Below is the full report into Martin Honey Ray White‘s fraudulent Re/max website , the case independently investigated and reported on by a respected veteran of the New Zealand Police force; now retired Detective Sergeant Peter Hikaka; his report submitted only days ago. Lauda Finem’s volunteers have also been working tirelessly to obtain the email addresses of over 4000 (and climbing) of New Zealand’s real estate agents and will (as of tomorrow) be sending all posts directly to those in the industry.
The names of the victims of Martin Honey Ray White‘s criminal offending have been redacted for good reason, there are a number of parallel investigations being undertaken. Those investigations have yet to be concluded, therefore publishing the names of the victims of Martin Honey’s criminal offending would obviously compromise the other enquiries:
MARTIN HONEY – SUSPECTED CRIMINAL OFFENDING
1. I acknowledge your instructions received at our meeting on 23 January 2012, in
relation to the actions of Martin Honey, of Pure Realty Limited, a Ray White
franchise in Royal Oak, Auckland.
2. To assist me with my task, you provided to me a volume of documentation,
including a full copy of the Real Estate Agents Authority (REAA) complaint file
(numbered pages 1-436). You also provided to me a DVD recording made by
you at your offices, on 19 April 2010.
3. Your specific instructions to me were:
• To peruse the documentation and provide an opinion regarding the
criminal liability of Martin Honey, as a result of his actions.
• To review the recorded telephone conversation between you and
Stephanie Honey and comment on your manner during this interview.
• To comment on the investigative procedures, which should be adopted,
upon receipt of a complaint, such as the complaint you have made to the
REAA against Martin Honey.
• To make a recommendation as to whether the alleged criminal behaviour
of Martin Honey should be referred to the Police for their follow up investigations and
4. You indicated that you required my report by Monday 30 January 2012.
5. I preface my report by indicating that I have been a licenced private investigator
since 2004. Prior to that, I completed 30 years of service in the New Zealand
Police, with 17 years being spent as a Detective Sergeant in the Criminal
6. I make the observation that perusal of the provided documentation clearly
indicates that within the correspondence are thorough and carefully considered
facts and comments on the criminal liability of Martin Honey, which have been
provided by yourself, (victim B) and (victim C), on the
matters which you have instructed me.
7. I also make the observation that in an email from (victim C) to Acting Senior
Sergeant Grant Harris of Onehunga Police, dated 02.08.2011, (victim C)
refers to delivering a bound complaint folder to the Onehunga Police.
8. I note that in late September 2009, your company of (the Company)
Limited purchased the Onehunga RE/MAX franchise and began operating as
RE/MAX (the Company) in October 2009.
9. The previous RE/MAX franchise holder was Pure Realty Limited, owned and
operated by Martin Honey and Rohan Thompson.
10. In or around April 2010, you became aware of a RE/MAX branded website
operated by Pure Realty Limited. This was of concern as Mr Honey and Pure
Realty Limited had not been operating a RE/MAX franchise since February 2009.
11. In a telephone call to Mrs Stephanie Honey (wife of Mr Honey), on 19 April 2010,
she confirmed that the RE/MAX website was operative and the properties
advertised on it were currently listed for sale in April 2010.
12. The properties advertised on the (Pure Realty Limited) RE/MAX website were
simultaneously advertised on the Pure Realty Limited’s Ray White website.
When one selected a property on the RE/MAX website, one was transferred to
the Ray White website.
13. You have indicated that Mr Honey was aware of the significant ethical and other
breach of business standards and did not apologise. You have stated that at the
threat of legal action he did take the site down.
14. You indicated that you forwarded a comprehensive letter to Mr Honey, explaining
the breach, and asking for an explanation of how his actions could have
occurred, other than purposefully and with dishonest intentions.
15. You have indicated that other than that it was “an error”, there was no other
response from Pure Realty Limited, or Mr Honey.
16. You have stated that it is your belief that the purpose for
the misrepresentation by Mr Honey was to maintain a
RE/MAX branded presence, without ethical entitlement, in
order to have any enquiry that would come to RE/MAX
(the Company), linked to Mr Honey in Ray White.
17. You have stated, that in your opinion, it is obvious that this was occurring
because of the existence of the fraudulent website some 14 months after it
should have been taken down.
18. You have stated that it has been incontrovertibly established that:
• A link had been made between the Ray White website and the fraudulent
RE/MAX website, enabling the browser to automatically go directly from
the RE/MAX website to the Ray White website.
• The same properties were listed on both sites, and if the properties were
loaded automatically to both, say from the initial input into the Ray White
website, then such a link had to be, and was, created by the person/s that
benefited from such a course of action.
• Crucially the RE/MAX website does not have the previous franchise
name, RE/MAX Home, advertised on it, which proves that Mr Honey and
the directors of Pure Realty Limited have purposefully taken that
information out, as part of their plan of action.
19. You indicated that the effect of this dishonesty, by Mr Honey and Pure Realty
Limited, amounted to tens of thousands of dollars lost in commissions to agents
of your RE/MAX (the Company) franchise.
20. Your concerns were the subject of a formal complaint to the REAA against Mr
Honey, in a complaint dated 25 February 2011, made pursuant to the Real Estate
Agents (Complaints and Discipline) Regulations 2009.
21. You indicated that following your complaint to the REAA, which the REAA
forwarded to the CAC for further investigation, a text exchange occurred between
you and Mr Honey. You indicated that during this text exchange, Mr Honey
referred to your complaint against him, lodged with the REAA, and stated in
capital letters “BIG MISTAKE”. Following this text exchange, a formal complaint
was then made by Mr Honey, against (victim A), in a report dated
28 February 2011.
22. I note (at page 81 of REAA file) that in a covering letter from Mr Honey to Mr
Keith Manch, CEO, REAA, dated 28 February 2011, which accompanied Mr
Honey’s formal complaint, he makes reference to the fact that he is forwarding
the complaint, “after speaking with my local MP Or Jackie Blue, who in turn is
passing a copy of this on to the Minister of Affairs Justice Nathan Guy”. Mr
Honey further states in the same letter, “Jackie and I are both very concerned
that someone like this is in the industry and respectfully ask that you attend to
this as a matter of urgency”.
23. I note (at page 80 of REAA file) that in a letter, written by Dr Jackie Blue to Hon
Nathan Guy, dated 1 March 2011, presented on
parliamentary letterhead, Dr Blue refers to ” ….. enclosed
a dossier provided to me by Mr Martin Honey, a Mt Roskill
constituenf’. She further states ….. the dossier that
make serious allegations, which if proven to be correct,
casts serious concern over the suitability of Mr
(victim A)’s current occupation as a real estate
salesperson.” She concludes her letter stating “I would be grateful if you could
please urgently investigate this with the Real Estate Agents Authority”.
24. I make the observation that it appears that Mr Honey has been able to engage
the services of politicians in this manner, which can only be for the purposes of
boosting the credibility of his complaints against (victim A), and
others. He appears to have immediately gained such support from Or Jackie
Blue. This is a matter of concern, considering the fictitious content of the
allegations Mr Honey has made to the REAA, which is discussed in more detail
later in my report.
25. Mr Honey’s allegations to the REAA were that (victim A), “has
viciously verbally attacked my wife over the phone making threats he will ruin us.
We have perceived the correspondence received from (victim A)’s office in
regard to the complaint as threatening, with the intention to intimidate us into
doing as he demands”.
26. Mr Honey also made a complaint against (victim C) alleging that
“I’d also like to add these people to this complaint:
• (victim C), the writer and signature holder of the first fax to me and also (victim D), the Director and Licensee
(according to their website) who should be in effective control of
27. He made a further complaint against (victim D) alleging “(victim C)
the writer and signature holder of the first fax to me and also (victim D), the
Director and Licensee (according to their website) who should be in effective
control of the business”.
28. In a letter forwarded by (victim A), to Mr Keith Manch, CEO of
REAA, dated 29 June 2011, he refers to the matter of completeness, indicating
that his complaint was also against Mr Honey’s wife (if she is a licensed agent).
29. Subsequent to the complaints by Mr Honey against the parties referred to above,
this then resulted in the following, further complaints against Mr Honey:
• (victim A) alleged that Mr Honey had made a false complaint
against (victim A), of dishonesty and intimidation in order to
defeat the course of justice in the matter of the complaint of (victim A)’s
against Martin Honey and Pure Realty Limited, for
dishonestly and fraudulently running a RE/MAX website in or around
February 2008 to April 2010.
• (victim B) lodged a formal complaint against Mr Honey and
his wife “for making false allegations against
• (victim C) made a formal complaint against Mr
Honey alleging that“Mr Honey has purposefully,
and with dishonest intent, made false allegations
against (victim A), and the other staff of
Property Bank Realtor Limited, in order to pervert or defeat the course of
justice relating to (victim A)’s complaint against Mr Honey
purposefully running a fraudulent website designed to misrepresent to the
public that Mr Honey worked for a RE/MAX franchise operating in
Onehunga, in order to defraud Property Bank Realtor Limited of likely
substantial commissions due from contact with RE/MAX clients”.
• (victim C) further stated that“the complaint to the Complaints
Assessment Committee is that Mr Honey breached section 153 of the Act
in making a false complaint to the REAA that he actually complained to
the New Zealand Police”.
30. The REAA case manager advises that these complaints had been referred to a
Complaints Assessment Committee (CAC) and that the CAC would consider
each complaint and determine what action to take.
Allegations that Martin Honey and Pure Realty Limited fraudulently operated a
RE/MAX website in or around February 2008 to April 2010
31. (victim A) in his formal complaint to the REAA identifies his
concerns regarding this matter. In the DVD recording, which has been exhibited,
he demonstrates this RE/MAX branded website operated by Pure Realty Limited,
that was operating on 19 April 2010 when he made this recording.
32. In his correspondence, Mr Honey has denied these allegations against him. An
explanation he provides is that it is the result of a history of views on Google, of
RE/MAX Onehunga, because of a history of views through Google with his name
and RE/MAX together, over the past years. He indicated that that was how
Google works and in time it would probably disappear.
33. Mr Honey provides supporting correspondence from his web designer I manager,
34. On this subject, in the formal complaint against Mr Honey, by (victim C), to
REAA, dated 30 June 2011, it establishes that (victim C) is an expert in this
area, and that he has a Bachelor of Commerce degree in Information Systems
and Operations Management, and his area of expertise is relevant to this
complaint against Mr Honey, in relation to database management, computer
programming, networking and website design.
35. (victim C) has read the annexed explanations about “caching”, supplied by Mr
Honey to the REAA, in his complaint dated 10 June 2011, and indicates that the
explanations clearly inculpate, rather than exculpate, Mr Honey. He goes into
some detail to explain this.
Martin Honey and Pure Realty Limited – fraudulently operating a RE/MAX website
in or around February 2008 to April 2010 – Criminal Liability
36. In my opinion, there is prima facie evidence to show that
Martin Honey has, with dishonest intentions, created the
RE/MAX website and created a link to his Ray White
website. Due to the prima facie evidence that does exist,
I strongly recommend that the matter is referred to the
Police for their further investigations with a view to criminally prosecuting Mr
37. The purpose of any Police investigation is to establish the facts, gather all
relevant evidence, identify the criminal liability of the persons involved, and
consider prosecution. In this matter, the purpose of a Police investigation would
be to investigate the allegations against Mr Honey. These investigations may
identify criminal offending by Mr Honey, and others.
38. The following are indications of further investigations which should be carried out
by the Police, but they are not exhaustive:
• Interview of Martin Honey.
• Interview of Stephanie Honey.
• Interview of Hemi Taka, Mr Honey’s wed designer/manager, to clarify the
comments he made in support of Mr Honey.
• The execution of search warrants to seize Mr Honey’s computer systems.
• The examination of Mr Honey’s computer systems by a Police IT forensic
• Obtain an opinion from the Police IT forensic expert on the procedures
adopted by (victim A), as recorded on the DVD on 18 April
2010; comment on the explanations provided by Mr Honey and Mrs
Honey; and provide an opinion on “cached” material and examine the
computer of Martin Honey, which the Police should seize pursuant to a
• Have the Police forensic expert comment on the opinions provided by Mr
Honey’s web designer/manager Hemi Taka, and Lioness Consulting.
• Carry out background enquiries into Martin Honey and his business
practices and reputation in the industry. As an example, the many
references to his good work performances, as shown on his website, may
not be genuine.
• Interviews of (victim A); (victim B); (victim C).
• The following criminal offences should be considered when investigating
the allegations against Mr Honey:
• Crimes Act 1961, section 240 – obtaining by deception or
causing loss by deception.
(1) Everyone is guilty of obtaining by
deception or causing loss by
deception who, by any deception
and without claim of right, –
a) Obtains ownership or possession of, or control
over, any property, or any privilege, service,
pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable
consideration, directly or indirectly; or
(b) In incurring any debt or liability, obtains credit; or
(c) Induces or causes any other person to deliver over,
execute, make, accept, endorse, destroy, or alter
any document or thing capable of being used to
derive a pecuniary advantage; or
(d) Causes loss to any other person.
(2) In this section, deception means –
(a) A false representation, whether oral, documentary,
or by conduct where the person making the
representation intends to deceive any other person
(i) Knows that it is false in a material particular;
(ii) Is reckless as to whether it is false in a
material particular; or
(b) An omission to disclose a material particular, with
intent to deceive any person, in circumstances
where there is a duty to disclose it; or
(c) A fraudulent device, trick, or stratagem used with
intent to deceive any person.
• Crimes Act 1961, section 249 – accessing computer system
for dishonest purpose.
(1) Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 7 years who, directly or indirectly, accesses any
computer system and thereby, dishonestly or by deception,
and without claim of right, –
(a) Obtains any property, privilege, service, pecuniary
advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration; or
(b) Causes loss to any other person.
(2) Everyone is liable to imprisonment
to a term not exceeding 5 years
who, directly or indirectly, accesses
any computer system with intent,
dishonestly or by deception, and
without claim of right, –
(a) To obtain any property, privilege, service, pecuniary
advantage, benefit, or valuable consideration; or
(b) To cause loss to any other person.
(3) In this section, deception has the same meaning as in
• Crimes Act 1961, section 256 – forgery.
(1) Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 10 years who makes a false document with the
intention of using it to obtain any property, privilege,
service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or valuable
(2) Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 3 years who makes a false document, knowing
it be false, with the intent that it in any way be used or
acted upon, whether in New Zealand or elsewhere, as
(3) Forgery is complete as soon as the document is made with
the intent described in subsection (1) or with knowledge
and intent described in subsection (2).
(4) Forgery is complete even though the false document may
be incomplete, or may not purport to be such a document
as would be binding or sufficient in law, if it is so made and
is such as to indicate that it was intended to be acted upon
• Crimes Act 1961, section 257 – using forged documents.
(1) Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 10 years who, knowing a document to be
(a) Uses the document to obtain any property,
privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit, or
valuable consideration; or
(b) Uses, deals with or acts upon the document as if it
were genuine; or
(c) Causes any other person to use, deal with, or act
upon it as if it were genuine.
• Crimes Act 1961, section 258 – altering,
concealing, destroying, or reproducing
documents with intent to deceive.
(1) Everyone is liable to imprisonment to a term not exceeding
10 years who, with intent to obtain by deception any
property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage, benefit,
or valuable consideration, or to cause loss to any other
(a) Alters, conceals, or destroys any document, or
causes any document to be altered, concealed, or
(b) Makes a document or causes a document to be
made that is, in whole or in part, a reproduction of
any other document.
(2) An offence against subsection (1) is complete as soon as
the alteration or document is made with the intent referred
to in that subsection, although the offender may not have
intended that any particular person should –
(a) Use or act upon the document altered or made; or
(b) Act on the basis of the absence of the document
concealed or destroyed; or
(c) Be induced to do or refrain from doing anything.
• Crimes Act 1961, section 259 – using altered or reproduced
document with intent to deceive.
(1) Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 10 years who, knowing any document to have
been made or altered in the manner and with the intent
referred to in section 258, with intent to obtain by deception
any property, privilege, service, pecuniary advantage,
benefit, or valuable consideration, or to cause loss to any
other person, –
(a) Uses, or deals with, or acts upon the document; or
(b) Causes any person to use or deal with, or act upon,
39. When considering the criminal liability of Mr Honey, consideration should also be
given to the criminal liability of Mrs Honey, and Hemi Taka (and others), as
parties (Crimes Act 1961 section 66) to any offences committed by Mr Honey.
40. I make the observation that it would be easy to become
distracted when considering this initial complaint by (victim A) against Mr Honey, due to all the
ancillary matters which have been generated and tabled.
I point out that prior to (victim A), or anyone
else from RE/MAX (the Company), making contact with Mr
Honey (and his wife), either directly or indirectly, the
alleged offending by Mr Honey had already been completed. It would be
disappointing if any authorities investigating this complaint against Mr Honey
became sidetracked by these extraneous and irrelevant matters.
41. It is crucial that all investigations address only the relevant facts.
(victim A)’s phone calls (2) to Stephanie Honey on 19.04.2010
42. These telephone calls are as portrayed in the DVD provided by (victim A)
43. The first call to Mrs Honey was for a duration of approximately 44 seconds and
ended with (victim A) indicating, to Mrs Honey, that he would call Mr
Honey on his cell phone. This subsequent call to Mr Honey’s cell phone was
again answered by Mrs Honey and the ensuing conversation occurred. This
conversation lasted approximately 12 minutes and 19 seconds.
44. (victim A)’s actions in recording this telephone conversation with
Mrs Honey were lawful. In my opinion, it is fortuitous for him that it was recorded
because it provides an accurate account of the conversation, and of the manner
of the conversation, between (victim A) and Mrs Honey.
45. I say fortuitous, because the subsequent allegations made against (victim A)
in relation to this call, are a fabrication. Lies are being told in an
attempt to show (victim A) in a bad light. This is misleading. These
lies have been told by Mr Honey and by inference, are supported by Mrs Honey.
46. I have watched and listened to the DVD of (victim A)’s telephone
conversations with Mrs Honey, on several occasions. In my opinion, there was
nothing untoward in what (victim A) said to Mrs Honey, nor in the
manner in which he spoke and conducted himself. There were occasions when
he had attempted to explain matters but he was interrupted by Mrs Honey, and
he asked that he be allowed to complete what he was saying.
47. As a result of my Police experience of 30 years, I can confidently say that (victim A)’s
manner and demeanour when speaking to Mrs Honey was
far less rigorous than what I have witnessed of barristers and solicitors, and
police prosecutors, when cross examining witnesses during judicial proceedings.
48. It is to be remembered that (victim A) was speaking to Mrs Honey,
as the victim of suspected criminal offending by Mr Honey, and was attempting to
seek clarification on matters which were of concern to him.
49. I consider it imperative that an accurate transcript of these telephone calls be
prepared, and attached to any investigation I complaint file.
50. I further note that the telephone calls by (victim A)
to Mrs Honey, preceded any communications
that (victim A), and/or employees at
RE/MAX (the Company), had with Mr Honey.
51. I consider that any criticisms of (victim A)’s
manner and demeanour when speaking with Mrs Honey
are unjustified, and would be tendered in an attempt to misrepresent the actual
Martin Honey complaint against (victim A)
52. Mr Honey, in his complaint against (victim A), states that “(victim A) has viciously verbally attacked my wife over the phone making
threats he’ll ruin us”.
53. The only dealings (victim A) has had with Mrs Honey was during the
two phone calls, which have been the subject of earlier discussion in this report.
The assertions made by Martin Honey are blatant and malicious lies.
54. I further note that in correspondence from Mr Honey, he has incorrectly accused
(victim C) of being the person who telephoned Mrs Honey.
55. The timing of his allegations against (victim A) (and (victim C)
and (victim D) of RE/MAX (the Company)) are within days of him being notified
that (victim A) had made a complaint against him for the fraudulent
running of a RE/MAX website.
56. His false allegations, in relation to (victim A)’s telephone
conversations with his wife, appear to be directly related to his attempts to
mislead the REAA, at the time that they would have received and were
considering the earlier complaint against him.
57. As earlier alluded to, it is fortuitous that (victim A) did record the
telephone conversations he had with Mrs Honey, otherwise there would have
been direct conflict between the accounts of (victim A) and Mr
Honey. The recordings show that Mr Honey has lied in relation to these phone
calls, and this seriously affects his credibility in relation to any assertions or
explanations he has made, and will make, in relation to all matters involved in this
Martin Honey letter addressed to New Zealand Police dated 28 February 2011
58. Of further concern is the letter written by Mr Honey, and addressed to the New
Zealand Police, in which he makes allegations against (victim A).
59. Of concern is that all enquiries with New Zealand Police indicate that they have
no record of receiving this letter of complaint, addressed to them, and nor has
any such matter been logged into their system to confirm that they have received
any complaint at all from Mr Honey in relation to (victim A). This
suggests that Mr Honey has created this letter to misrepresent the fact that he
had reported the matter to the Police.
60. Further to this, he included this letter, addressed to the
New Zealand Police, in his complaint against (victim A), which he lodged with the REAA.
61. Mr Honey’s actions in creating this false document is
tantamount to forgery in that the document he prepared,
and addressed to the New Zealand Police, tells a lie
about itself and misrepresents the facts. It can only have been created and sent
to the REAA to mislead them into thinking he had also lodged the complaint with
the New Zealand Police.
62. In summary, other contents of this letter created by Mr Honey, and addressed to
New Zealand Police, make a number of false allegations about (victim A).
63. Mr Honey’s criminal liability in relation to his complaints against (victim A) (and (victim C)
and (victim D)) are also matters which I recommend are lodged with
the Police, alleging criminal behaviour by Mr Honey, in his attempts to obstruct,
pervert, prevent or defeat the course of justice due to the misrepresentations
he has made against (victim A), for the purposes of misleading the REAA
in their investigations into (victim A)’s complaint against Mr Honey.
64. It follows that if such allegations against Mr Honey are made to the New Zealand
Police, and he provides similar statements of a false and misleading nature, he
will again be criminally liable for repeating that crime.
65. Due to the criminal liability on this matter being widely and accurately discussed
in the reports of (victim A), (victim B) and (victim C),
I will not expand further on that matter, but strongly recommend that this
complaint also be lodged with the New Zealand Police, if that has not already
66. In addition to earlier identified recommended Police investigations, I consider it is
also relevant to the investigations of Mr Honey’s false complaint to the REAA, to
carry out detailed interviews of Dr Jackie Blue, Mr Nathan Guy, and REAA’s
former CEO Mr Manch, to determine and identify any dialogue and/or
correspondence they may have had with Mr Honey in relation to the complaint he
lodged with the REAA.
67. In addition to this it would be important to establish from Dr Jackie Blue, the steps
she took to establish the integrity of the Honey complaint against (victim A), before she provided the steadfast support that she has. Has he also lied and deceived her?
68. You have indicated to me that you have previously had discussions regarding
this matter, and the involvement of Dr Jackie Blue, with your local MP Mr Peseta
Sam Lotu-liga. You have indicated that Mr Lotu-liga had subsequent discussions
with Or Blue, who advised him that she had no intention of withdrawing her
support from Mr Honey. Accordingly, I would recommend that Mr Lotu-liga
should also be interviewed as part of a Police investigation.
69. Despite your indication that you wished me to provide comments in relation to Mr
Honey’s criminal liability, I do note that in the REAA ACT 2008
section 144, it is an offence to provide false or misleading
information for the purposes of any application for a
licence under this Act; and the REAA Act 2008 section 153
makes it an offence for a person without reasonable
excuse, (a) to resist or obstruct or deceive any person
who is exercising any powers, and (b) to give that person
any particulars knowing that those particulars are false or misleading in any
Note: The video below was disabled by YouTube on 20 April 2012 after someone in power (we suspect via YouTube partner TVNZ) falsely alleged that what amounts to an evidential tape was defamatory. It is of course not defamatory, the truth never is, but the video does evidence Mr Honey’s criminal offending and that must be embarrassing for Mr Honey and the REAA.
Lauda Finem have also taken the extraordinary step of closing our YouTube account (in protest) and will be working over the weekend to have the video evidence up and running again, this time under the complete control of www.laudafinem.org so that the likes of Martin Honey and his corrupt national party mates cant touch it………so pop back soon!
Update: video’s now available
- REAA; a very very big mistake, conspiracy to defeat the course of justice? (laudafinem.wordpress.com)
- Keith Manch’s victim writes – Jackie Blue, Martin Honey – The “Big Mistake” Plot (laudafinem.wordpress.com)
- Jackie “the fixer” Blue (laudafinem.wordpress.com)
- Open letter to New Zealand’s real estate agents (laudafinem.wordpress.com)
- Keith Manch corrupt civil servant writes (laudafinem.wordpress.com)
- Ray White Real Estate and Mr Martin Honey’s fraudulent Remax website (laudafinem.wordpress.com)
- She’s a politician nuf said – Is Jackie “I’ve been belted” Blue a bent pollie? (laudafinem.wordpress.com)
- REAA, favouritism, cronyism and conspiracy; the ethical dilemma (laudafinem.wordpress.com)
- REAA, favouritism, cronyism and conspiracy; the ethical dilema (laudafinem.wordpress.com)
- Corrupt REAA official ex-cop stalks justice campaigners family (laudafinem.wordpress.com)
- REAA: Agent in gun over mansion deal (laudafinem.wordpress.com)
- REAA: six degrees of separation, applying the theory (laudafinem.wordpress.com)
- Stop Press: National party organised for evidence of Martin Honey’s criminal offending to be pulled from YouTube (laudafinem.wordpress.com)
- The forensic report the REAA and Martin Honey Ray White wanted concealed (laudafinem.wordpress.com)
- Kristy “family meal” McDonald uses a mate, Anna “canna understand” Tierney, as the REAA ramps up corruption in an attempt to silence fraud victims (laudafinem.wordpress.com)
- Protected: Kim Dotcom’s secret donation to John Banks! (laudafinem.wordpress.com)
- REAA: Keith Manch up to old tricks, withholding and concealing documents! (laudafinem.wordpress.com)
- REAA: The Martin Honey Ray White fraud; the reports in (laudafinem.wordpress.com)