Transparency New Zealand

“The Sword which lady Justice carries supposedly symbolizes enforcement and respect, and is meant to imply that justice stands by its decision and ruling, and is able to take action. The fact that the sword is unsheathed and very visible is a sign that justice is transparent and is not an implement of fear. A double-edged blade signifies that justice can rule against either of the parties once the evidence has been perused, and it is bound to enforce the ruling as well as protect or defend the innocent party.”

BUT its is warfare and the sword is manipulated by an army on one side and an amateur on the other it is not a level playing field .

It equivalent to a mediaeval Joust, if I can drug your horse and cut your saddle straps I will win if I can stay in the saddle . That is pretty much the SPCA’s approach and they have targeted ladies with high value dogs and little ability to defend themselves.

I have written articles about Volkerson where an 80 year old and her daughter have had many of their pedigree dogs taken from them . I would not be supporting these ladies if they abused their animals , they have a magnificent farm and the dogs are just gorgeous

It took 1 1/2 years before charges were filed and in the intervening time the SPCA inspectors gathered evidence for the prosecution through

• unlawful search warrants which have never been proved to have been issued in any legal manner
• Taking defence documents from the home and never returning them depriving them of evidence for a defence
• cloning the computer and accessing their email accounts
• obtaining vet records from their vet for treatment for the dogs over a considerable period of time

additionally They employed dirty legal tactics

• Took the security system and left it dismantled
• used the pro bono panel of lawyers which happened to be a crown solicitor and who the court believed was representing the crown
• court documents which falsely allege that this a crown prosecution
• failed to disclose who the actual prosecutor was
• Acting in the name of the Auckland SPCA in disposal proceedings

• unsupported with evidence just weeks before the trial the prosecutor is now alleged to be RNZSPCA
• they trumped up the number of charges.. there are many duplicate charges and they obviously had to dig deep to formulate these. It appears it is an offence to have a dog on a short leash even for a short period of time !!!!
• the reason that there are so many charges is to overwhelm the ladies and their lawyers
• several dogs which they have allegedly left untreated and we allegedly ill were taken straight to a pound and left there for two weeks before being examined by a vet
• Puppies were unlawfully disposed of through the court when there is no legislative basis for their disposal
• they were denied the right to an independent assessment on the health of their dogs its all on the say so of the SPCA vets some of whom are confirmed SAFE activists
• the interview proves that the objective was not an investigation rather than an incentive to surrender the dogs which were selectively taken in October 2017 .
• the following year in the disposal proceedings there were offers to forgo the costs if the ladies voluntarily handed over their dogs
• there were in excess of 30 official visits and there were mid night raids where the dogs were disturbed and interfered with
• Swamped and overwhelmed the ladies with large bundles of alleged evidence which focus on distraction like smell and opinions about stained concrete rather than any real evidence of the condition of the dogs themselves
• you have to wonder why on two identical charges that one dog was seized and the other was not the only difference being that the imported blood line was seized and the other dog left
• What is the significance of of obtaining the dogs pedigrees ? and why were past purchasers of pups contacted and friends and relatives harassed.
• statements from various inspectors appear to be cut and paste versions none were written up contemporaneously and it was only after the final push to surrender the dogs failed that they started looking for evidence !
• the coordination of a public exposure (including TV press and a massive mail out) with the disposal hearing
• the attack and identification of the ladies through social media ensured that they had death threats and mid night raids

A legitimate prosecution would have been based on the evidence displayed by the dogs as they were found on the day and supported by the documents issued on the day that identify why they were seized instead we have statements such as this “We said they have too many dogs on the property and a major destock was required.” The property is a farm it is massive and it isn’t looked after just by the two ladies they had farm workers of which there is no mention made.

It is grossly unsafe for a private organisation for have coercive law enforcement powers , unlike the police they have no independent oversight and they have the government acting for them through the crown solicitor sanctioning the corruption rather than holding hem accountable for the transgressions

Luke Radich better known for his involvement in a betting scandal is employed by the crown solicitor , he appeared incapable of identifying the fact that the prosecutor in this case could not be

He has not checked the charges as implied by Anita Killen in Law talk Download LawTalk issue 904 p65″by providing legal opinions on individual files as to whether the test for a prosecution is met,” wouldn’t getting instructions from a legal entity be the first port of call ?

How could the Royal society for the prevention of cruelty to animals ( Auckland) “instruct” a lawyer when it does not exist

What process did the decision for prosecution follow when the head inspector for the RNZSPCA said that she had no knowledge of the matter but did assist in returning 5 unlawfully taken dogs in Dec 2019

Which board of which legal entity authorized the prosecution it was the Auckland SPCA which “instructed ” Luke Radich this email sent to the ladies lawyers

Referring to the disposal order above we have been trying to get our head around the number of pups for a long time , not only did Radich and Natalie walker fail to advise the court that the puppies were not capable of disposal under section 136 A but there is a gross discrepancy in numbers there was an application to dispose of 13 puppies Reid in his email below alleges “Desni gave birth on the 10th of December and her 7 puppies (4 male and 3 female) are doing well.”

Unfortunately one of Debbie’s pups died and was eaten by Debbie. Despite the challenging time that Debbie went through during helping our vets advise that her 4 male and 5 female are now progressing satisfactorily. I make that 16 pups

The vet reports Debbie had 11 pups one DOA which is odd as there is a kennel number missing in the sequence and the DOA appears to be a non sequential number . Two were euthanized total of 8 surviving pups

Desney is shown as having 9 pups one euthanized 2 deceased which leaves 6 a total of 14 pups she whelped in a moving van being transported by the SPCA . she did not have a quite place to whelp and it appears that pups died as a result of the SPCA’s negligence in not allowing a dog to have a safe place to deliver her pups .

One puppy has officially gone AWOL and 13 unlawfully disposed of. This is proof that he SPCA cannot account for anything and their lawyers cant get the law right. If the SPCA cannot account for puppies what else are they getting wrong .. there is plenty but we will leave that for court

Greg Reid writes

Spca.org.nz was the web domain owned an operated by The Auckland SPCA Reid specifically states “I have copied in the email details of Luke Radich from the Auckland Crown Solicitor Kayes Fletcher Walker, who we have instructed.”

He goes on to add “I can further confirm that whilst the SPCA acknowledges the efforts your clients have made in developing new Kennels. the number of dogs your clients have confirmed they have still exceeds the Kenneling capacity at the
property. In addition we still hold concern about the integrity and competency of your clients approach in managing dogs and so it would be inappropriate to place dogs back into what we have deemed to be a significantly high
risk environment, particularity when despite our repeated requests and directives your clients persisted in operating in a manner which we anticipate will result in criminal proceedings.“

This confirms the statement he is recorded as making when he inspected the new kennels which the ladies were told to build he claimed that  the improvement was 120% but added “Hope you have not built the kennels for the dogs, you will never get the dogs back.”

The ladies had complied with every section 130 direction and had never been warned that they failed to comply they were doomed from the very first day when they were identified as being prime targets as per the scenario below

This from and Australia contributor

False allegations of sexual assault and other sexual offences have had a fair run in the media, and are an obvious problem. 

However, false allegations are a far greater problem with respect to RSPCA prosecutions, about which the scepticism factor has yet to ruffle the public mind – despite the tsunami of rage rising on the internet!

An estimated 100% of RSPCA cases are

1) fabricated (eg inter alia with staged photographs) or

2) exaggerated beyond credibility, and 

3) reliant on hostile subjective interpretations of statutory offences made possible by loose statutory definitions, and

4) collusion of witnesses,

5) use sub-clauses of the relevant legislative Act without reference to other clauses which would inhibit prosecution if the Act was required to be regarded as internally consistent

6) based on selective profiling –  with a view to using ‘prosecutorial discretion’ (inbuilt for  ‘private prosecutions’) – which ignores common law insistence on ‘equality of all before the law‘, in order to choose persons a) with property or other valuable benefits that can be acquired through conviction, or b) predicted to be lackingfinancial, emotional or physical capacity to run an effective defence,

7) should be peremptorily denied locus standi on grounds of history of bringing vexatious charges

8) should be but are not thrown out by a) the DPP on request for intervention to terminate or takeover the case, or b) the magistrate concerned for to protect the process of the court over which he is presiding, on grounds of unconscionable behaviour, improper purpose, mens rea (no criminal intent), etc.

9) supported by unconscionable refusal of politicians, lawyers, judges, magistrates, DPP, police, media or general public to assess RSPCA prosecutions as an offence against public order and good governance (public interest)

I am sure I could continue along these lines for a considerably longer time. 

In my personal case, all of the above should be augmented with extra charges that should include, for instance, false arrest, entry without a warrant, wilful damage to property, conspiracy, wrongful access to police surveillance and database, defamation, theft, and more.  

For the moment, however, please consider the content of the attached ‘Summary case against the RSPCA’ – with especial look at Section 4, for 31 “possible/potential charges” with which the RSPCA should be charged, as preliminary to demand for massive compensation for victims who have suffered massive and ruinous damages to their lives.