal and business capacity and against him as the chairman of the Izone. They also go onto maintain because it is not a conflict of interest situation there was no need of any disclosure. 

Yet the specific rules drafted by Parliament   these Lawyers are supposed to work under and this Law Society are suppose to enforce specifically state the complete opposite

Rule 1.03 A practitioner must not act or continue to act for any person where there is a conflict of interest between the practitioner on the one hand and an existing or prospective client on the other hand 

Guideline (7):In the context of this rule the word client must be given an extended meaning .It will for example ,ordinarily include any company,trust or other body in which the client has a significant interest or excercises a material measure of control.

 This report of Mr Glasson’s ,the evidence of Christensen’s  dominant involvement in vital decisions,noted antagonism and biased public statements against our position as well as Christensen’s own 2002 RMA evidence establishes beyond any doubt he had a significant interest and exercised more than a material measure of control in the make up and outcome of the negotiations between us and the Izone at this time

 By the written stipulation defining a client, a young child could figure out this is clearly a conflict of interest situation and then the question needs to be asked why there was no disclosure.

As well as every bit of advice we received and every action these lawyers we trusted in such an important and monument matter took and more importantly didn’t take,needs to be critically examined with the fresh light of it being an undisclosed conflict of interest situation.

Until this is done I will not give up on this matter.

It is again significant that all this conflicting evidence with irrevocable and indisputable evidence of Christensen’s and the Selwyn district Council’s perjury was put to the Supreme Court, Ombudsman,Office of the Auditor General and MPs yet all was totally ignored and arbitrarily  discounted with out reason or engagement.          

 Resource Management Report Commissioned by Lawyer

 Dean Russ

 

 On investigation of the qualifications of this expert who Russ engaged to review the situation and subsequent author of the report, which ensued, it would be fair to assume Mr Glasson is amply qualified.

 

Mr Glasson is a resource management planner and holds qualifications of Bachelor of Science(Botany and Ecology) Master of Science (honours) Environmental science and Bachelor of Town planning all from The university of Auckland.

 It also appears as of 2009 he had 21 years experience in resource management planning and related fields Regulatory authority planning and consulting in the private sector including resource consent applications Plan changes and involvement in major civil engineering developments including rezoning and subdivision development.     

Also Mr Glasson was a director of the Glasson Potts group an Environmental Engineering &Resource management Consulting Company based in Christchurch And was a full member of the New Zealand planning Institute.

 

In early May of 2006. Russ e-mailed to me (Doug Williamson) to request our permission to get a RMA expert review the files. I straightaway replied in the affirmative. Russ then emailed back and said he would get an idea of costing of this advice . Again I was more than happy for him to proceed with this.

 

 I had no further contact with Russ over this matter with the RMA(Planning) expert. Yet in Russ’s file there is a letter dated 16th June 2006

I have an RMA expert currently looking at your file, with a view to an opinion being given on the sale of your property. I have had some preliminary discussions with the RMA consultant, who has indicated to me that it appears the RMA matters have been handled properly (effectively removing the possibility of undoing the sale)……”

 

I will be back in contact with you once I have a more comprehensive opinion from the expert so we can discuss the matters in further detail.”

 

 At this time there was no mention of any cost analysis As can be shown Russ did not receive this report untilFriday 14th July 2006 and can be shown from the file made absolutely no mention of it or its contents to my brother or my self. How he can make such a categorical and important statement one month before he received the report but also with out the expert having even one word in discussion or consultation with us, is completely beyond me.

 

It is significant that Mr Glasson had no feedback or communication with my brother or I and constructed this report on the basis of reviewing doctored files with important letters of advice removed. With emails, the full contents of which I did not write.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cover e mail 14th July 2006 12.48 am from Anne& Peter Glasson

My views attached .I have boxed up the files and they are awaiting your pick up.

Peter

 

Russ replies 14th July 9.22am

Thanks Peter

                    Makes for interesting reading. Will discuss further issues arising with you when you have some spare time up your sleeve

Dean Russ

Principal.

 

It is significant that there is document evidence of Russ in correspondence with me on this day with an e-mail sent concerning a completely different matter. This email to me was sent shortly after Russ replied to Peter Glasson confirming he had read this report and understood the theme of it. There was no mention in the e-mail correspondence to me, what so ever of this crucial RMA report nor more importantly any communications by Russ with its author. This is on the same day after Russ had received and read this report. In fact Russ never forwarded neither this report nor its contents to us and denied us any communication with its author. Russ’s only mention of this report was by way of gross misrepresentation. Because at the time I still trusted lawyers and after Russ’s gross misrepresentation of it contents, corroborated by the next lawyer Cameron I could see no reason to push the matter. It wasn’t until I had a chance telephone conversation with the reports author some 2 years latter I suspected these lawyers opinions of the report could be suspect and I realised for some reason Cameron had not forwarded this report to me. I then set about to get this report off Cameron, which was not easy.  

 

Peter Glasson replies to Russ 14th July 9.27 am

 

     Hi Dean

                  The valuation and conflict of interest seems to be the crux of the issue. Given Christensen’s involvement I just cant see how they can argue that there is no conflict of interest. The valuation process and values needs closer attention.

I am out again to another meeting –are you swinging by this afternoon after work to get the files

Peter

 

This last e mail on record from Peter Glasson would suggest there are significant unresolved issues in this matter especially the involvement of Christensen and his personally valuably connected lawyers acting for us against him as the chairman, chief negotiator spokesman and initiator of this Izone Park.

 

RMA REPORT  PETER GLASSON

ISSUES

Conflict of Interest (page 1)

According to Williamson, the first approach (undated) to the Williamson’s by the Selwyn District Council was made by Councillor Jens Christensen (who is also a member of the Selwyn Central Community Board and a very large property developer in Rolleston) and Michael Branthwaite who is a surveyor at Connell Wagner. Christensen was Chairman of the Council’s Rolleston Industrial Park Project Team since its inception and is the Councillor who has fronted the formation and ongoing development of the Industrial Park. 

 

It is understood that Connell Wagner were the surveying, planning and engineering consultants to the whole project. Connell Wagner also do all of Christensen’s development work in Lincoln and Rolleston. It is not considered that Connell Wagner have a conflict of interest with respect to this issue.

 

Christensen is one of the most well known Councillors in the Selwyn District and a large land developer in the Lincoln and Rolleston townships. Anthony Harper (Paul Rodgers (Chris Fowlers direct superior) as acted for Christensen for many years including defending Christensen in a case brought against him by the Local Government commission (or another Government Body) and initiated by either Councillor Debra Hasson or Councillor Heather Wilde (both of SDC). The case involved Christensen being accused of conflict of interest and taking part in Council discussions when he had a personal interest. Christensen was found not guilty in that case but certainly AH have acted for them for many years. It is possible that Chris Fowler worked on this case as he has been the junior solicitor to Paul Rodgers for years .I am unsure of the date of this action against Christensen by the LGC but it is possible that it was around this period.

 

The Anthony Harper letter of 16 April 2003 (File K61361/04) addresses the issue of conflict of interest in detail and notes that Christensen contacted Anthony Harper and raised the Conflict of Interest issue with them. Paragraphs 12 to 18 are important and out line AH’s defence on this matter. I do not believe that the defence is particularly transparent given Christensen’s very significant involvement in the Industrial Park  issue. This involvement was far greater than would normally be the case in a Council matter. It is also interesting that Fowler suggests that the Williamson’s keep quite about this matter.

 

Given Christensen’s property development interests in Rolleston, his involvement in this issue could be seen by some to be leading to personal gain.

 

Hand written file notes of 14th April and 11th April 2003 indicate direct conversations between Fowler and Christensen over issues relevant to the Williamson’s

 

Note the letter of 03 February 2003 (File K61361/04), which states that Paul Rodgers will be working on the case. Rodgers is the lawyer for Christensen.  

 

Page2

 

On 13 February 2003 Christensen wrote to Fowler (on Selwyn Industrial Park letterhead) setting out he would be directly handling the matters himself .

 

The files show direct correspondence between Fowler and Christensen (11 February 2003)and telephone conversations between Christensen and Fowler (11 February 2003)

 

Process

Selwyn district Council purchased the land and the land was then to be transferred to Eldamos Investment limited (The Warehouse).This does not appear to have occurred

 

Resource Management Process.

 

Notification / Non Notification ;It is difficult to determine the effects of the proposal without a site visit

 

April 2001;SDC purchased 130 hectares for Rolleston Industrial Park.

 

05 October 2001;Notification of Rolleston Employment Park Variation No 2 to Selwyn District Plan.

 

05 October 2001;Submissions to Township Volume of Proposed Plan on behalf of Tunlaw farm Limited from Anthony Harper lodged with SDC

 

01 March 2002; Letter from Eldamos Investment Limited (Anderson Lloyd Caudwell) to SDC states that potentially affected party consent to the application for land use consent will be obtained from the Williamson’s. This is a key statement as the letter also states that the Williamson’s are an affected party and therefore implies that their consent is required for the application to proceed on a non-notified basis. It is uncertain whether this consent was ever given.

 

05 March 2002;Original land use consent hearing (R305388) Councillor Jens Christensen gave evidence for the SDC at this hearing

 

14 March 2003; Submissions of Williamson against variation 2 (prepared by Fowler) lodged with SDC

 

01 April 2002; Further submissions in support of Anthony Harper

 Lodged with SDC

 

04 April 2002 Further submissions by Selwyn District Council opposing Tunlaw farm limited (Anthony Harper) submission lodged with SDC.

 

05 April 2002 Variation No.3 publicly notified. Variation No.3 increased the height for buildings in business2 zone from 10 metres to 15 metres .It (Page3) appears that this Variation may have been introduced to reduce the non compliances (especially height) of the Warehouse distribution centre. A more thorough analysis of the reasons for the Variation and the robustness of the resource management principles for the Variation should have been examined at the time of the notification of the Variation

 

08 April2002; Letter from Eldamos Investments Limited (Anderson Lloyd Caudwell) to the SDC states that potentially affected party consent to the application for the land use consent only needs to be obtained from the SDC and this has been obtained. Clearly Variation 3 was notified so the consent from the Williamson’s was not required. Note the short period between notification of the Variation and the transmittal of this letter (note; Dates on the letter/fax are suspect.) It was at this stage Judicial Review proceedings should have been considered

 

08 April 2002Resource consent application for the Warehouse lodged by Eldamos Investments limited (R305468) on 08 April 2002 for a distribution as a discretionary activity. Off the record I am aware that there was a very considerable number of lengthy discussions between the Warehouse and the SDC to ensure the warehouse was captured for Rolleston and that their path to be able to operate was smooth.

 

11April 2002 A report was prepared on behalf of the SDC on the notification /non-notification issues for the land use consent application (R305468)The report was prepared by planning consultant Justine Ashley of Planit (Christchurch firm)Not surprisingly ,as the consultant receives a huge amount of her work from the SDC, the report recommended that the application be processed on a non notified basis. Note the exceedingly short period of time between the lodgement and writing of the non-notification report.

 

17 April 2002 Hearing on section 94 issues in front of Commissioner Robson. Note the exceeding short time periods in the processing of this application.

 

24 April 2002 Date of decision (R305468) by Commissioner Robson recommending non-notification for the land use consent for The Warehouse.

 

10 May 2002 Report by planning consultant Ashley recommending the resource consent application for subdivision consent (R305387) and land use consent (R305468) by Selwyn District Council be granted.

 

13 May 2002; decision by Commissioner Robson grants resource consent application for land use and subdivision consent. This is an incredibly quick time for a decision to be released. I have never seen a decision released ever in such a short period of time.

 

30 July Application for hardstand lodged with SDC

 

08 August 2002 Resource consent for discharge of storm water issued by the CRC

 

Page4

 

14 August 2002 Letter from Chris Fowler to SDC withdrawing Williamson submission to Variation 2.

 

19 August 2002;Report on Notification or Non-notification of resource consent application by Eldamos Investments Limited for consent to establish and operate a hardstand area for the drop off and storage of containers associated with The Warehouse operation. report concludes the Williamson’s are potentially affected party and their consent is required if the consent is to be on a non notified basis.

 

27 August 2002: Decision of Commissioner Robson requiring the resource consent application for land use to be notified unless consent of Williamson’s be obtained

 

29 September 2002: Submission by Williamson lodged against application for hard standing.

 

17 October 2002;Report by Ashley to SDC Commissioner recommending approval of land use consent application for hard standing

 

08 November 2002 Appeal against decision lodged by Williamson.

 

07 June 2003 Environment Court sets down timetable for appeal.

 

14 August 2003 Letter from Chris Fowler to Environment Court withdrawing Appeal against SDC (RMA 842/02) and stating the matter had been resolved to the satisfaction of our client and accordingly our instructions are to withdraw the appeal. Please accept this letter as notice of withdrawal of our clients appeal” Note that Christensen had prepared evidence to be used by the SDC against the Williamsons appeal.

 

14 August 2003: letter from Chris Fowler to SDC stating that the issues raised by our clients submission to Variation 2 have been resolved to our clients satisfaction.

 

Valuation:

 

The files appear to state that the Williamson’s accepted a sale price $200,000 less than the valuation. I am unsure whether this is correct. Further analysis of the valuation process needs to be undertaken. Did Anthony Harper request an independent valuer to represent the Williamson’s as would be usual in this situation? The valuation process needs to be examined in more detail.

 

The valuation process adopted is beyond my area of expertise but is critical to the Williamson’s present discontent of the settlement. A review of the valuation process may be required to determine whether Fowler followed due process in the final figure for the sale that was agreed.        

 

 

Page 5

 

Resource Management Issues

 

Legal representation for the Williamson’s should have lodged appeal in opposition to Variation2 and 3. This would have been normal course of action for both resource management and strategic action to preserve the position of the Williamson’s.

 

It would appear that the only means of challenging the RMA issues would be on the basis of Judicial Review examining the notification issues. There is very little chance of any success on this course of action.

 

Overall, resource management process appears to have been followed- although the pressure to work the process and reach decisions within very short timeframes is obvious. I am unable to determine whether the substantive issues, such as level of potential effects, has been correctly determined.

 

Conflict of Interest

 

In summary, Councillor Christensen was a key player in the development of the Rolleston Industrial Park and is a client of Anthony Harper, and, in particular, Paul Rodgers and Chris Fowler who were working directly on this file for the Williamsons. The explanation outlined in the correspondence to the Williamson’s from Fowler suggests that it would be impossible for AH to withdraw from any action against SDC because they act for Christensen. I consider this matter is more fundamental than that .In this case Christensen was directly involved and was directly negotiating on behalf of SDC against the Williamson’s and having direct correspondence and telephone conversations with Fowler. That would appear to be quite different than AH representing a client simply against the SDC.

 

The additional matter is whether this involvement influenced the action taken by AH and which resulted in a less than ideal settlement for the Williamsons. This issue can be resolved by reviewing the valuation process and final sale price agreed and whether this price would have been different if another law firm, separate to AH and without the conflict of interest of representing Christensen, had of been acting on behalf of the Williamson’s Part of the review of the valuation would also need to take account of the rezoning of the land to Industrial which was clearly going to occur as part of the process.”

                               END REPORT

 

   

 

 

 What is most important about this report is it was done on the basis of only Mr Glasson’s review of files, which had been doctored by the original lawyers Fowler/Rodgers. Russ and Cameron the subsequent lawyers involved in the communication of the contents of this report to us, as mentioned actually criminally misrepresented and falsified its contents to us. Obviously they did not facilitate any communication between Mr Glasson and us to clarify and expand on many of the important and contentious issues.

 

As I mention Mr Glasson

1)      Would not have been aware of the fact the SDC did not serve the Variation 2 and 3 on us, as they were legally required to. As well, I had never heard of this Variation 3 until I received his report in mid 2008.

 

2)      The huge impact the unlawful construction machinery operating next to our training tracks and Fowler’s advice nothing tangible could be done to prevent this and as it would increase in duration and intensity in the future our best and only tangible option would be take the best offer we could get from the SDC  “even by making concessions on value” and try to move away. Mr Glasson would not have been aware of this, because it was in the letters of advice Fowler/Rodgers chose to omit from the file Mr Glasson reviewed. Letters I latter found the originals of.

 

 

3)      Mr Glasson would not have known Fowler neglected to inform us and actually misrepresented the enforcement order process which would have put a complete stop to the unlawful construction and illegal harassment to us for a mere $55 and 2 days. Instead Fowler’s advice was this harassment could only be challenged by Judicial review Fowler stating they wanted $30,000 + up front deposit before starting it and as it would most likely be unsuccessful cost would be higher and we would incur cost from the SDC also.

 

4)      Mr Glasson may not have been aware of the fact we were never informed of the fact specifically Fowler/Rodgers had a close personal and valuable association with Christensen.  Late in the proceedings after we ourselves became aware of only Christensen’s association to the firm Anthony Harper, Fowler completely misrepresented this stating Christensen was only a small conveyancing client of their firm. I also did not become aware of this untimely devious   partial disclosure until I received this report in mid 2008. It is again significant we were told nothing by anybody when we legally should have been at the start. Yet Fowler/Rodgers spent so detailing in outlining their connection to Shands Road Sawmill (SRS) on a potentially conflict of interest situation. Which we were fully aware of and had nothing to do with this matter concerning the SDC with no chance or potential to be anything otherwise. Fowler/Rodgers were already aware of our knowledge of this unimportant connection to SRS, so they drafted elaborate documents seeking our informed consent on the matter. Fowler/Rodgers knew we were unaware of the vital and crucial association with Christensen. So they and Christensen as well as the SDC actively disguised it when they all had a legal obligation to fully and frankly disclose it. As well get our full written informed consent  and  formal opinion of another solicitor on the matter.

 

5)      Mr Glasson may also not been aware because of the SDC statutory obligations under the Local Government Act to conduct their business in an open, transparent and democratically accountable manner as well as the Common law requirements to be procedurally fair and reasonable. Noway was the SDC able to act anywhere close to what he has described.

 

6)      Also the matter that the SDC and Fowler/Rodgers strongly and repeatedly denied any future use of our farm as commercial property thus any tangible increase in it value from the discounted value as a lifestyle block because of the nuisance of the industrial development next to it. Mr Glasson would have been unaware of this because Fowler/Rodgers had omitted the letters discussing it. (Letters I latter found the originals of but despite my constant complaints to the officials concerned nothing seems to be done about this. Apparently it is acceptable behaviour for lawyers in New Zealand to doctor files by omitting crucial letters from the same files. An these are the people our Judges are made up from.)

 

The RMA  matters are fully covered in book one of the submissions I put to the Supreme Court, the Ombudsman and the Office of the Auditor General. Including Summary of reply to Mr Glasson   Examination of R305468, Variation 2&3,Submissions LGA (Local Government Act)

 

 

 

  

 

 

   

 

It is important to analyse the comment of Russ’s concerning Mr Glasson’s opinion on the process being followed. “I have had preliminary discussions with the RMA consultant, who has indicated to me that it appears the RMA matters have been handled properly.” Compared to what actually was stated in Mr  Glasson’s report.Page 5 para3. “Overall the resource management process appears to have been followed –although the pressure to work the process and reach decisions   in short timeframes is obvious.” According to the Collins Dictionary the definition of work in this context is “manipulate and abuse for one’s own ends.” By no conception of the imagination does this constitute properly and is actually illegal for a Local Government and Consent authority to partake in such behaviour. According to the Local Government Act 2003.

 

Both Russ and the next lawyer we engaged Grant Cameron of GCA, neither mentioned nor showed us the contents of this report. With Cameron even going further in misrepresentation of it.

 

I only received this report or its contents , in mid 2008, by chance; a full 2 years after Russ commissioned it.

 

The situation in the New Zealand justice system can be amply demonstrated. By a letter I recently received (2010) from Russ. Which states “Mr Glasson wants no more to do with this matter” This should be contrast to a comment Mr Glasson has made page3 para 4 “11 April 2002 A report was prepared on behalf of the SDC on notification/non notification issues for the land use consent application (R305468). The report was prepared by planning consultant Justine Ashley of Planit(Christchurch firm)Not surprisingly ,as the consultant receives a huge amount of her work from the SDC the report recommended the application be processed on a non –notified basis. Note the exceedingly short time period between lodgement and the writing of the non- notification report.” It is significant that after this application was granted the SDC still   offered us $80,000 to give our written permission for application and another to be granted as such. We obviously refused such an offer. By granting this application on a non-notified basis the SDC effectively removed us in anyway from the process as an affected party. So why if it was legitimate and above board would the SDC offer us this amount of money to get our consent for this(as well as the other consents), after the consent had already been granted. Obviously we were not privy to these planning commission hearings, as they were non-notified.

 

But what is most significant about Mr Glasson’s inference about Ms Ashley’s receiving a huge amount of her work from the SDC. Is now it appears Mr Glasson has been employed by the SDC as a planning consultant as well as R Hughes the marketing manager of Izone.

 

It is also apparent that as a director of Lincoln Estates a residential property development company Mr Glasson is beholding to the SDC as Consent Authority for issue of Resource consent. So it certainly would not be prudent for him in this venture to continue the line of criticism of the SDC, Christensen as well as Anthony Harper lawyers, Rodgers and Fowler (who are now heavily involved in all aspects of the SDC business), which he initially adopted in this matter.

 

Clearly this is a measure of the civil justice system in New Zealand and the manner in which the Selwyn District Council operates as Local and Consent Authority.

 

In my one and only brief telephone discussion with Mr Glasson before I had any basic let alone the full and true knowledge of his report. He suggested   I contact a noted journalist at the dominant Newspaper in our region; Martin van Beynen at The Press. I had great difficultly in getting Van Beynen to reply Then after 5 weeks of constantly trying to contact him. Van Beynen, replied stating his paper is not interested in this matter. It is significant as I mention Van Beynen is a resident of the same small community of Diamond Harbour, as Fowler. No doubt they are regular commuters on the launch together to Lytelton to get to Christchurch. Considering they only worked no more than 200 metres away from each other in Christchurch they could well be more closely acquainted. 

 

This attitude of Van Beynan should be compared to the submission I made to the Supreme Court Concerning the contrast between 2 murdered Russian journalists (exposing graft and corruption by gangsters and corrupt Politicians in Russia) and these journalists in New Zealand.

One Russian lady was exposing the links of organised crime with local government was assassinated by 4 masked gunmen out side her home. The other a “60 minutes” reporter in one of those Ekistans, was exposing the links between the police and organised kidnappings, was shot in the back. 

Of these Russian reporters compared to the corrupt New Zealand news media, I walk in such people’s shadow.

 

How possibly can our societies remain functional when this kind of graft and corruption happens in New Zealand and it is impossible to get lawyers to act in the correct manner? The central government washes their hands of it, the corrupt Local Government dissuades experts from scrutiny and involvement. But most importantly the News Media purposely ignore it.

 

What has happened here is like one of those cowboy movies with corrupt governance where everybody gangs up against any opposition to the heavy handed master. This sounds very similar to the way totalitarian regimes operate

 

This is not acceptable in a western democracy and if it exists it is the responsibility of the other democracies to expose and high light it. So when people in other countries are considering buying New Zealand products they are fully aware these products are sourced from a corrupt and heavy handed society which denies it citizens one of the basics of fundamental human rights which is access to fair and equitable justice. Maybe if the extent of corruption in New Zealand is shown even the Chinese consumers will abstain from buying our products.

 

My brother and I fundamentally became prisoners on our own farm, the SDC decided when and if we could safely train our horses. So we had to truck our horses to another track to ensure they could be safely exercised. There was no end in sight of this situation and these lawyers advised us in writing, that nothing could be done to stop this menace so our best option would be to sell our farm to the SDC, even while making concessions on value. Nobody else would consider buying this farm because of the overbearing and manipulative presence of Christensen and the SDC. AS well Christensen and the SDC would have prevented us from rezoning our entire farm to Industrial, as they are the referee and arbitrator as well as the opponent. As it was they underhandedly stole our existing 7500s/m of Industrial land from us by unlawfully altering the planning map so the Valuers did not include any value for this valuable portion of our property. The SDC own valuer stated this was the reason no industrial valuation for this portion of land was applicable. Yet Marshal for the SDC completely contradicts this in his sworn evidence to the Courts.  When asked through the valuation complaints board for the valuer to ratify this situation all concerned decide not to comment.

 

  I have never in my life come across anything like this Selwyn District Council. It sums them up having Christensen in charge of anything let alone Economic development and the bevy of other portfolios he was chairman of including this Izone. The only Economic development Christensen has any interest in is his own or his close associates who include the lawyers supposed to be representing us against him.  I would be interested to know with the grossly negligent and devious advice we received from these Lawyers and the information we had and could be reasonably expected to have had. What other choice did we have?

    

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Submissions to Supreme Court in reply to Selwyn District Council’s application for more costs over and above the $30,000 they already had extracted from us

Hits: 1087

This is the Submissions to the Supreme Court after our application for leave to appeal was denied in relation to the Selwyn District Councils demand of more cost from us Over and above the $30,000 + they had already received. 

 

MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT

1)This is a reply to the respondent memorandum for costs from the respondent in an application for leave to appeal SC118/2009

The respondent state we filed an application for leave 14)”the appellants made initial attempts to appeal to the Supreme Court only shortly after the Court of Appeal judgement was delivered .The filing fee was not paid and the appeal was not accepted for filing.”

 

2)Like many of the submissions of the respondents this is false and incorrect we did not consider filing an appeal to this judgement until the status of the stay was clarified. Because this took an inordinate amount of time for the SC to clarify we could not file a application Had the Supreme Court granted us a stay in a timely manner we may well have filed an application to conform to the time limit constraints. But after the SC refused the application for the stay there was no reason to continue the appeal so it was discontinued for this and only this reason. If at all we did in fact file it.

 

3)After the stay was declined it was our intention to have nothing more to do with the New Zealand Court system except we asked for a fair and reasonable time we could depart our ex farm with dignity. And find a suitable place for our horses  This request was also declined like the stay with no apparent reason.

 

4)Sometime after this about 2 or3 months (July/Aug 2008) I became aware of Mr Glasson’s report for the first time, which had been purposely with held from us by the 2 review lawyers we engaged Dean Russ and Grant Cameron . Of this matter there is no dispute as is the case with the key letters of advice from Fowler/Rodgers, which were omitted from the file.

 

5)At the time I became aware of these documents I was not in a position to properly understand them or their significance and due to the effort needed to remove the items and tidy up our farm. Not in a position to study these associated matters. But it was still my contention not to become involved in the Court system.

 

6)So I set about making a complaint to the Valuation tribunal, the Ombudsman and the Auditor   General based mainly on the issues raised in Mr Glasson’s report.

 

7)After some time the Ombudsman office replied to me that because this matter was in the Court system they are unable to interfere and suggested we make an Appeal to the Supreme Court.

 

8)I disagree with the office of the Ombudsman. It is not only their job but also their duty to investigate the actions of recalcitrant    Local Government. As how possibly can a minor ratepayer possibly challenge the billion $ enterprise and influence of the Selwyn District Council.

 

9)This is highlighted by the huge  change in Mr Glasson. In his report p3 11 April 2002 he states “A report was prepared on behalf of the SDC on the notification /non-notification issues for the land use consent application (R305468) The report was prepared by planning consultant Justine Ashley of Planit (Christchurch firm) Not surprisingly ,as the consultant receives a huge amount of work from the SDC ,the report recommended that the application be processed on a non notified basis” I recently received a letter from Dean Russ the first lawyer I engaged after AH he stated “Mr Glasson wants nothing more to do with this matter” Not surprisingly Mr Glasson is now employed as a consultant by the SDCand Hughes the property developer along with Christensen in charge of this Izone project.

 

10)Obviously in a situation of such disproportional influence the cental Government needs to intervene to level the playing field albeit slightly. Without such intervention it is impossible for us to be in anyway fairly or equitably present our case against such a strong and influential opponent in this adversary system.

 

11)As has transpired in this situation. The evidence in the RMA reports should have been properly investigated and either confirm or denied. As if it is not correct why would a senior planer and respected RMA consultant write it if it is correct the central government need to quantify it so it can be put before the Courts in a coherent and accountable   manner.

 

12)In response to this advice from the Ombudsman I first contacted the Supreme Court in June of 2009. Basically asking advice and guidance in progressing this matter forward in relation to the evidence of the RMA report and the Valuation methodology used.

 In this later contact of 2009 I specifically mentioned the position regarding  the out of time matter. I also state that I feel this matter of indemnity costs ($30.000+ we had already paid to the SDC)  was and is unreasonable. Considering the SDC were only partially successful in their claim. As well as this indemnity cost provision related to a completely different type of agreement that was the case of the actual occupation agreement as well High Court cost are discretionary it is not arbitrary that indemnity cost must be applied. This is one thing which has soured me so much of New Zealand Judges and their Courts Not only did the SDC steal our farm and had and used gratuitous undisclosed  influence over the lawyers supposed to be representing us They claimed and were wrongly awarded these indemnity costs which they extracted from us under treat and issue of bankruptcy proceedings towards both John and I 

 

13)In a letter dated 20/7/09 I asked for a reply and acknowledgement of receipt of my initial letter of enquiry and complaint. As well as lengthy submissions regarding The Local Government act, Fiduciary duty and principles of Summary judgement.

 

14)Again on the 24/07/09 I again asked for some kind of reply to the series of letter and submissions I have put before this court   

 

15)I was finally replied to from the Supreme Court in November of 2009 stating they only had jurisdiction over an appeal from the Court of Appeal. No mention of any of the other matters apart from the merits the case. Like the out of time matter or the failure to make the security for costs. Obviously when we requested this application for appeal to the Supreme Court in 2009 all cost owed to the SDC were settled and paid in full $30000+ to High Court and $1200 in the Court of Appeal  Otherwise the SDC would have been successful in their bankruptcy applications.It is also significant that the Court of Appeal did not award indemnity costs Yet refused to consider like the Supreme Court that these cost awarded by the High Court were under the circumstances extremely unreasonable.  

 

16)From this initial contact with the Supreme Court it is fair to assume that most of all the information had been put before the Court unless there was some substantial evidence put in reply to Mr Glasson’s report. We were entitled to have this whole matter heard at trial.

 

17)The respondent states “With the exception of reference to a report by Peter Glasson, which appears to add nothing to the issues” This is the only reply to a report by a senior planner and RMA expert which list a raft and litany of abuse of process by the SDC which as yet have been unanswered.

 

 18)The respondent lawyer claims that part of the costs claimed are due to the large amount of submissions But there is no evidence in their submission that they actually read these documents as there is certain no substantial reply to the bevy of issues I raise. Past that of the submissions they put to the HC.Submissions which consisted of a substantial part of the High Court judgement including the matter of awarding $30,000+  indemnity costs against us 

 

19)I made an application for the $900 filing fee to be waived mainly on the basis that I had paid this fee for the stay and we had not been replied to about the stay in an acceptable time frame. As usual there was no reply to this by the Supreme Court So a friend lent me the $900 to make the filing fee.

 

21) As regards to the Judgement and any costs concerning the mistake by the Supreme Court of stating ” it appears we are bankrupt.” That is nothing to do with me I made no such submission and straight away contacted the SC to state it was a mistake by these Judges.

 

20)This week (April 2010) all our horses were seized by the SPCA and TV3 presented a unbelievably biased and sensationalised story Whereby they put photos of horses and home video on that were not representative of our horses. I have included photos of some of our broodmares to show our horse were not malnourished. Something was poisoning the about 25% of the 34 horses on that property. The rest of them were in the condition or close to, the photos I have presented before the Court show. But the NZ process has seized all our horses on the basis they were ‘seriously mal nourished’ I quote the SPCA report to the Press published. As I stated the Supreme Court has judges who are involved in horses. Please get them to look at these photos and state they are seriously mal nourished. These photos were taken about 3 weeks ago and I will get evidence from the neighbour nothing changed as far as the nourishment regime. We are just in the process of somehow trying to get a date on these photos.

 

21)The SPCA denied us access to the horses so they could be independently assessed until I engaged a lawyer to arrange this . Then the SPCA  again changed their mind when I had the independent Vet available to check and photo all the horses .So I had to get the lawyer back on the job again the SPCA changed their mind and agreed the Vet could inspect the horses but by now he had other commitments and can not inspect them until after Easter.

 

22)As it transpired the independent vet managed to get a brief look at them on Thursday 10 April . From his brief telephone message he stated we have nothing to worry about and most of the horses are in exceptionally good condition and the rest except for the sick ones 5 or 6 which the SPCA have killed are very good to good.

 

23)When is the bureaucratic corruption ever going to stop? What possible reason could the SPCA justify not letting an independent vet to inspect and make a report on all our horses not just the 4 or 5 sick ones.

 

24) After all this grief we had been through We managed to find a beautiful paddock to graze our horses at a price we could afford and people in residence to care for them. But the SPCA, TV3 and the Press completely misrepresented the situation that we had unlawfully hidden these horse which is completely false part of the stipulations imposed on us which 95% we had complied with, was move 10 horse we moved 12. Anybody in Canterbury who understands horses will know that browntop is exceptionally good grazing for them especially when it is un grazed like these paddocks were.

 

25)We asked the SPCA” please just give us a month with the horses on this new place then we will show them to you.” They said no so we said we will take a vet their to inspect them. This did not abate the frenzy to seize our horses so an appeal was put in the Newspaper and TV3 resulting in the neighbours of this new location informing of the SPCA of their presence

 

26)In which the remainder were seized. According to the SPCA these horse were seriously mal nourished and according to TV3 put in a “dry grass paddock with no food and water”   Why then did it take about 5 or 6 experience horse man catchers about 45 minutes to be able to catch and halter then with one of them being almost killed and put in hospital by these so call malnourished horses. Since when can an already supposedly mal nourished horses apparently denied food and water for 2 days put up that kind of fight..

 

27)As put in my submissions the SDC have and will make huge profit from this situation from our farm totaling many millions of $. In so doing they have clearly acted unlawfully and have destroyed our life They have already been awarded over $35000 costs which has been paid  Maybe by any standards they should have let the Supreme Court  costs lie but as I have said this is malicious and   personal for Christensen, Brantwaite and Marshal against John and I  something I know a Local Government is not allowed to do. .

 

    

 

  

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

130c Letter to Valuer Substantial complaint

This is the complaint I made to the Valuation Complaints board on the basis of the information I researched after receiving the RMA report which the 2 review lawyers misrepresented and failed to forward to us in a timely manner.

It is significant that despite the huge amount of work and research I did to complete this complaint The Valuers registration board replied only with a comment that no further action would be taken in this matter.

Refusing to engage with me what so ever and refusing to answer the relevant questions I pose as well as refusing to give any reason for such an arbitrarily dismissal of this complaint without any reasons or dialogue.

This complaint along with the 1/2 page letter informing me of its dismissing was put to the Supreme Court,Auditor General and Ombudsman and unsurprisingly was ignored by all 3. 

It seems in this country what the Government does to politically unconnected, non Maori,law abiding citizens is just totally ignore  any complaints and grievances and right through out the chain of command nobody deviates .

So far in our case this policy has definitely worked for the Government. But the problem this Government ,its judges and agents have is, this policy does not change the facts or the way the law should be applied in a democracy .

In a truly democratic country every body should be equal before the state and the law applied evenly and consistently  in all cases. This is clearly not the situation in New Zealand .As I have learn’t the very hard way.  

Many people have told me in good faith I should just give this up another person said to me” no body cares about this except you”

That is the problem I think with New Zealand society and what makes me different  Nobody cares about anything that doesn’t personally affect them or their families and by the time it gets to them it is too late.

If this happened to somebody else I would care. All of us have a duty to care about the processes of democracy and to see they are not usurped, corrupted or ignored and misrepresented by greedy activitists,cunning criminals, dishonest and deceitful professionals (lawyers and valuers), corrupt crony aligned judges,compliantly acquiescent(see no evil,hear no evil,speak no evil)  public servants and circumspectly gutless,hand washing politicians.

I remember seeing a documentary about the soldiers returning to New Zealand after WW2 and in one case a lucky man was greeted by his family and his two little girls were hanging on to his leg and just would not let go. That image will stay with me for the rest of my life because all I  could think of was what about the families who had no men to meet and the children who grew up without a father.

What on earth was that for if the government is allowed in this country to destroy peoples lives by the complete distortion of process by corrupt officials.

As I state in the main document After we had been so comprehensibly  cheated and deceived by the subsequent two review lawyers; Dean Russ and Grant Cameron I was ready to give up and move on. Not because I in anyway felt we were not right, but to do anything just seemed too daunting and difficult.As how many lawyers would i need to go to and how much money wasted before I found an honest one. If in fact there was a lawyer in this country  that would act with the necessary robust integrity required in such a case  

Then I was sitting down reading an email in the file, I had supposedly written to Fowler the original Lawyer and I realised it was impossible for me to have written part of this email, it must have been forged.I then did some research and realised how easy it was to forge such a document and vowed there would be no giving up on this matter.So I set about learning all this stuff I have absolutely no interest in and presented the High Court submissions from information on the internet and in the Public library. Just for these Judges to ridicule ,denigrate but most importantly ignore the pertinent and relevant authorities. 

What kind of society are we becoming. If it is not bad enough the crime which is perpetrated and sustained by the generations lowlife criminals (sustained and funded by the Social Welfare Department) that roam the streets in the dead of night. Now we have high paid  notable law firms apparently committing forgery to justify the conspiracy,fraud and theft of our farm.Then the relevant authorities not only turn a blind eye to more red flags than would be in Communist China but actually laud and praise these deceitfully dishonest lawyers for the supposed good job they did for us.

An intelligent primary school student with only the basic reading and analytic skills could figure out there is a lot wrong with this situation concerning these Lawyers/Christensen and the SDC.But we have corrupt senior Judges of New Zealand’s Judicial system destroying us in favour of their crony lawyer associates and their large clients, a dodgy property developer and his pet Valuer in cahoots with the supposed regulatory body; the Selwyn District Council .

Some people are just not designed  to give up and unfortunately I am one of them.

For a start maybe somebody from this Government can tell me why I am not entitled to any answers to the legitimate and pertinent questions  I have raised in this complaint.          

 

1) This is a formal complaint as to the valuations of the property formerly owned by D.J &J.B Williamson (35 Hoskyns Rd)Map1 (a) in April 2003 as part of the foundation for the negotiations for the sale and purchase of this property by the Selwyn District Council (SDC). 

 

2) The sale was due to the nuisance caused to our Horse breeding and danger to our horse training operation by the already and potential development of the SDC Industrial Park Izone. Map1(b)

 

3) The integrity, accuracy and methodology of the valuation process are crucial as we were completely unsure what our property was worth considering the situation of us being unwilling sellers. The valuations were the sole means of creating the parameters for the sale negotiations.

 

4) Had we had legitimate legal representation we would have been instructed to invoke the provision of the Resource Management Act (RMA) and Public Works Act whereby the SDC would have been required to purchase our property under the conditions of this Public Works Act and properly compensate us in a full and fair manner. 

 

 

5) This is an extremely complicated situation exacerbated mainly due to the Lawyers we engaged to act for us; Chris Fowler and Paul Rodgers of Anthony Harper (AH). Fowler/Rodgers were/are also the lawyers of Councillor Jens Christensen, the Chairman and head negotiator of Izone Industrial Park and an extremely prominent and notable member of the SDC.

 

6) More importantly Christensen was/is a large land developer in the Selwyn district and Rolleston area. 

 

7) This chairman of Izone (J Christensen) was the person who initiated these negotiations with by his own evidence he states he was dealing directly with us for more than 2 years and the person who made the ultimate decisions as to the outcome of the negotiations. He also made personally biased public statements at the RMA hearing of Oct 2002. As regarding how much we should be paid for our farm, including comment on my(Doug Williamson’s) so called unrealistic expectations and reinforcing his biased stance from his so called experience as a property developer. My only expectations was for my brother and myself in the valuation and sale of our farm to this Industrial Park was to be treated fairly and equally before the law, obviously unrealistic as events have transpired. 

 

8) The matter of a potential conflict of interest, which we consider extremely important, was never fully disclosed to us at any time properly and initially it was not disclosed at all.

 

9) It was only after we learnt of this potential conflict of interest ourselves late in the negotiations, did AH mention it to us. This is contrary to AH take on this matter as can be expected from such lies and deceit there is no written record of any oral or otherwise discussion with us at the time of initiating proceedings. This contention that we were informed of AH’s connection to Christensen is pure fiction. And we evidence that can clearly show this as such

 

10) It is extremely important that as I stated in my evidence and submissions we had had no real estate business or resource management experience so relied entirely on the lawyer and the valuer.

 

11) Despite many times in the over 2 years negotiating with Cr Christensen requesting us to name a price, we did not, replying we would rely on the valuation. Obviously when we were stubbornly sticking to this policy we never envisaged there would be so many compromising factors to the transparency and integrity of the process. What an amazingly disappointing revelation this has been. 

 

 

12) The foundations for ascertaining the properties value were eventually agreed in full by the SDC (Appendix A) Letter Anthony Harper 30th Jan 2003 4)“On this basis, we consider that any settlement figure acceptable to our clients must recognise and provide for:

{4} (A) Land value, including the added value of all existing improvements, including those relating to our clients’ horse training operation;

(b) Value associated with potential effect on the value of the property arising from a zone change to allow for industrial development;

(c) Cost associated with establishing…..

(d) Cost associated with relocation ….

13) These requests were agreed to in full in a reply letter from M Branthwaite project manager of Izone 4th Feb2003 (Appendix B) 4A and C These clauses detail the basis of the valuation for the property… 

4B The valuer should also be asked to consider the potential effect on the value of the property arising from a zone change to allow for industrial development. Here again this should be an addition value, which would be addressed as a separate item.

 

14) This is clear and unequivocal, the SDC agreed as to how this property should have been valued right from the very outset of these negotiations. Later Christensen add an indemnity clause to the assessment of the facilities. But in a letter written by Christensen Feb 11th 2003 he states he has no comment on the already agreed portion of potential industrial value.

 

15) The reason for this approach by us was this property was 

right in the middle of the proposed Industrial Park map(b) development. We felt it not unreasonable that it should accrue a substantial premium for this position, location, situation and potential. 

 

16) We felt this substantial premium would be justified by the fact we were unwilling sellers of this property.

 

17) The actual nuisance caused by the violation of RMA procedures, lack of any enforcement or consultation by the SDC and no advice from AH was what resulted in us wishing to sell this farm because of the potential for serious or fatal injury.

 

18) Had we been aware the SDC were acting illegally concerning the building and construction next to us, considering the large amount of investment and development we had undertaken (which is unique to all the other neighbours’ land the SDC has subsequently purchased) we would have most certainly not sold our property on this basis. We would have chosen instead to make other arrangements to stop or mitigate this potential danger and nuisance until the illegal actions of the SDC would be stopped. 

 

19) But due to our lack of knowledge and experience we were unsure how this (potential commercial value) could be calculated and the value should be calculated or if indeed there was any methodology for a property in such proximity to a commercial location.

 

20) Obviously had we been aware or made aware of the huge value this property possessed as a Land bank, all other matters would have been irrelevant and or redundant.

 

21) It was clearly agreed by the SDC this valuing approach of assessing future potential of the property was to be adopted and both valuers were made aware of that.

 

22) I have only recently learnt that the Valuation concept for this situation is “Land Bank” I became aware of this situation when I obtained a Valuation report of a similar type of property (horse training) in a similar situation albeit located next to residential development where in our case it is, business2. And without many of the extra investment and developments we had made eg; swimming pool, rubber mulch track and workshops. 

 

23) Neither our Lawyer nor either of the Valuers who prepared these reports; Simes Ltd, Mark Mc Skimming who was selected by Anthony Harper lawyers, to prepare the Valuation on our behalf or Telfer Young (MG Dunbar) ever mentioned this concept of Land Banking. 

 

24) I would be interested to know if Simmes or M Mc Skimming had done work for either Councillor Christensen in his property developer role or the Selwyn District Council.

 

25) If this was the case prior to carrying out this valuation it was most certainly not disclosed to us.

 

26) We found Mc Skimming to be extremely antagonistic, negative, uncooperative and reluctant in putting the best possible valuation forward for this property on our behalf. It was only after many heated and forceful discussions with these lawyers did he provide another valuation which when compared to what it should have been was still nothing short of pitiful. These unnecessary arguments were significant in the method of waring us down and distracting us from other crucial matters. 

 

27) M Dunbar of Telfer Young gave evidence in this whole matter (Izone development) at the Resource Consent hearing on behalf of the SDC. Clearly he was not independent so should not have been involved in this valuation process from a professional standpoint as well as from the obligations of the SDC to the Local Government Act.

 

28) The Valuation report I cite by way of comparison is that of 70 Jones Road Templeton. (Appendix 1)map© appendix12 This is a similar property to ours, that being in essence a property to train horses but it is smaller 12.38 ha compared to 18.49ha.

 

29) It also had restriction as to the amount of land that was likely to be able to rezone without undue opposition. FordBakerP16 “a large part of the property falls within the 50dba zone and the Airport authority will vigorously object to any intensive residential development of the land.”

 

30) It is also incumbered with a cell phone tower owned by Vodafone where by the lease will cease 2 years after any land on the property gets zoned for residential 

 

31) It would then be fair to assume Vodafone as well as the Airport Authority would be somewhat less than enthusiastic for this residential zoning to be implemented.

 

32) Obviously nothing like this existed on our property as part of our property was in fact zoned for industrial use. To the contrary the Simes April valuation states page 11 first paragraph “It is considered that there would not be a great level of objection to rezoning of the subject property to Industrial as part of the business Park.”

Second Para In conclusion the subject land is well positioned for an industrial development, in conjunction with the land already identified for such. We understand there may be only limited opposition to any rezoning, and with Council ownership of this land maybe a relatively straight forward matter.”

 

33) The Industrial portion map(d) appendix 2c that was part of our land is a huge point of contention. And something I will forever lobby over. When we brought this whole property in 1997 it had a portion of about 7-8000 sq that was already zoned for Industrial use.

 

34) Sometime in 2001 this designation was changed due to the proposed plan, back to rural.

 

35) This change was made without any notification, compensation or consideration to us. We were not served or informed of this matter in any way.

 

36) This is consistent with the SDC’s evidence as they state it was a mistake in the drawing of the zone boundary. 

 

37) The SDC states that we did not lose any value by this, as the zoning change was not ratified until after the purchase was complete Appendix E (DM AD 31) “When the variation was prepared and proposed,(correct term is notified)it included rezoning land to the South of the property from Industrial 3 to business 2.I suspect what happened is the maps put forward with variation 2 with Variation 2 incorrectly followed the boundary line of the Property, rather than the mapping line of the existing zones. The result was that the existing land was shown as rural rather than Business 2 as part of Variation 2.However; this had no relevance in the present case. Variation was only approved by the Council in November 2005….. Therefore it was SDC own land that was affected by the error not the Williamson’s. The Industrial 3 zoning was still in place when SDC purchased the property …and it is the Council that has lost value as a result of the re zoning of this strip of land to rural.”

It is significant we were not in anyway notified or informed of this matter due to another mistake by the SDC of posting the notification to the wrong postal address and repeating the same when it was subsequently return with out doing anything to ensure we received it making this notification unlawful. This also is extremely ambiguous 

 

38) This is inconsistent with the legal and legislative position as stated in my submissions (Wil sub. para166). This clearly explains the legal position that new zoning commenced at time of notification. “Interim effect to be given to the proposed rule” Dunbar also explains this situation at para 40 of this complaint.

 

39) From my experience with the SDC I feel they pay very little attention to the laws made in Parliament I think they feel detached from this legal process.

 

40) Dunbar’s evidence put before the High Court in Christchurch and the Court of Appeal is contrary to the SDC position that the SDC rezoning had no effect on the status of this 7500sqm. DubarSDC valuer Page 3 bottom paragraph “the process is still continuing and as such the Transitional District plan remains operative. During this period both plans must run in tandem with any use of the property meeting the more restrictive controls of both plans.”

 

41) This would mean in this case that the Industrial portion of this land has become redundant as it now is restricted by the rural conditions imposed by the SDC plan change and so called mistake of drawing this plan change wrongly.

 

42) This is obviously why neither valuer gave any valuation for this piece of Industrial land.

 

43) It is also significant that the SDC valuer made no mention at this entire Industrial-zoned portion of land and Mc Skimming only scant, in his second attempt under sufferance. 

 

44) Obviously had this so-called mistake not been made the portion of our land would be clearly zoned Business2 and an appropriate value given to it. Marshal own evidence states that they have lost value with this zone change so obviously the land is worth considerably more zoned Business 2 than what the affect was in making it Rural. If Marshal is right the Valuers are culpable and liable for the Value of the difference between business 2 and rural. If the Valuers are right the SDC has stolen our Business portion of land. The law says the latter but the Valuers need to confirm this. Also this Business 2 portion would have been of huge significance in the process of rezoning the entire property for Industrial subdivision which on the conservative figure of $65 per square metre would result in a gross value of $12 million as analysed later in this complaint the evidence suggests that the subdivided business 2 land would be close to twice that amount($100-120/sqm gross realisation $18.5—$22.2 million.)This is particularly relevant considering the intention of the SDC to use this property as an access road putting its commercial sites at the forefront of everything else(appendix2) 

 

45) If the SDC is right, the Valuers are clearly responsible for under valuing our property by about $200,000 on this 7500sqm portion Industrial zone matter alone, as there is no minimum size for subdivision of Business 2.

 

46) However it is logical the neighbour adjacent (Solid Energy) who have now purchased the 4ha front block of35 Hoskyns Rd that includes this area map(e)) (appendix2c) would have purchased it or an engineering concern could have.

 

47) As about 3 ha immediately next to this area sold for $20-$25 psm at about the same time the deal with the SDC and our property was completed. map(f)

 

48) So according to Cr Christensen’s evidence to the Resource consent hearing, smaller areas are of higher value it is fair to assume the value for this (about 7500sqm) would be +$25 over and above the rural value given which would equate to about $1.40 sqm.

 

49) The High Court and Court of Appeal obviously agreed with the SDC evidence also the Office of the Ombudsman and Auditor General (who I complained to) agreed with the SDC.

 

50). So why was no value given for this 7500sqm Industrial portion of land, by these valuers (Appendix E&F (AD D M) para31 bottom p59 -60) The Industrial 3 zoning was in place when the SDC purchased the property and it is the Council that has lost value as a result of the rezoning of this strip of land to rural. 

 

51) This is sworn evidence by the Corporate Services manager of the SDC, it is clearly wrong and the Courts and Govt Depts consider us the villains in this matter.

 

52) Also the reference to small strip in this evidence is misleading, to be exact it is 30 metres wide by 250-300 metres long (I had no way of accurately measuring the length) It is a perfect rectangle totalling at least 7500sqm it fronts directly onto Hoskyns rd with access to all essential services including 3 phase power map(d) 

 

53) Since when is that a small Industrial site or is this description (small) by way of the same rational (cultural apartheid) whereby Mc Skimming places a Industrial value on our land of $3-$5 psm (Simmes Feb p10) and further devalued by rounding down 10%.

 

54) The initial concept plan of this industrial park of November 2001 clearly shows the possibility of a future road through our property.

 

55) This concept plan (Appendix 2) which was never shown to or discussed with us by AH or the valuers also places our property in the logical position therefore prime location for future expansion of the Industrial plan which has in fact happened along with the building of the road which has in fact started.

 

56) It is also of huge significance that this property bridges the most efficient and logical route from the Industrial park and the main arterial route State highway one about 500metres away.(appendix2a) .

 

57) For M Dunbar of Telfer Young to value this total piece of land 18.49 ha in 2 titles at total $96,318 as an Industrial development, is way past absurd it is just plain corrupt and clearly evidence of criminal conspiracy to defraud. Dunbar p11 and appendix2 of his valuation report 

 

58) As to Simes’ take on this matter.

It is now clear and unequivocal that the Simes valuer should have constructed a valuation on the basis of the property being sold as a land bank option.

 

59) Obviously because of its location and strategic position to the Industrial land and Industrial park it is logical this approach is the one, which will accrue us the highest value, as has been the example of the property in Jones rd.

 

60) It can be seen from the evidence of the first valuation presented that almost no attempt has been made to establish any value on the basis of the Land bank methodology.

 

61) In fact the opposite is attempted. Study of the Simes Feb valuation shows no mention is made of the Industrial zoned portion of the property In fact any extra value is given for any Industrial situation and the value.

 

62) Even after he (Mc Skimming) had specifically been instructed to do so and no doubt AH would have advised him this was already the agreed method by which these negotiations were to advance.

 

63) The resultant valuation $363,000 which is only $3000 more than we had paid for it 5 years previous this figure also included all the building we had constructed; Hay barn and work shops 

 

64) The initial valuation of Simes was also only $3000 more than Dunbar, not an independent valuation and one I consider corrupt.

 

65) Eventually after too much wasted argument and aggravation Mc Skimming was convinced to try again .It appears he did so under sufferance as despite the evidence of the eminent industrial park adjacent to this property and the undeveloped 2.9 ha grass paddock directly next to map(f)(Appendix2c) it which he states was for sale for $20-$25(This same property was sold shortly after to Solid Energy)

 

66) How possibly can he state the Industrial value of the land is between $3 and $5per sqm ($555,000 – $925,000) and using the lower then rounding it down a further 10% to $500,000.

 

67) Because of all the evidence of the shortage of industrial land the strategic position, in so far as it is the property that will most conveniently connect the Izone park with the main roads thereby giving any section in this property a much higher profile and convenient location than in other in the Izone industrial park 

68) I feel a minimum Industrial value would be $25 per sq m. ($4.625million). I am not sure on what basis a land bank calculation can be made but taking into account the multiple factors which would make the zoning process simple and straight forward. Evidence of a proposed road through it and the strategic proximity to the Izone Industrial park. Plus the previously noted Industrial sales in the area.

 

69) Considering all relevant factors such as road access for Izone strategic RMA position, ease of zone change and proximity meaning this property would be in front of everything else in Izone. I feel a comparative figure of $15 per sq m ($2.775 million) would equate to this properties worth in a land bank situation. If our property did not qualify for this type of valuation I am struggling to understand why the example of 70 Jones Rd did, 

 

70) (70 Jones Rd) has so many impediments to reaching its ultimate commercial value and our property had none. Yet it has a registered land bank Valuation of $15psm

 

71) With our property having already part of it zoned industrial and the SDC had already signified their intention to put a connecting road through it.

 

 

72) Comparison of examined value should rezoning occur; first using Dunbar’s figures ($35psm) applied to the formulae of the Ford Baker valuation of a land bank example 70 Jones road. (P15) after deducting costs and a profit and risk allowance in our experience the block value accounts to one third the gross realisation

 

 

18.4967 ha

30 sections 5000sq at $35sqm 

30x$175000 $5,250,000

X.333 or 1/3 $1,748,250

10% deferment over 5 years 

=$1,032,324 – $60,000 rezoning costs (half cost significant of no impediment to rezoning) 

=$972,324 as because of the situation location and SDC purchasing it is fair to assume this property would have 100% chance of rezoning so on the basis of Dunbar’s $35 psm. 

 

73) The evidence of the property sold adjacent to our property and the sales evidence of the Industrial park (Appendix 3 with the position of our ex property and the proposed road right beside this area) clearly shows $60-$70 says $65 is more correct as this calculation includes a 5-year deferment. This $65 is also conservative considering this evidence show the price is between $85 and $120 right beside and behind the area that was our farm and the SDC is now in the process of developing to sell as industrial land.

 

74) Clearly from the evidence of Izone sales within the 5-year deferment period $65 is conservative 

18.4967ha

30 sections 5000 sqm at $65sqm 

30x$325,000 $9,750,000

X.333 or 1/3 $3,246,750

10% deferment over 5 years 

=$1,917,173-$60,000 rezoning costs 

=$1,857,173 obviously the same applies as to the certainty this land will be rezoned.

 

75) This figure is calculated on the basis of Dunbar’s valuation assumption of only 30 x 5000sqm sections so 3.4 ha is not accountable.3.4x $65=$2.21m Dunbar has deducted 

 

76) I realise some land is required for roads etc but on the basis of Dunbar’s other calculations in this valuation I am cynical of the amount deducted. Plus there should be some calculated premium for Izone using this property for direct access to SH1 and resolution of future Izone RMA issues to the adjacent Izone park. 

 

77) Also from the example of the Selwyn Business Park and the fact that this (our) property would be in the front of all other users of this Izone Park.

 

78) It is fair to assume most sections would be of a smaller size and the land be more valuable than that of the Izone which have such sites of about 2500sqm for sale for $120 psm (appendix 3) very close to the boundary of 35 Hoskyns Rd .This is almost double the calculated figure I have estimated and more than triple that of Dunbars. 

 

79) It is also of significance that SDC could have, (had they negotiated this property on the proper basis so that we had been paid the proper and correct market value as per the Land bank methodology) completed the process much quicker.

 

80) They could have developed and sold these sections in a 

very much shorter timeframe than 5 years as can be shown with the Selwyn Business Park (appendix 4 map k appendix2b map k), which was rural, lifestyle zoned up to 2007 as of the date of this article 2 April 2008 almost all of this first stage is already sold.

 

81) It is important to note the Warehouse would not have been able to proceed with its container stand in its desired position without the delay of an Environment court hearing and the possible delay of further higher court appeals, had the SDC not purchased this property. And had it not been for the influence of Christensen on Fowler/Rodgers/AH they would not have been able to unlawfully build the hardstand and continue to inflict the danger and nuisance on us.

 

82) Also we would have been the strongest opponents to the rezoning of the Izone variation not with standing we were unable to put in a submission, as we were not served or notified of this situation.

 

83) Due to our proximity and illegality of the actions of the SDC, it is highly unlikely (I hope) the Court would have denied us the right to be heard and participate in the matter.

 

84) As already mentioned and from the evidence of the early plans (2001) it is clear the SDC wanted this property as an access way to the main South Road and West.

 

85) As to Simes’ calculation it appears he has used his $5 psm (but his initial valuation mentioned$3psm) which is clearly well out dated for Industrial land and on examination of the price of the land directly next door 2.9 ha at $25 psm.map(f)

 

86) Using Simes own figure of (60%) the possibility of rezoning (this is not correct as there would be 100% chance of this land being rezoned because of its position) $25 x.60 equates to $16.65 per sm so $15 ($2.775 million) is appropriate for this land bank calculation. I feel a good method to remedy the disparity between the subdivision calculation and Land bank figure is average; $1.817 million +$2.775 =$4.592 divided by 2 == $2.296 million 

 

87) It appears Simes Feb p10 “between $3-$5 using only as an example The Southfert block of 2,54 ha in Nov 1999 for $220,000 or $8.66 persqm) map(g) (appendix2b)

 

88) This property bears little resemblance in position to ours in that it was purchased in November 1999 before any moves were made to develop the Izone park; it is on the outer peripheral access being by Railway road and it was close to 2 years 6months previous. 

 

89) Obviously had nothing changed in that preceding (two and a half years) time our property would not have been for sale so the price of this Southernfert property is irrelevant to this particular situation.

 

90) Yet Simes has used a price calculated from this sale to calculate the premium value of our property, which is disingenuous.

 

91) I cannot understand where he can get this $3-$5psm price for Industrial land. Nowhere has any Industrial land sold for this price in this or any other area with in 25 minutes of Christchurch.

 

92) Of far more significance is the block one paddock over from us(about 100m) on Hoskyns rd No.23, map(h)(Appendix 2d) we were 35, noted in Simmes April 2003 valuation as being sold $20 psm for a parcel of just under 1 ha sold in October 2001 this being 1 year 7 months prior to the subject valuation.

 

93) The 2.9 ha paddock next to it and to us sold for about this same amount with the sale confirmed just after our one was confirmed. Yet Simes states our land if zoned Industrial is worth only $5 psm.

 

94) This would make the 5000 sqm sites Dunbar quotes worth $25000 The total block worth $750,000 x .333 =$249,750 on 5 year deferment at 10% =$163,000on an Industrial basis. Simes assessment is no less corrupt than Dunbar. 

 

95) Simes applies a completely different formulae as to the Jones Rd valuation of Ford Baker which also states “This valuation technique has been utilised extensively in the past and has been accepted by the Courts.”

(P11 bottom Para FB)

Other relevant examples not included 

96) These were recent purchases (at the time of the valuation) made by the SDC relevant to the Industrial Park So were particularly pertinent to this valuation situation (Appendix 2b) map(i)

a) 1058 Jones rd SDC .4047 bare undeveloped Industrial land $165,000 or $42.50 psm 19 Dec 2001 

b) 1056 Jones Rd SDC 0.4046 bare undeveloped industrial land$145,000or $36 psm 16 Dec 2002 decrease would be due to Christensen and SDC hard bargain style against this owner who I knew. But this owner was not in a position were by his safety could be put in jeopardy by the continued unlawful action and abuse of process by the SDC as were we. 

 

97) These prices are significant because (Appendix 4 a) Butcher Oct 2006 This Jones Rd site sold for $315,000 or $60 psm 13th Sept 2004 and it was not sold to an end user but a developer .map(i)

 

98) It was purchased off D Redden Dec 2002 $36 psm and sold for almost double psm rate Sept 2004 only 1 year after the deal was done on our property Simes states p 11, April second paragraph “in conclusion, the subject land is well positioned for an industrial development, in conjunction with land already identified for such .We understand that there may only be limited opposition to any rezoning, and with Council ownership of this land rezoning maybe a relatively straightforward matter”

 

99) It seems Simes’ main reservation at our land not aspiring to a significant value on a “land bank” basis is the significant amount of land the SDC has rezoned next to us and the result lack of demand due to an oversupply of business 2 land.

 

100) This perception is clearly ill founded and incorrect, and the complete opposite to the rationale of the purchaser. This can be shown by the (Appendix5) Variation 2 Employment Park submission on behalf of the SDC date of fax 5th October 2001 Page 5 last Para. “Essentially the extension of the business zoning on to the subject land will address the lack of industrially zoned land in Selwyn District and around Rolleston.

This shortage that has recently been reported as existing in Christchurch (Christchurch Press 9/8/01p4)…. A shortage of such land has be acknowledged in Ashburton (Ashburton Guardian 24/08/01 p1)

Last paragraph p6 “ recent Council media releases have indicated that an Employment Park is being considered for the subject land and this has created a level of expectation to the extent several businesses have already registered interest in obtaining land for their business activities …Currently these registrations of interest would take up a significant proportion of the land that is proposed to be zoned for business /industrial activities.)

 

101) It is significant this research and publication would have been done 2 years prior to the valuation of our property and it was 2 years of a rising market.

 

(Appendix 6a)

National Business review 6/12/02 p48 “Industrial strong in Garden City

Construction and development companies building LAND BANKS (emphasis added) for their future have contributed to some of the rise in value of industrial land in Christchurch, SIMES valuation director said yesterday.”

 

102) This article is published only 3 or 4 months prior to this valuation process of our property, which will be in the heart of the Izone Industrial Park.

 

103) M Mc Skimming from the same valuation company SIMES initially attributes nothing then attributes (under sufferance) only a marginal value to this (Industrial) significance which in reality was worth less than the value of this land should have been valued in an incorrect rural context. 

 

104) Dunbar from Telfor Young gives our 18.46 ha (2 titles) in this position a total value of $168,462 without any deferment less than the price of a 600sqm section these same property developers in charge of this project (Izone) would have sold not more than 2km away from the Izone park and our farm.

 

105) Dunbar goes on by giving our property a final total value of $96,318 with a deferment value of 4 years @15%.

 

106) Also of significance is the Ford Baker Bulletin June 2002 (Appendix 6b) of all the market sectors, the industrial market is probably the strongest. …Value growth has occurred in the Industrial land market and there continues to be a limited supply of Industrial land. Also is Val. Group report of Ford baker (Appendix 6c)

 

107) It is clear that because of the position, location and strategic situation of our property the land bank and premium approach as that adopted by Ford Baker for 70 Jones Road should have been adopted for our property 35 Hoskyns Road.

 

108) It is also of significance that in Simes Feb Valuation p8 last Para “The SDC is has rezoned a further 72 ha adjoining the existing Bussiness2 zone. We are aware that there is some resentment in the community to a further extension to the industrial area, with another 45 ha of land in Council ownership” .map(j) (Appendix1a)

 

109) It is significant that the SDC had already agreed not to rezone this 45 ha of land as a condition to RMA objections.

 

110) This land is at the far western end of the original 130ha purchase bordering on rural subdivisions. Whereas our land was closest to the main south road in and around other Industrial users hence the significant absence of any credible objectors

 

111) Logic would assume that the SDC could utilise our 18 ha as well as for a road but also to make up for the 45 ha they had agreed not to rezone business 2 at the far western end. map (J)

 

112) Simes April p12”We do not have enough detail of costs of undertaking a subdivision to present a subdivision valuation on the basis of subdivided1 ha blocks with their respective individual values particularly given the unknown of marketing period required to sell all of these properties under present conditions. Whilst the Council intends the Warehouse distribution centre to be a catalyst to the development of the proposed Industrial Park there is little evidence yet in other properties, and we are aware of one parcel of land actively marketed for some six months with little interest.”

 

113) This is amazing how wrong this prediction was. As mentioned the undeveloped paddock next to us sold very soon after this deal was done (concurrent negotiations) . map(f)(Appendix 2c) It is beggars belief considering that Solid Energy and the Warehouse in with the SDC on this matter had the same lawyer. That the SDC, Christensen, Fowler/Rodgers and the Valuers were not aware that Solid Energy was the intended purchaser of this property next to our farm. Like all the most important things in this whole matter obviously everybody was aware of it, except us

 

114) The Selwyn Business Park map(k) apart from Izone which was rural land at the time of this valuation and these negotiations. This venture has clearly been an additional Industrial development well within the timeframes and confines of the constrict of valuing our property as such. (Appendix 4 mapk). 

 

115) It seems Izone has not only lived up to the predictions of 2001 but exceeded expectations (Appendix 6f) Canterbury Branch of NZ Institute of Directors “Why are land sales 2 years ahead of target?” Speaker J Christensen. 

 

116) Relying on many of the market indicators I have cited, that Dunbar and Mc Skimming, deliberately ignored and disregarded it can only be corrupt that no significant premium was given to our land in such a strategic position to this Industrial park.

 

117) Due to this predicted anticipated Industrial demand, they (Izone) are now applying to rezone an additional 54 ha they have brought (including what was our property) for Industrial development (appendix2e). Map (l) 

 

118) Obviously these projected land bank valuations are for a projected time frame of 5 years or more not next week or the week after. 

 

119) This being the situation I would expect a broader view of the evidence than the slanted opinion of one valuer enlisted by lawyers who clearly had conflicted interest.

 

120) The evidence of Mc Skimmings’ own firm as well as that put forward by the SDC well prior to this valuation was sufficient to adopt this land bank methodology. 

 

121) We feel it was Simes’ calculated attempt to present a valuation as low as possible for the use in these negotiations.

 

122) This attitude can be demonstrated by Mc Skimming’s final paragraph in his Feb effort p10 “From our analysis it would appear that the demand is not strong for the Industrial zone land in this location”

 

123) It seems from my research he (Mc Skimming) is the only person making this prediction in fact everybody else including the SDC, the intending purchaser, were making the complete opposite predictions and it appears everybody else is overwhelmingly right and Mc Skimming wrong, too wrong to be anything else but corrupt.

 

124) What about the examples I have cited 1056,1058 Jones Rd and 23 Hoskyns Rd, not to forget the Warehouse and hardstand an $18million project, all sold between 1 and 2 years prior to this valuation in a rapidly rising commercial market. Where did these prices come from for this Industrial land, International Money laundering?

 

125) Plus the evidence of the 2.9 Ha sold right after this deal was complete (negotiation would have been occurring concurrently) for $20-25 psm ($750,000) to Solid Energy(Appendix2c). Map (f)

 

126) Why did this State owned enterprise pay this price for this land right next to us if it is correct what Mc Skimming says “It would appear that demand is not strong for Industrial land in this location”

 

127) What would be the rationalisation and methodology used to justify this purchase by a SOE like Solid Energy for this price in August or Sept 2003 if Mc Skimming and Dunbar’s evaluation of the value of our land were even remotely correct?

 

128) What changed between Feb and April 2003 apart from extremely stressful and acrimonious arguments between us and AH (the Izones Chairman’s legal representatives) that Mc Skimming grudgingly gave a minimal industrial value to our land $5 psm Where is any evidence that figure is even remotely correct?

 

129) Why was this discounted to 60% when it was common knowledge to every body (Appendix 11) p10 last Para] except us; “this land would be rezoned as a matter of course” 

 

130) To discount $5 to 60% gave this property a value of $3 psm that is nothing more or less than absurd and corrupt. Then to make matter worse Mc Skimming rounds it down by 10%

 

131) Why would Solid Energy pay this amount ($20-25) psm for this 2.9ha when 7500+sqm of Industrial land directly adjacent was valued and sold at the same time for, in real terms less than $1.00 psm ($800,000-$439,000[asset value we had constructed=$361,000-$205,000 {SDC curtilage assessment}=$156,000 for 18.5ha 2 titles included 7500sqm Industrial land adjacent to the Solid Energy purchase=85cents a sqm

 

132) According to D Marshal’s sworn evidence, accepted by 2 courts and 2 important Government departments this piece of land still had its Industrial value at the time of the sale (Appendix E) para31. Para 34-53 this complaint

 

133) How could Solid Energy possibly justify paying $20+ psm right next door if this whole affair is in anyway close to legitimate? Being a SOE surely they could only proceed with this purchase on the basis of a registered valuation. This valuation Solid Energy Valuation should be produced for comparison to the process these two corrupt valuers have used to help and conspire to steal our farm from us Crimes in relation to property NZ law Para 265 ; Conspiracy to defraud “Its an offence to conspire with another person to defraud the public or any individual by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it amounts to false pretences…..The conspiracy will be made out where the conspirators have dishonestly agreed to bring about a state of affairs which may deceive a victim into acting or failing to act so as to incur economic loss or put his or her economic interests at risk.” 

 

134) Obviously this is a scam to the extent of such, should be reported to the Serious Fraud Squad. The main culprits are the Valuers because had they been honest in portraying the true value of this property it would have completely changed the complexity of our situation.

 

135) These Valuers; Mc Skimming and Dunbar would be banished from Nigeria in fact all of Africa, for the extent of this scam. 

 

136)As for Dunbar’s valuation Why would Solid Energy the S.O.E. pay $750,000+ for a piece of Industrial land (undeveloped) 2.9ha map(f) when according to Dunbar 18.4 ha right next door in 2 titles{map(m)} (at the same time) is only worth $168,462 as an industrial investment or $96,318 (52cents sqm) on a 4 year deferment.

 

137) It is significant Solid Energy have purchased the front 10 acres and house of this property (35 Hoskyns Rd), recently from the SDC (appendix2c).{mapE}

 

138) It is not yet Zoned Industrial but I will be interested to compare the price and valuations of these Solid Energy purchases initially the 2.9ha in 2003 right next to us and recently the 4ha of what was our property.

 

139) Being statutory bodies, surely, as was stressed to us, these organizations must act within registered valuations so as this is directly pertinent to our situation they should be available for direct comparison to Simes and Dubars Valuations for any shred of credibility to be assigned to the Valuation process. These Valuation of Solid Energy purchase in 2003 and the front 4 ha of ex our farm in 2008 should be produced under the Official Information Act. Plus all the Valuation concerning the SDC purchases of our neighbours land these will describe direct comparisons to determine the criminal culpability of the Valuers in this scam. 

 

140) I feel Dunbar’s valuation was just plain corrupt, because of his connection to Cr Christensen and that of a witness and expert in the Resource consent matters concerning the Warehouse hardstand and the Izone Industrial park, he and his firm should not have been involved in these negotiations. 

 

141)As to the matter of the disclaimer Dunbar p14 

“3) Our responsibility in connection with this valuation report is limited to the client to whom the report is addressed and to that client only. We disclaim all responsibility and will accept no liability to any other party.”

 

142)The Client being defined in the opening page as Mr Micheal Branthwaite the project manager of Izone.

 

143)Dunbar knew full well that these valuations sole purpose was to be used in crucial negotiations between the SDC and us, in the negotiation concerning RMA matters (initially concerning the Warehouse hard stand and the proposed variation 2 plan change). 

 

144)Both of which Dunbar was a crucial witness and expert for the SDC. 

 

145)Also Dunbar’s Valuation was critical to the sale and purchase of our property, as according to the SDC negotiating rationale his valuation was vital to the perimeters of the price that could be paid to us by the SDC Dunbar /Simes /Fowler /Rodgers and Christensen together conspired with the SDC to purposely derail our negotiations and with the effort of AH(skilful and premeditated ineptitude) completely compromised our position with respect to litigation the RMA issues. These so-call Professionals must have felt extremely pleased with them selves. Brantwaite states in a letter to Fowler in respect to Dunbar’s corrupt Valuation purposely derailing the negations 20th May 2003 “…..At this point in time we believe consultation between the valuers would be important .You must realise that the Council can only act in terms of approved valuations” Obviously he is(wrongly) speaking of the Dumbar Valuation. The Council can and has acted outside approved Valuations and I in possession of publicly made evidence of such. More false and misleading evidence from the SDC contrary to the Fair trading act, Contractual Remedies Act but most importantly it is contrary to the LGA of open, transparent and democratically accountable, sound and prudent. These are obligations to Parliament how the SDC is required to conduct its business and commercial transactions clearly these obligations have not been met but purposely flouted and abused. Aided and actively abetted by these corrupt Valuers. 

 

146)The SDC under its obligations to the Local Govt Act 2002 (Wil sub Para 82) should have used a completely independent Valuer and I would have thought Dunbar with all those letters behind his name would be under some obligation to act with integrity, objectivity and transparency, and professionalism in the preparation and presentation of this valuation that would not require such a stringent disclaimer.

 

147)This behaviour should be not acceptable to ensure a certain level of confidence in the land valuation process to the general public thus resulting in a perception of credibility in this very process. 

 

148)It seems both these valuations have concentrated on the value of this property as a lifestyle block which as I have mentioned was clearly incorrect.

 

149)This method served the purpose in enabling scope for the lowest possible valuation to be presented in each case. Which was obviously in line with Christensen’s statements about these negotiations with us in his RMA evidence of Oct 2002. 

 

150)The corrupt irony of the situation is demonstrated by both valuations depreciating the value as a lifestyle block due to the proximity of adjoining Industrial land.

 

151) Mc Skimming completely negating the chance of 4ha subdivision because of the presence of this Industrial activity “Under the District Plan the Land is of a size able to be subdivided however given the configuration of it with most of the land forming the rear block as well as the position of adjoining industrial land we do not consider there would be a strong demand to undertake such Simes Feb p8 “ With a lifestyle block the positioning adjoining land of an industrial nature is a negative factor, Simes April p5 “The property does appear well suited to it’s present use as a horse training operation.

The development of the SI distribution centre for the Warehouse and associated hardstand area is considered to be detrimental to continuation of the present use of the site … 

Thus it is considered unlikely that the present use would continue if ownership of the property were to change.” However, the presence of the distribution centre is considered likely to make the property less attractive to potential purchasers that wish to continue the present use of the site

Simes April p9 last Para the main access to any proposed lifestyle blocks would be along Hoskyns Rd past several properties of industrial nature also.”

Dunbar p4” The subject property adjoins property to the immediate south zoned Industrial 3 under the Operative District Plan”

 

152)This is an incorrect description, as part of our property{map(d)} (Appendix2c) was zoned Industrial 3 under this Operative District plan but was rezoned to rural in the variation to Business 2 without us being in anyway informed, notified or compensated) .In so doing the subject land was restricted in use to the designate rural zone so therefore no commercial value given to it. I just refuse to believe this is allowable or acceptable in New Zealand or any other English speaking country for that matter.)

 

153) Dunbar p4“The current industrial land to the South of the subject property contains a wide range of established industrial concerns including a sawmill immediately adjoining the subject property Other industrial concerns accessed from Jones rd include a fertilizer plant coal yard, engineering and mechanical premises, vet clinic and new Warehouse Distribution centre.” 

 

153)Obviously this is creating a perception that it is not the area, which somebody would wish to purchase a lifestyle block but just as obviously this location gives this property huge potential for further Industrial development without any impediments,

 

154)This situation is clearly demonstrated by the SDC proposed plan change 2008, 08005 for this property (Appendix D) 3.16; the subject site is within the Urban Limits and is identified as a “Greenfield Outline Development Plan Area-Business. 

 

155)This report also cites the benefit of the road thoroughfare through this property.

 

156) The valuation should have used the same Land Bank methodology as Ford baker p9. (Appendix.7) This valuation technique has been utilised extensively in the past and has been accepted by the courts.

 

157)it is significant that of all these 8 properties that are to be rezoned (AppendixC& D) Business Zone 2 Rolleston 4.6 of which ours is by far the largest.

 

158) Our property was the only property actually adjacent to existing Industrial or Business land and ours was the only property that already had an existing Industrial land portion with in it. 

 

159)Ours was the only property that was in anyway bothered hindered or endangered by this Industrial development, so the opportunity for direct duress by this development was not present in these other cases.

 

160)This was pressing, relevant and pertinent in our situation.

 

161) It would be interesting to compare the valuations and the process of the negotiations of these other properties by the SDC whereby AH lawyers (The Chairman of Izone legal representatives) were not involved. Thus answering Mr Glasson’s query p5 bottom para “This issue can be resolved by reviewing the valuation process and the final price agreed and whether this price would have been different if another law firm, separate to AH and without the conflict of interest of representing Christensen, had been acting on behalf of the Williamson’s Part of that review of the valuation would also need to take account of the rezoning of the land to Industrial which was clearly going to occur as part of the process.” 

 

Valuation of property as rural lifestyle block 

162)As I have presented and Mr Glasson has stated in the RMA report, our property should have been valued on the basis of the potential Industrial Land bank methodology. It is important to remember we were not willing sellers but entered into the agreement to sell our property as a result of the nuisance already caused by the SDC and the perception of greater danger and nuisance due to the SDC complete and disregard of the RMA provisions.

 

163) This caused us anxiety and apprehension, which was exacerbated by our lawyers’ failure to remedy this situation.

 

164) We were also badly disadvantaged by the misrepresentation of the measures available for us to seek a satisfactory remedy to this potential danger and constant nuisance.

 

165 It is important to note that the Industrial activity on the existing Business 2 land was really of no consequence to us apart from annoying sawmill noise and smoke pollution from a discharge with no RMA lawful consent.

 

166) It constituted no danger at all to our horse training as the front part is far away from our track The Sawmill is completely screened with large trees and is also some distance from our fast work track. 

 

167)What caused the problem were the unscreened new developments right next to our jogging and fast work track and the escalation of the use(unlawful) of heavy machinery in this vicinity and the complete lack of any effective restriction to prevent this illegal use at our peril.

 

168)What is confusing to the situation is the amount and cost of the building and development we had done since moving to that property.

 

169) This was nothing to do with either of these valuers. Originally it was agreed we would be compensated for this (Appendix A &B), apart from the value of the land.

 

170) Obviously this was not at all the intention of the SDC (Appendix 8)AD Marshal para 44) 

.

171) Obviously both these valuers adjusted the value of the land and house downwards as well as corrupting the process in regards of the Industrial potential, to meet Christensen’s already stated motives and the SDC expectations.

 

172) I feel there are clear guidelines as to how legally this valuation should be analysed (Appendix 9) (Sub Wil Para 110; Stevens v Premium real estate)Justice Courtney They assessed the sale of comparable properties in the area that had recently sold. They adjusted the sale prices to reflect growth in the market since the sale. 

 

173)Obviously this process was not followed. Simes Feb heading, Sales Data “We have checked on a range of sales of properties in the general area to compare with this one, however would comment that there have been no recent sales of improved lifestyle blocks that provide good direct comparisons…. There have been few recent sales of blocks of similar size within close vicinity …”

 

174)This clearly is wrong and misleading by my own investigation I found evidence of similar blocks in this location prior to the valuations;

Similar properties sold in the area prior to valuation 

1) Hope; Hoskyns Rd 11.2 ha (27acre) house and bare land $455,000

 

2) Ryder: Hoskyn Rd 8.2ha about 20 acre exactly same type of house 

 

 

3) Jenkins; Hoskyns Rd 14.2ha 35 acres consisted of barn stable and track (no house)

 

4) Lischner Hoskyn Rd next to Hope (1) 8ha(20acre) bare land except fences but substantial home

 

5) Mc Grath: MaddisonRd adjoining Hoskyns Rd 34 acre housetraining with small cottage $340,000 All these sales were prior to 2002

 

6) Robertson 125 Hoskyns Rd 10.4 Ha about 25 acre house and farm land $365,000 Feb 2002 This is only 1 property removed from our property West {map(n)} (Appendix2b,2e)

 

 

7) Purdon located Lowes Rd about 2 km from subject property on Northern boundary of Rolleston 80acre bare land fences no trees, sold 2002 $10,000 per acre purchased to develop horse training complex.

 

175) 6and 7 are the most pertinent as 6) is almost next to us and is similar in all respects except smaller, (7) is an example of what we would have to pay to replace our property in a similar location.

 

176) Added to the price of these should be a % for the upward movement in the market in 2002 to 2003.

 

177)These are properties I found due to my own research in respect to horse training contacts where I have not stated price it is because I was not sure of what it was, but I am sure these prices can be found. I feel they must not be beneficial to the SDC cause, of stealing our property hence they were omitted by Mc Skimming from a valuation that was supposed to be commissioned on our behalf.

 

178) No doubt there are more relevant examples It should also be stressed that because of the situation of this sale (not willing) it is important to assess the cost of replacement of this area of land (18 .4 ha) in a similar convenient locality to Rolleston and Christchurch.

 

179)It is important to note Simes April p7 there are no numbers on the address, important as there is a huge variance of value in the value of property in Selwyn Rd and Burnham school road from one end to the other as compare to the examples I have given are further up Hoskyns rd away from Rolleston by about 3 to 5 km assuming closer to Rolleston has higher values.

 

180)On the basis of the example I have given with the rationale of the High court methodology (Stevens v Premium Real estate) para 172 this complaint The basic land value (excluding dwelling) of our 18.4 ha (46 acre) would equal {$460,000 + curtilage ($205,000) – (area of curtilage say 1 acre @$10,000) =$655,000}plus market movement %. Total valuation for basis of negotiation $655,000+$439,000(QS Improvements)=$1,094,000(+market increase on house and land) not including 7500 sqm of Industrial zoned land which Marshal from SDC is adamant was this zoning was in place at time of sale. Nor does this figure take account of any potential of Industrial development which obviously was the most significant purpose of the valuation process.

 

181) This is similar to the blocks I mention, neighbour (6) and Purdon (7) on the other side of Rolleston purchased by a horse trainer and for us to replace it in a similar area would more as we have to take into account the scarcity of blocks this size due to the ease of subdivision and market demand for 4ha blocks which this area 18.4 ha would account for at least 4.Dunbar p7 land Sales A wide range of sales evidence indicates general value levels for smaller 4-6hablocks within the general locality

 

182)Though this Purdon purchase (7) is interesting ,when we put this forward as an example. Mc Skimming stated, it didn’t count even though it was almost an identical situation in respect to its proximity to Rolleston but like 70 Jones Road it is almost completely engulfed in the Airport 50dba corridor.

 

183) According to this Valuer, this purchase did not count, as there was a rumour that Purdon was disappointed he had paid too much. (We have written confirmation of this rumour theory reply, if required)

 

184)That sounds extremely scientific, but sums up this (Mc Skimming) effort and attitude. He would not be eligible to be a member of the Witch Doctors, Voodoo Practitioners, Faith Healers or Stargazers Association, with that rubbish, and surely reflect poorly on the professionalism of his opinion? 

 

185)I am somewhat confused by Simes April p6 “Without reference to costing of a subdivision exercise on this property we are unable to provide an assessment of the block value on the basis of a proposed subdivision”

 

186)Contrast this with the Ford baker Jones Rd p13 “After consideration of the above evidence ….4 ha allotments have a current market value of $450,000 This there gave a gross realisation of the land of $1,350,000 from this we deducted the costs of subdivision and a developers profit and risk allowance, with a total cost deduction in this instance of $200.000. This indicated a land value for the site at $1,150,000”

 

187)The basis that they calculate in this particular case(70 Jones Rd) that 3 sites can be subdivided, is assuming access can be gained from a new or proposed road at the back of the property free of charge. 

 

188)If this access cannot be obtained subdivision would be able only for 2 blocks because of the minium size constraints.

 

189)Our property could have been subdivided into a minimum of 4, 10 acre blocks with a value of $150,000 =$600,000 and maybe 1, 5acre block which already existed in the title (Appendix2f) {map(m)} =$100,000 so total $700,000 minus only subdivision costs ($100,000) as we were in a position we could have done this ourselves Improvements should have been valued at $205,000 in line with the curtilage assessment (Appendix 10) made by the SDC for GST purposes

 

190)This gives a total value of $800,000 plus upward market movement %.

 

191)To sell as one block 46 acre x $10,000 =$460,000 +$205,000 (Improvements)= $665,000- $10,000(1 acre curtilage) =$655,000 plus upward market movement%

 

192) This is the bare minimum value that should have been attributed in this case. Of this property complete distinct from any Industrial land and /or potential Industrial development. 

 

193) Obviously both values of 4ha subdivision and sold as 1 lifestyle block are far less than what the property should have been valued as a potential Industrial land bank.

194)Neighbouring Properties (Appendix 2g)

1) 49 Hoskyns Rd Alan Drewit 2ha about 5 acres with house (average) $250 000 14 June 2002 {map(o)}

 

2) 61 Hoskyns rd L&SD Brown 2ha very basic house and hay barn (now demolished and replaced)$230,000, 22 March 2002 {map(p)}

 

3) 71 Hoskyns Rd PC & RM Molloy 2 ha Cottage (now demolished and replaced$189,000 19 July 2002) {map(q)}

 

195)All these neighbours (right next to) to our property on the Eastern boundary and 2 of them are adjacent to the 2 ha block which was on a separate title. Neither Valuer mentioned any of these examples. Map O,P,Q

 

196)It is beyond negligent that none of these properties of neighbours or similar properties were included in the calculation for our valuation.

 

197)They were neighbours or very close by and sold in a similar times frame prior to the valuation process .

 

198)Of the neighbours 2 ha blocks only 1) Drewitt was with a house worth saving the other 2 &3 was a shack and cottage which both were demolished so this is an indication of $230,000 and $189,000 for 2ha 5acre blocks yet 

 

199)Dunbar p7 

A wide range of sales evidence indicates general value level for smaller 4-6 ha blocks with in the general locality in the $128,000 to $145,000price bracket. We believe the bare land value can be established at $250,000

 

200) On the basis of this ill informed estimate backed up by no evidence Dunbar has calculated the total value of our 18.4ha of land in 2 titles at not much more than the average of (2) 2ha blocks right next door sold nearly 1 year prior.

 

201) Simes Feb Gives no value or significance to 4ha subdivision this again demonstrates his motive (at minimising the value),

 

 

202) This type of subdivision was a huge driver of the price of land in the inner plains area where this property was at the time as well as shortage of supply for our situation.

 

203) This is where we would have to replace it in line with the principles of the negotiations, hence the valuations

 

 

204) Simes April In his revised attempt he cites examples one in Aug 2001 a rear block another rear block Wild road another Wild road with pylons,

 

205) Our property had no pylons, I would not buy a property with pylons or cell phone towers. These 4ha blocks he cites $135,000–$145000 the pylon one is not relevant 

 

206) Yet no mention of the three 2ha blocks right next to our property(35 Hoskyns Rd) sold with in the time frame. 

 

207) Affect of these Valuations This situation can clearly be demonstrated by a report commissioned by D Russ the second lawyer we enlisted to act on our behalf. Apart from highlighting potential abuse of the RMA process by the SDC this report clearly shows the Valuation process should have been conducted on the basis of potential Industrial land thus Land Bank methodology. So reference to lifestyle blocks and rural 4ha subdivision is irrelevant. My analysis clearly shows these valuers not only wrong used this lifestyle and rural subdivision methodology. Not only wrongly subverted the correct comparison of recently sold examples in the same road and vicinity. But both these Valuers actually devalue the land on the basis of its adjacent/close proximity to Industrial development. This is done to such a dramatic extent the real term price of the land was valued at well less than $1 psm 

208)The Author of the report was Peter Glasson, a resource management consultant in Christchurch. I have included the complete report to explain the situation (Appendix 11). It is significant that Mr Glasson only complied this report on the review of our files given to him by D Russ. 

209)Mr Glasson never in anyway contacted or communicated with us  

210) It is also significant that our files have been substantially changed(doctored) including crucial letters of correspondence omitted (I am in possession of the original letters)and e-mails I purportedly wrote, forged by Cr Christensen’s legal representatives (AH) This report was on the basis of the altered files on AH(Fowler/Rodgers and Christensen’s behalf.

211) I do not know Mr Glasson, but on reading his report, that I have only recently had returned to us and read for the first time, it appears he has obtained a very good grasp of the actual situation.

212) It is also significant that neither D Russ or the subsequent lawyer G Cameron in no way discussed this report or its contents with us and D Russ seemed reluctant to share his full name with us referring to him only as Peter.

213) When we finally were able to gain access to our files from G Cameron this report was not amongst them. We only had it returned after I spoke to Mr Glasson on the telephone and then it still took several requests to G Cameron to have it returned finally (August 2008).

214) P.Glasson p4 bottom Para. Further analysis of the valuation process needs to be undertaken ..A review of the valuation process may be required to determine whether Fowler followed due process in the final figure for the sale that was agreed.

215)P Glasson p5 heading Conflict of Interest : In summary, Councillor Christensen was a key player in the development of the Industrial Park and is a client of AH, and in particular, Paul Rogers and Chris Fowler who were working directly on the file for the Williamson’s .The explanation outlined in the correspondence to the Williamson’s from Fowler suggests that it would be impossible for AH to withdraw from any action against SDC because they act for Christensen. I consider that the matter is more fundamental than that .In this case Christensen was directly involved and was directly negotiating on behalf of SDC against the Williamson’s and having direct correspondence and telephone conversations with Fowler. That would appear quite different than AH representing a client simply against the SDC.

The additional matter is whether this involvement influenced the action taken by AH and which resulted in less than ideal settlement for the Williamson’s. 

 

216)This issue can be resolved by reviewing the valuation process and final sale price agreed and whether this price would have been different if another law firm ,separate to AH ,and without any conflict of interest of representing Christensen ,had been acting on behalf of the Williamson’s, part of that review of the valuation would also need to take account of the rezoning of the land to Industrial which was clearly going to occur as part of the process” 

 

217)This matter would be very easily assessed simply by reviewing the process of the neighbouring properties, but SDC are reluctant to release these on the basis of so called commercial sensitivity. 

 

218)Not only did these valuations of our then property cause us to negotiate at a vastly reduced value methodology, that being lifestyle and 4ha subdivision which was further devalued due to the close and adjacent proximately of Industrial development. It failed to alert us to the huge difference and potential in value it would have been worth under the land bank principle for Industrial subdivision

 

219)It also failed to show to us that there was a legitimate mechanism for calculating the potential value of a property in this situation 

 

220)This matter alone would have availed us to many other options and given us the sufficient motivation to continue the process despite the way it had been illegally subverted by the SDC ,the property developers in charge of the whole project and the Chairman’s law firm (AH) who was supposed to be representing our interests. 

 

221) The corrupt valuations caused us a huge amount of stress and required us to become involved in something we had no interest in and didn’t really understand. This ultimately detracted, sidetracked, distracted us from the main issues of the RMA violations, causing the duress on us as well as it impacted on our health, business and personal relationships directly.

 

222)Obviously everybody knew of this land bank methodology and concept including: our lawyers (AH) the project team made up of property developers and a trained registered valuer, the SDC and offcourse, both valuers commissioned.

 

223) It is fair to assume the only people that were not aware of this concept and methodology were us the party that lost hugely by the conspiracy of the wrong valuation methodology being corruptly used. I many time requested from Fowler an explanation of how the value of potential Industrial land was calculated this include a request in writing, which was left in the file Fowler/Rodger doctored. But obviously there was no reply or answer to this request from this we assumed there was no tangible way to calculate this potential value and did not really press the point anymore. Concentrating on what we understood in the value of the facilities and farmland. Obviously this was the motive of Christensen’s lawyers and the valuers who had a duty to not only be sure we fully understood this concept that was so vital in the proper valuation of our farm under the circumstances. But put forward a valuation on the basis of it, which was credible, realistic, and legally correct. 

 

224)It is significant that the Chairman of this Izone and the person who was in charge of negotiations as well as the substantial client of the Lawyers supposed to be representing us. Had and has purchased a large number of rural blocks in the Selwyn district and Rolleston area for future commercial subdivision.

 

225) I would be interested to compare the valuations of those property purchases with these valuations .

 

226)Cr Christensen goes on to state in his Affidavit (9) “I believe AH involvement was of great assistance to the Williamsons as their dogmatic and at times, unrelenting approach to the Council forced the Council to pay substantially more than it considered (interesting choice of words)the property to be worth on a market value basis.”

 

227)Because Crn Christensen is a large, experienced and well known property developer who has purchased a large number of rural properties for development. Off course he would be aware of the huge disparity between the market value for a rural lifestyle property with no commercial potential and this property right next to a large commercial development yet he states under oath. AH involvement was of great assistance to the Williamsons as their dogmatic and at times, unrelenting approach to the Council forced.

 

228)The only forcing his legal representatives (who were supposed to be representing us) did was forced us to sell our property at a fraction of the price it was worth.

 

229) I am not really sure how to explain the legal terminology for this situation but if the SDC and these property developers went into and completed these negotiations relying on the fact we were ignorant of the methodology of valuing such properties with commercial potential. It is conspiracy to defraud please (refer Para 133) and all concern will be culpable of criminal liability. It must clearly be wrong in law and in the SDCs case, illegal by statute Local Govt Act 2002. 

 

230) In the usual course of events obviously the Lawyers and valuers will redress the situation for inexperienced laypersons so that such matters do not come to fruition or be able to be so deviously exploited. 

 

231) Obviously this has not happened here. The irony of the situation is the High Court and Court of Appeal held against us the fact that we had legal representation and registered valuers valued the property.

 

232)We engaged these professionals and trusted them as this matter was so important to us but these professionals did nothing but hinder us every step of the way as well as playing on our ignorance and trust. This is clearly unacceptable.

 

233)This matter of playing on our ignorance can most of all be demonstrated buy the abysmal application of any industrial potential value potential for our property. Because of its position especial relevant to the Industrial Park and proposed access road. It’s certainly feasible that 4 x4ha and 1x 2.5 ha (existing separate title) could be subdivided and deemed potential land bank properties. These being the same size as he property sold immediately adjacent in basically the same condition and position for $25/sqm. This would have resulted in a total value of $4.5 million with only the zone change to complete. Which everybody concedes would be a matter of course, with little if any credible opposition, basically a rubber stamp matter. Giving our property a value of $4 million more than attribute by Simes.

 

234)We were never in the position whereby we either needed to or wanted to sell this property it was only the aggravation, nuisance and danger caused by the recent and future Industrial development which forced us to first consider this action. 

 

235) The lack of action by our lawyers allowed the SDC to intimidate us, and consequently convinced us to walk away from this. Obviously had we been made aware of either the correct enforcement measures of the RMA and or the huge potential value of this property. We would have taken a different course of action. 

 

236)Had we received a valuation of our property based on the correct legitimate calculable basis of this potential, rather than speculation (which was in fact right), obviously we would have chosen a different path. 

 

237)As I have mentioned Dunbar should not have been involved in this process and Mc Skimming used every possible thing to whittle down the value of our property This can be clearly shown by examining the price he initially valued our Hay barn and 3 workshops SDC 

P6 Simes Feb Valuation Barn $2000($13,600)

Workshop132m2@65 =$8580 ($27,900) 

Workshop143m2at$75=$10,050($24,900)

Workshop146m2 at $25=$3650($33,800)

Concrete $6500

$30,780 ($69780)

238) The figure in bracket is the Value given by the SDC Quantity surveyor. Completely dissatisfied with this valuation by Simes , we engaged Rawlinson Quantity Surveyor;

The Rawlinson report based on relocating building 

3 bay hay barn $7500

Workshop (excluding slab)$32,600

Workshops high bay ex slab $66,000

Concrete slab 600m2 $24,000

 

239)This clearly shows Simes’ attempt including slab$30,780 This just plain crazy. Less than the cost of the raw croncrete 

Tomlinson (SDC, Dunbar) $69780

Rawlinson (Williamson) $130,100

240)As mentioned Rawlinson’s was on the basis of relocating the buildings. Tomlinson gave no value for the well on the basis I didn’t know how deep it was but I informed him the price of a new submersible 7hp pump had been $10,000+ as we had paid for it a year or 2 before. 

 

241)There is a huge disparity between the two valuations on the same things. We question the competence and professionalism of McSkimming’s (Simes) valuation: why should it be so low against us (especially when he was supposed to be preparing this on account for us) and if he was working to the proper guidelines without a negating ulterior motive? Which could only be some undisclosed connection to Christensen or the SDC and/or corrupt instructions from Fowler who did possess such an undisclosed connection at the time.

 

242) These figures are significant in respect to Mc Skimming performance when related to his initial all up valuation of $363,000- his initial figure for workshops and barns we constructed is $30,780 =$332,220, SDC $363,000-$69,780=$293,220 Rawlinson (relocation) $363,000-$130,100 =$232,900 if we subtract from this the SDC curtilage assessment $205,000 

 

243)This left the value of the 18.5 ha bare land , at $27,900 again I mention 5 years before we purchased this 18.5ha acre with house and dwelling amenities for $360,000. 

 

244)Through no fault of our own initially Mc Skimming is projecting its value in 2 titles with a 7500 sqm portion of industrial land as; total value $232,900 ($363,000-$130,100) . 

 

245)After 5 years and the emergence of the Izone project (right next to us) in real terms(according to Mc Skimming) the property has depreciated $127,100 and the 18.5 ha of land is worth $27,900. ($232,900-$205,000 SDC Curtilage assessment)

 

246)These actions by McSkimming caused us no end of anxiety and grief and they also gravely distracted us from other issues, causing us much argument with the lawyers (AH).Importantly, we did not know at the time that they(AH) were also the lawyers of the Chairman of this Izone development who we were our opponents.

 

247)We also did not really understand any of the valuation concepts but knew (Simes) assessment of these building was wildly low as we had, had to build these buildings and obviously had to pay much more than the amounts he apportioned to them.

 

248) For reference, the amount would have been more than the Rawlinson $130,100 but the exact amount I am not sure of (from memory the concrete cost $35,000 and we lay it as well as picked up some in our own (at the time) concrete truck, the electricity and 3 phase power $30,000and we did the excavation). 

 

249)Building and developing this place were not put in commercial perspective as we had never had any intention of selling it.

 

250)We tried to get another valuer to take over this process but the Lawyers (AH) tried to convince us against it and most every other valuer we contacted were either too busy or stated they had worked for SDC.

251)We knew nothing of the land valuation process so could not so strongly argue against the price as we did with these buildings.

 

252)As I mentioned in submissions, we had never had any experience in property dealing this is why we stated we wished to rely of the valuations rather than give a price. Arguably it is for the very reason the services provided are beyond the understanding of the recipient that these professionals and their services are in fact available. Also it is the reason that in the case of complete ignorance of these professional services the affect of abuse can be so important and significant. This matter can be easily demonstrated in comparing the performance of the Valuers to that of the quantity surveyors. Because I had had extensive experience in dealing with construction contractors I had sought their advice and quotations of many of the subject quotations the QS were required to do. This resulted in a figure although it did not equate to the replacement cost was not a fraction of it. Dunbar circumvented this by corrupting the process and purposely calculating the indemnity value himself and presented that for a dismally low starting price the SDC could use to delay, extort and intimidation by the use of unlawful construction machinery operating close to our training tracks. 

 

253)We only convinced to offer a price by Fowler at the very end of the negotiations rather than rely on the price, ultimately determined by a valuer as by now we had lost complete and utter confidence in the process and the integrity of professionals such as lawyers and valuers. Most importantly due to nothing being done to stop the unlawful construction machinery next to how training tracks we had become worn down by the process. 

 

254)This price however was solely based on the constraints of the incorrect valuations received, again had we been made aware of the Land bank methodology to value this property obviously the constraints would have been hugely different. This matter is examined in the Supreme Court Steven v Premium Real Estate 2009 87]..they were willing only because they were misinformed about the value by Premium”. We were misinformed about the value of our property but still were in no way willing vendors. Steven v Premium Real-estate 87]”…the advice about the value which led the Stevens to make the counter-offer was bad advice” Had we been aware of its true value and potential, even in spite of all the abuse, danger and aggravation caused to us by the SDC we most certainly would not have sold this property

255)The total (land house & building and other assets we had constructed) price would be determined between $740,000 originally it was $450 000(I am not exactly sure how this $740,000 figure was calculated may be Mr Dunbar can enlighten us) and $940.000

 

256) AH suggested we accept $800,000 rather than maybe being forced to accept $740,000. This situation was not our offer but as a result of being between a rock and a hard place.

 

257) What is important is the process, which enabled us to end up in this position is that if the true valuation on a land bank concept and method had been put forward, the figure would have been multiples higher than those proposed. Obviously these property developers, lawyers and valuers were aware of this. 

 

Summary 

258)We engaged a lawyer AH to act for us in the negotiation of the RMA challenge and or sale of our property at 35 Hoskyns rd.

 

259)Despite numerous attempts over a period of nearly 2 years, by Christensen to get us to name our price we never did give any indication of this. As we had not initiated this sale we did not know.

 

260)It was agreed that our land and house would be sold at valuation but we obviously expected any potentialities to be taken into account, which we believed the value of the land, would include any potential it may have for the purchaser’s projected business.

 

261)The value of the land should have included development value which is part of potential due to its location, position and situation and more importantly the purchasers business and motives.

 

262) I feel it was not an unreasonable expectation for us to anticipate this development potential value to be multiples in excess of a rural lifestyle value, and we have since discovered that under a land bank methodology it clearly is. We felt that if this property was to be used for Industrial development, which clearly it was and is, it not unreasonable we should be paid a sizeable premium for being required to move unwillingly.

 

263) The purchasers were to and will accrue a huge profit from the purchase of this property as well as the other benefits of the thoroughfare and the complete withdrawal of our opposition on RMA issues.

 

264) None of these matters are relevant in the Ford Baker valuation of 70 JonesRd but in this case still a commercial premium is placed on the property despite the impediments to its realisation, which did not exist in our case (35 Hoskyns Rd) The matter of Industrial development was clearly discussed, defined and agreed. But this should be included in any valuation as a matter of course; obviously this is the reason for this professional service. 

 

265) The other improvements almost all of which we had built ourselves would be valued at full replacement cost. 

This was again discussed, defined and agreed because of the extraordinary amount of construction we had undertaken on this property before there was any thought of Industrial development next to our training tracks.

 

266)The SDC and the both valuers were constantly bringing in curve balls to whittle the price down including this indemnity assessment of the these improvements. Plus the Valuer engaged by Fowler supposed to be acting for us constantly and stubbornly portraying the view there would be no demand for this Industrial land. Despite the screeds of contrary evidence available including his own firm. 

 

267) Dunbar (SDC) took it on to do this indemnity and the SDC used this as a starting point for these negotiations for one; he is/was not qualified to make himself, to assess these calculations as he is not a quantity surveyor and it was completely outside the terms by which these negotiation were agreed to be progressed. It is not explicitly stated that this is the methodology used to devalue our constructed assets but again more riddles by Dunbar. He should add to all those letters behind his name Ph D. ( Rogue&Riddles) 

 

268)But this is but one example of the dirty tricks employed in these negotiations. It is significant that our Lawyers did not inform us of departure of the agreed principles, but I discovered it myself later (5 or 6 weeks). 

 

269)This not before the SDC had used this corrupt figure to play for time and stall all the time compromising our opportunity to present a vigorous and robust RMA case. 

 

270)This time made no difference to the SDC as at no time throughout this whole affair did they abide by the RMA provisions or subsequent enforcement regulations that would have prevented the construction from commencing or continuing. “Branthwaite(Izone,SDC) letter to Fowler; 11th April 2003 (Appendix11b) “As discussed we advise that our clients have proceeded with work on the hardstand area on the basis building consent issued by the SDC. We acknowledge the situation with the earthworks permit and have written to the Warehouse Company advising them that any unconsented work must cease immediately on this area.” Again more riddles fundamentally what the SDC (Izone) and the Warehouse did was just commence and continue with the unlawful building any way. Note the date, there is uncontroversial evidence that shows this situation was apparent in Sept or October 2002(before the consent hearing) 7 months earlier yet its taken Braithwaite this time of this unlawful work continuing, to acknowledge it. It is also significant that far from ceasing they actually intensified it not withstanding the issuing of an abatement notice on the 23rd of April 2003, which was ignored with no enforcement. Compliments of Fowler and Rodgers 

 

271)They (SDC) continued with the construction machinery until it had finished. (Letter Fowler to SDC 30th May 2003 Appendix G) 7, In the event, by the time that an abatement notice was served on 24th April 2003 The Warehouse had already ceased activities on the site (not correct) not due to any intervention by the Council but rather because The Warehouse had completed the hardstand construction works to its satisfaction.( despite the Abatement notice the construction activities continued into May until this point was reached) Rules, laws and process that is for somebody else not the Izone realise it is not the mandate of the Valuer’s Complaint board to analyse or critique Lawyers, Councils or RMA procedure but this abuse we suffered clearly shows how important this Valuation process was. (Appendix G)8,The extent, duration and intensity of construction type activity on this site caused significant disturbance to our clients horse training operation. What was going on next to us was just the Wild West but the problem was nobody informed us. We had no wish to live and work in such an environment if we did we would move to Sierra Leone or some such place in South America. 

 

272) Proper procedure and enforcement would have not only enabled us to train our horses in safety but most of all given us some confidence in the process for the future. The more we complained about the huge machinery next to our training track to Christensen’s lawyers who were also supposed to be representing us, the more machinery arrived and persisted 7 days a week in and outside all normal hours. Clear evidence of this is put before the Court and like everything else is totally ignored. 

 

273)Both Valuers used completely irrelevant examples of sales to compare to this property and wrongly stated there were no relevant sales to compare to. By the examples