Here at Lauda Finem we like the idea of transparency in Government. Government however, especially those corrupt civil servants in New Zealand, the like’s of Anna Tierney, Kieth Manch and their mate Kristy McDonald, often don’t; particularly when it clearly involves an impending accountability for their corrupt actions.
So with the aforementioned in mind, and as promised in our last post, here’s the letter that was sent to Ann Tierney at the REAA. We think Anna may well be in a little hot water – it serves the bitch right, corruption should never be tolerated!
We here at Lauda Finem would also like Ms Tierney to look at one of her own determinations with respect to the jurisdiction of the REAA and it’s ability to deal in complaints that fall well outside that of a real estate agents primary responsibilities under the Act, to qoute the committee chaired by none other than Ms Tierney herself:
“Unsatisfactory Conduct, the Committee is only able to
consider complaints that relate to real estate agency work“
Source: REAA Complaint No: CA3873945
A. An alleged complaint against the company
1. I have received a copy of a letter dated 9 January 2012 purported to be written by you, but which did not actually have your printed name at the bottom, and which signature was written in a way that it was indecipherable as “Tierney”. I annex that letter as the document marked “A”.
2. The letter is addressed to (victim D), and in turn addresses a number of issues relating to a complaint against me. Naturally the rules of justice require that all persons the subject of allegations be allowed to address them in full. (victim D) supplied the copy of the letter to me as he felt that, as it named me, in all fairness, I should have a copy.
3. I note that you comprehend this aspect of the law, albeit about the right for an accused to have all the information about the complaint, in your decision in complaint No: CA3873459. I annex a true of copy of your decision as the document marked “B”. As you will also be aware section 84(1) and (3) of the REAA stipulates;
Procedure of Committee
(1) A Committee must exercise its powers and perform its duties and functions in a way that is consistent with the rules of natural justice….
(3) The Committee may regulate its procedure in any manner that it thinks fit as long as it is consistent with this Act and any regulations made under it. (my emphasis)
4. Subsections 3’s rider “as long as it is consistent with this Act” must invoke section 3 of the Act that provides the Acts purpose;
Purpose of Act
(1) The purpose of this Act is to promote and protect the interests of consumers in respect of transactions that relate to real estate and to promote public confidence in the performance of real estate agency work.
(2) The Act achieves its purpose by—
(a) regulating agents, branch managers, and salespersons:
(b) raising industry standards:
(c) providing accountability through a disciplinary process that is independent, transparent, and effective. (my emphasis)
5. The reference to “transactions that relate to real estate” is interpreted in section 4 of the Act where it provides;
real estate agency work or agency work—
(a) means any work done or services provided, in trade, on behalf of another person for the purpose of bringing about a transaction; and
(b) includes any work done by a branch manager or salesperson under the direction of, or on behalf of an agent to enable the agent to do the work or provide the services described in paragraph (a); but
(c) does not include—
(i) the provision of general advice or materials to assist owners to locate and negotiate with potential buyers; or
(ii) the publication of newspapers, journals, magazines, or websites that include advertisements for the sale or other disposal of any land or business; or
(iii) the broadcasting of television or radio programmes that include advertisements for the sale or other disposal of any land or business; or
(iv) the lending of money on mortgage or otherwise; or
(v) the provision of investment advice; or……….
transaction means any 1 or more of the following:
(a) the sale, purchase, or other disposal or acquisition of a freehold estate or interest in land:
(b) the grant, sale, purchase, or other disposal or acquisition of a leasehold estate or interest in land (other than a tenancy to which the Residential Tenancy Act 1986 applies):
(c) the grant, sale, purchase, or other disposal or acquisition of a licence that is registrable under the land Transfer Act 1952:
(d) the grant, sale, purchase, or other disposal or acquisition of an occupation right agreement within the meaning of the retirement Villages Act 2003:
(e) the sale, purchase, or other disposal or acquisition of any business (either with or without any interest in land).
(2) To avoid doubt, the sale, purchase, or other disposal or acquisition of shares comes within the definition of transaction in subsection (1) if, and only if, the shares entitle the holder to a licence that is registrable under Part 7A of the Land Transfer Act 1952. (my emphasis)
6. Sections 72 to 74 of the Act provide pursuant to Part 4 of the Acts heading “complaints and discipline- interpretation – unsatisfactory conduct and misconduct”;
For the purposes of this Act, a licensee is guilty of unsatisfactory conduct if the licensee carries out real estate agency work that—
(a) falls short of the standard that a reasonable member of the public is entitled to expect from a reasonably competent licensee; or
(b) contravenes a provision of this Act or of any regulations or rules made under this Act; or
(c) is incompetent or negligent; or
(d) would reasonably be regarded by agents of good standing as being unacceptable.
For the purposes of this Act, a licensee is guilty of misconduct if the licensee’s conduct—
(a) would reasonably be regarded by agents of good standing, or reasonable members of the public, as disgraceful; or
(b) constitutes seriously incompetent or seriously negligent real estate agency work; or
(c) consists of a willful or reckless contravention of—
(i) this Act; or
(ii) other Acts that apply to the conduct of licensees; or
(iii) regulations or rules made under this Act; or
(d) constitutes an offence for which the licensee has been convicted, being an offence that reflects adversely on the licensee’s fitness to be a licensee. (my emphasis)
7. You make the following comments and allegation against the company;
“Latterly the complainant has provided material published on the Lauda Finem.wordpress.com website. That material appears to have originated from within (the company, victim E).
I invite your response, on behalf of the company, regarding the issue whether (the company, victim E) has pursued a dispute with the complainant in an unprofessional and confrontational manner, such that the companys actions may amount to misconduct under s73 (a) of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008.
The particulars under consideration by the Committee in respect of this allegation include;
(a) (victim A)’s recorded telephone conversation to the complainants wife on 18 April 2010;
(b) (victim C)s letter to the complainant dated 20 April 2010
(c) (victim C)s letter to the complainant dated 22 April 2010
(d) (victim A)s email to the complainant dated 23 April 2010
(e) (victim A)s letter to Carey Smith of Ray White dated 23 April 2010
(f) (victim A)s email to the complainant dated 28 February 2011
(g)The licensee company having allowed material relating to its dispute with the Complainant to be disclosed to, and published on the website laudafinem.wordpress.com.
Your written response should be received by the Real Estate Agents Authority by close of business, Monday, 30 January 2012” (my emphasis)
8. At this point I feel obliged to raise the points;
8.1 You do not annex the alleged letter you must have received from Mr Honey bringing the fresh information to your attention. Please immediately supply that letter and your explanation for not supplying it in the first place.
8.2 Not supplying the “further complaint” is, in my opinion, in breach of the rules of natural justice, and section 83(a) that provides;
83 Notice to licensee
(a) must send particulars to the licensee, and invite the licensee to make a written explanation in relation to the complaint (if any) (my emphasis)
8.3 For the moment I assume that it is not supplied because you do not feel that that accused persons need to see it, which would indicate;
8.3.1 You are biased, or appear to be biased.
8.3.2 You do not believe the content of the further letter of complaint would serve Mr Honey in that he has repeated his mendacious behavior of fabricating malicious lies.
8.3.3 The complaint was from others on behalf of Mr Honey, or was from others with vested interests, and only mentions Mr Honeys name, but again you feel that the content of the letter of further complaint would not serve the author if it was communicated to the accused.
8.4 Section 4 provides the following explanation as to what is deemed a licensee;
licence means a licence granted under this Act to act as an agent, branch manager, or salesperson
licensee means an agent, a branch manager, or a salesperson
8.5 Section 36 (3) provides that;
“A company may be licensed as an agent if at least 1 officer of the company satisfies the Registrar of the matters set out in subsection (1)”
8.6 In law, it is my opinion that a ‘complaint’ cannot exist against a legal person to be determined by your committee. This would appear to be supported by section 71 of the Act that states at (b) under the heading “meaning of Licensee in this Part” is
“a person who is or has been an officer of a company that is, or has been, a licensee”. (my emphasis)
8.7 In the Real Estate Agents (Complaints and Discipline) Regulations 2009 clause 3 (Interpretation), sub clause (1) stipulates that;
“person charged means the person against whom the charge is laid” (regulations emphasis)
8.8 I accept that in section 71 of the Act, and in clause 3 of the Regulations respectively, it states;
“In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, Licensee has the meaning given to it by section 4”
In these regulations unless the context requires”
8.9 However there can be no context where in it would seem appropriate that a charge be laid against a company and I am aware that the authors of the new Act wanted responsibility directed at the individual licensee salespersons and Managers, rather than at the Corporate or legal persons.
8.10 In clause 3 of the Real Estate Agents (Complaints and Discipline) Regulations 2009 the statement “unless the context requires” also refers to the Act being the Act, and so it would appear that the authors did not give the statement any great scope for liberal interpretation. Your position would not even be accepted by adopting the purposive approach as no further benefit would be obtained for the complainant, or in the exercise of justice.
8.11 Please immediately explain how you and the other members of your committee could have considered that a complaint against a company (The Company victim E) could exist given my interpretation of the Act.
8.12 You allege (as to ask the question must indicate you have found prima facie grounds) that “(The Company victim E) has pursued a dispute with the complainant in an unprofessional and confrontational manner, such that the company’s actions may amount to misconduct under s73(a) of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008”, but;
8.12.1 Do not refer to a complaint number as against (the company, victim E), or (the company, victim E)’s agents number and
8.12.2 Your references are only against the natural persons already accused.
8.13 You allege an effective agreement between “licencees” (being natural persons) and an agreement requires a mind. A company does not have a mind and therefore cannot of its own commit a crime. In other Acts companies can be fined for the actions of their directors or employees, but this would appear not the case with the REAA 2008.
8.14 On a more sinister note my brother (victim B) informs me that he and (victim C) made separate inquiry of the REAA staff recently and were informed that no complaint existed against the company, but wanted the inquiry placed in writing and given to the case manager that is handling this complaint before a written response would be forthcoming. Both men felt that this behavior by the staff was highly suspicious.
8.15 It is clear that you inquiry should have been made to the individual licensees complained about as you have no authority to investigate any actions other than those of licensees. In my opinion your letter is badly written and your inquiry of the company misguided. I particularly find it a breach of the rules of natural justice that you;
8.15.1 Have not particularized the content of the documents that (you agree with the complainant) are prima facie “unprofessional and confrontational”; especially given the background of a premeditated and large scale fraud being the complaint of the victims of that fraud contained in the documents that you supplied.
8.15.2 Have not supplied Honeys alleged complaint to the accused (in breach of your own findings in complaint NoCA3873459).
9. There can exist no complaint before the committee from Mr Honey that the company has “pursued a dispute with the complainant in an unprofessional and confrontational manner, such that the company’s actions may amount to misconduct under s73(a) of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008” as you have not provided that complaint to me, or the other accused and the complaint staff have confirmed that no complaint against the company exists at this time.
10. What I also find concerning, and no doubt this concern would be shared “by agents of good standing, or reasonable members of the public”, you have had the material that you (and Honey) complain about, in most cases for nearly a year, and you have not moved to make the allegations against me or the other accused. It cannot be true that;
10.1 Your CAC did not immediately find the material complained about prima facie ‘disgraceful’, if it was ‘disgraceful’
10.2 That, if you found the material disgraceful, you would not have immediately used your powers pursuant to sections 83(b);
(b) may require the licensee to appear before it to make an explanation in relation to the inquiry:
10.3 Your inquiry at this late stage as to “disgraceful” conduct by a licensee is clearly in breach of your duties under section 82 of the Act;
Inquiry by Committee
(1) If a Committee decides to inquire into a complaint or into matters raised by allegations about a licensee, it must inquire into the complaint or those matters as soon as practicable.
(2) The Committee may authorise any person to assist it with its inquiry.(my emphasis)
B. The veracity of the competing complaints
11. It is an obligation of a licensee to report misconduct or unsatisfactory conduct as detailed in the Real Estate Agents Act (professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2009. Rule 7.1 to 7.3 state;
“7.1 A licensee who has reasonable grounds to suspect that another licensee has been guilty of unsatisfactory conduct may make a report to the Authority.
7.2 A licensee who has reasonable grounds to suspect that another licensee has been guilty of misconduct must make a report to the Authority
7.3 A licensee must not use, or threaten to use, the complaints process or disciplinary process for an improper purpose.”
12. I felt it important that Mr Honeys clearly criminal conduct was investigated and then reported. I did investigate it to a level that satisfied me that he was involved with others in a large scale conspiracy to deceive and defraud the public, and that the public had been deceived and defrauded.
13. It was only after the CAC, which you chaired, found a case to answer that Mr Honey sent me a TXT “BIG MISTAKE” and made a retaliatory complaint against me, and virtually all of the licensees at (the company, victim E).
14. It is accepted that his complaint against me, and others, if true or likely true, needed immediate action to protect Mr Honey and his family from the actions of “very dangerous men”. It is somewhat fateful for the REAA and your CAC that you write a year later.
15. Even though I know that you have a copy (supplied by (victim D)), I annex as the document marked “C” a comprehensive report I commissioned 30 year veteran of the New Zealand Police Service, Mr Peter Hikaka, to complete for the purpose of;
15.1 Having a ex Police Detective Sergeant (17 years as a Detective) investigate the competing complaints and make findings and recommendations, and;
15.2 Giving that report to the;
15.2.1 The New Zealand Police Service
15.2.2 The REAA
15.2.3 The Serious Fraud Office
15.2.4 The New Zealand media
15.3 Enabling me and others, depending on the findings and recommendations made by Mr Hikaka, to;
15.3.1 Support allegations (made, and to be made) against;
22.214.171.124 Martin Honey
126.96.36.199 Stephanie Honey
188.8.131.52 National MP Jackie Blue
184.108.40.206 Government Minister Nathan Guy
220.127.116.11 Hemi Taka
15.3.2 Make allegations of malfeasance in office of;
18.104.22.168 Keith Manch
22.214.171.124 CAC members that have not promoted the investigation into the respective allegations of serious criminal offending for over a year, and continue to stymy such investigations in breach of sections 113, 115, and 116 and 310 of the Crimes Act 1961 which provide;
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, with intent to mislead any tribunal holding any judicial proceeding to which section 108 applies, fabricates evidence by any means other than perjury.
Conspiring to bring false accusation
Every one who conspires to prosecute any person for any alleged offence, knowing that person to be innocent thereof, is liable—
(a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years if that person might, on conviction of the alleged offence, be sentenced to preventive detention, or to imprisonment for a term of 3 years or more:
(b) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years if that person might, on conviction of the alleged offence, be sentenced to imprisonment for a term less than 3 years.
116 Conspiring to defeat justice
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who conspires to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice in New Zealand or the course of justice in an overseas jurisdiction.(my emphasis)
Conspiring to commit offence
(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2), every one who conspires with any person to commit any offence, or to do or omit, in any part of the world, anything of which the doing or omission in New Zealand would be an offence, is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years if the maximum punishment for that offence exceeds 7 years’ imprisonment, and in any other case is liable to the same punishment as if he had committed that offence. (2) This section shall not apply where a punishment for the conspiracy is otherwise expressly prescribed by this Act or by some other enactment. (3) Where under this section any one is charged with conspiring to do or omit anything anywhere outside New Zealand, it is a defence to prove that the doing or omission of the act to which the conspiracy relates was not an offence under the law of the place where it was, or was to be, done or omitted.
16. Mr Hikaka has all the material that you have and has come to conclusions using his 30 years experience as a police officer, and being a reasonable member of the public of above average intelligence.
17. Mr Hikaka’s findings are prejudicial, damning, but cogent against Mr Honey et al. As for your opinion, you might find his report “confrontational and unprofessional”, but in doing so would be attempting to excuse your possible role in criminal offending.
18. I have also commissioned a report from an independent forensic computer, internet, and related information systems, expert to clarify amongst other matters;
18.1 Can the expert reach conclusions from the content of the video clip supplied if the RE/MAX branded Pure Realty Site was fully operational, or cached as on 19th April 2010?
18.2 What should have been done as soon as possible to obtain evidence of the likely visitors and inquiries to the RE/MAX site?
18.3 Is the video crucial to establish the RE/MAX site as really operational?
18.4 What does the expert think the purpose of the RE/MAX site was?
19. I annex that forensic computer analysts report as the document marked “D”. Again the author is an ex police officer of 11 years experience leaving the South African Police Service with the Rank of Captain. His expertise and experience is impressively laid out in his resume attached to his report dated 10 February 2012. It confirms;
19.1 he was stationed at the Cyber Crime Investigation Unit, Technical Support Service, Crime Intelligence, Head Office, Pretoria, where he finally taught new recruits.
19.2 he imaged data to preserve data, conducted forensic examination and analysis of data and other digital evidence for presentation to Court in more than 100 hundred criminal cases, and conducted research on newly developed information technology and innovative investigation techniques.
19.3 he was trained and up-skilled throughout his career and is a leading computer forensic and criminal investigation expert that is engaged by leading corporates to prove offending at trial.
20. Please note Mr Hikaka’s recommendations and findings, [he having fully perused the same material that is in your possession as Chair person of a CAC], are;
“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 Honey…….
37. …….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 Honeys web designer/manager, to clarify the comments he made in support of Mr Honey.
- The execution of search warrants to seize Mr Honeys computer systems
- The examination of Mr Honeys computer systems by a Police IT forensic expert.
- 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 Mr Honey, which the Police should seize pursuant to a search warrant.
- Have the Police forensic expert comment on the opinions provided by Mr Honeys 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) and (victim C).
- The following criminal offences should be considered when investigating the allegations against Mr Honey; (my emphasis)
21. Mr Hikaka finds a prima facie case that Mr Honey and others breached sections;
240 Obtaining by deception and causing loss by deception, [max 7 years imprisonment]
249 – accessing computer system for dishonest means, [max 7 years imprisonment]
256 Forgery, [max 10 years imprisonment]
257 Using forged documents, [max 10 years imprisonment]
258 Altering, concealing, destroying, or reproducing documents with intent to deceive, [max 10 years imprisonment]
259 Using altered or reproduced document with intent to deceive. [max 10 years imprisonment]
22. These findings and recommendations are hardly trifling. They would without doubt be the most serious allegations leveled at any one real estate agent since the inception of the Authority. But it does not end there for Mr Honey’s nefarious behavior. Mr Hikaka finds that Mr Honey went onto make clearly false, and malicious, complaints against;
22.1 (victim A)
22.2 (victim D)
22.3 (victim C)
23. These complaints included false allegations of;
23.1 Thuggery [against unknown persons]
23.2 Violence [against unknown persons]
23.3 Harassment [against the Honeys inclusive of a vicious verbal attack on Mrs Honey]
23.4 Intimidation [against the Honeys [and unknown persons]]
23.5 Terrorism [against unknown persons]
24. Mr Honey also lied about complaining to the Police which Mr Hikaka believe’s is further criminal offending. Even after I wrote to the Police informing them of the substance of Mr Honeys complaints and providing the police with his actual complaint to them, the police have not taken it seriously. Mr Hikaka referred to Mr Honeys alleged complaints as “absolute rubbish”.
25. As for your inclusion of the video in your letter indicating that the content may be ‘disgraceful’ conduct, Mr Hikaka opines at paragraphs 51 of his report,
“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 telephone conversations”
26. For the record I consider your letter to contain such a “misrepresentation” for the described purpose detailed by Mr Hikaka. The fact that you do not directly particularize any allegation further evidences that you are well aware that any such allegation being “particularized” would be repeating a false and malicious act.
27. Mr Hikaka also comments on the Honey letter containing the false allegations against me, and others at paragraph 60 and 61;
“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).
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 that fact that he had reported the matter to the Police.
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.
Mr Honeys 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 lodge the complaint with the New Zealand Police.
In summary other contents of the letter created by Mr Honey, and addressed to New Zealand Police, make a number of false allegations about (victim A).
Mr Honeys 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 New Zealand Police, alleging criminal behavior by Mr Honey, in his attempts to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice due to his misrepresentations he has made against (victim A), for the purposes of misleading the REAA in their investigations into (victim A)s conduct against Mr Honey.” (my emphasis)
28. Nowhere in the report does Mr Hikaka consider any of the actions, statements, letters written by me, (victim C), and (victim D), step over the line in the circumstances. This is in direct contrast to your statements referred to at paragraph 7 of this letter.
29. Mr Hikaka states that the actions by the victims of Mr Honey’s fraud were at times fortuitous given the false allegations made against them (but particularly me) about the vicious verbal attacks on his wife. At paragraph 44 to 57 Mr Hikaka comments;
“(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.
I say fortuitous because the subsequent allegations made against (victim A) 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.
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 rigourous than what I have witnessed of barristers and solicitors , and police prosecutors, when cross examining witnesses during judicial proceedings.
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.
Mr Honey in his complaint against (victim A), states that “(victim A) has viciously verbally attacked my wife over the phone making threats that he’ll ruin us”.
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 Mr Honey are blatent and malicious lies.
I further note that in correspondence from Mr Honey, he has incorrectly accused (victim C) of being the person who telephoned Mrs Honey.
The timing of his allegations, in relation to (victim A) [and (victim C) and (victim D) of RE/MAX ] 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.
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.
As earlier alluded to, it is fortuitous that (victim A) did record telephone conversations he had with Mrs Honey, otherwise there would have been direct conflict between 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 explanation’s he has made, and will make, in relation to all matters involved in this ongoing investigation” (my emphasis)
30. These findings and opinions by Mr Hikaka (a 17 year veteran of the CIB, and lead detective on internal police offending cases), brings Mr Manch’s findings that I misled Mrs Honey into complete disrepute. In fact the finding by Mr Manch is likely the end of his civil service career once the matter is exposed by transparency of the process, which includes the crucial presence and timely participation of the fourth estate.
31. In fact Manch’s findings are so ludicrous that they must be considered prima facie criminal offending as there is not a shred of cogent evidence in support of them, and Mr Manch approving of Mr Honeys criminal actions [in not investigating Mr Honeys incontrovertible serious criminal offending (and approving Mr Honeys licence when aware of the abundant level of evidence proving Mr Honey and others had been involved in a serious fraud against a real estate competitor)], evidences the REAA and its associated entities are corrupt.
C. Cronje report inculpates REAA in criminal conspiracy to defeat and pervert the course of justice.
32. Of considerable importance to the likely criminality of your “go slow” on the Honey complaint is the following content of the report of the Computer Forensic Analyst William Cronje where he answers questions put to him about what should have been immediately done;
“2. What should have been immediately done as soon as possible to obtain evidence of the likely visitors and inquiries to the RE/MAX Pure Realty site?
The procedure should have been to immediately forensically examine the computers for email traffic and if that had been removed or was unavailable, endeavour to obtain this from the Internet Service Provider. At this late stage this information is unlikely to be available”
33. Given that your alleged expertise (for the Serious Fraud Office) is in forensic accounting, which in turn would encompass a significant knowledge of computers and evidence protection, it would seem incongruous that you would not have immediately acted, or instructed others to act.
34. Given that the REAA investigators are all ex police officers and likewise, would have known what the only appropriate course was, again it would appear that the omission is impossible to be incompetence and therefore can only be corruption, and a criminal act or a series of criminal acts in a conspiracy. Equally Manch and Winters were both police officers and did absolutely nothing to bring Honey to justice, or to collect and preserve the evidence. The content of the video is hardly ambiguous as found by both Mr Hikaka and Mr Cronje.
35. Mr Cronje answers another question, and which answer again sees you in bad light given that you can only have been employed as a Chair of a CAC on your level of expertise in investigating and solving computer based offending relating to financial transactions;
“1. Can you reach conclusions from the content of the video clip supplied whether the RE/MAX branded Pure Realty site was fully operational, or cached as on 19th April 2010?
From the content of the video clip provided, it is my firm opinion that the RE/MAX Pure Realty site was fully operational as at 19th April 2010.
From the video I could see there are links from the RE/MAX page to the data bases of Ray White site, and that indicates the two sites were linked to each other.
When using Googles search page, there is a choice to load the live web page or the cached web page. When the cached webpage is loaded, there will be a header on top of the page which serves as a reminder that this is not necessarily the most recent version of the page. It will also indicate the date the page was “snapshot” by Google, normally in the last month. Google takes snapshots of webpages as a back up, and used this for matching keyword searches.
When a webpage is removed, keyword searches will still find Googles cached page. If the web link is selected, there will be an error message (‘page not found’). This result will remain until such time as Google updates its snapshots).
From the video provided, I confirm it is my expert opinion that the webpages of Martin Honey Pure Realty (RE/MAX) was alive and active and it contained live links to the data base(s) of the Ray White website as at 19th of April 2010.
It is stated that the website was taken down by a 3rd party; the only way this could have happened was if the website was still alive” (my emphasis)
36. Finally the importance of the video and what the fraudulent RE/MAX website are dealt with by Mr Cronje when he answers the final two questions asked of him;
“3. Is the video crucial to establish the RE/MAX Pure Realty site as really operational?”
“The video clearly shows that the RE/MAX Pure Realty website in question is live”
4. What do you think the purpose of the RE/MAX Pure Realty site was?
It is my opinion the RE/MAX Pure Realty site was designed, particularly with the visitors links to the corresponding Ray White site, to direct real estate inquiries away from legitimate RE/MAX websites.”
37. I rely wholly on the truly independent reports of Mr Hikaka and Cronje to prove to the criminal standard that;
37.1 Mr Honey and his accomplices in operating the fraudulent RE/MAX Pure Realty website are guilty of breaches of the Crimes Act 1961 provisions identified in Mr Hikaka’s report and at paragraphs 15 and 21 of this letter.
37.1 Mr Manch, Mr Honey and their accomplices are guilty of bringing false allegations against me and others in order to defeat and pervert the course of justice.
38. I shall now turn my attention to what you, as an experienced senior member of the Serious Fraud Offices prosecution panel, should have done.
39. It is impossible that you believed any of what Mr Honey has stated about the ludicrous allegations made by him against me and others. Otherwise you would have immediately referred the material to another agency, in this case the Police as provided by sections 78(f) and 79(2)(d) which provide respectively;
Functions of Committees
The functions of each Committee are—
(f) in appropriate cases, to refer the complaint to another agency:
Procedure on receipt of complaint
(1) As soon as practicable after receiving a complaint concerning a licensee, a Committee must consider the complaint and determine whether to inquire into it.
(2) The Committee may—
(c) determine that the complaint is frivolous or vexatious and not made in good faith, and for this reason need not be pursued:
(d) determine that the complaint should be referred to another agency, and refer it accordingly(my emphasis)
40. Your complete lack of care for our position (as victims of serious criminal offending relating to the provision of real estate services) places you as chair of the CAC that determined our complaint against Mr Honey (finding that the matter should be investigated further) in a very unenviable position.
41. Your complete failure to investigate the matter further, report it to other agencies, and otherwise act to protect the victims of what constitutes is inexcusable, and reprehensible. It is my opinion that you should have immediately;
41.1 Obtained (and protected) the evidence of the level of Mr Honeys offending pursuant section 85(1), (85(2))a), and 85(2)(c)(i) and (ii) of the Act that provides;
“Powers to call for information or documents
(1) If the conditions stated in subsection (2) are satisfied, a Committee may, by notice in writing, require any person to produce to the Committee any papers, documents, records, or things.
(2) The conditions referred to in subsection (1) are that—
(a) the members of the Committee believe, on reasonable grounds, that the exercise of the powers conferred by that subsection is necessary to enable the Committee to carry out its inquiry; and
(b) the person to whom a notice under that subsection is to be given has failed to comply with a previous request to produce to the Committee, within a reasonable time, the papers, documents, records, or things required by the notice; and
(c) the members of the Committee believe, on reasonable grounds, that—
(i) it is not reasonably practicable to obtain the information required by the Committee from another source; or
(ii) for the purposes of the investigation, it is necessary to obtain the papers, documents, records, or things to verify or refute information obtained from another source.(my emphasis)
41.2 Determined the final decision of the CAC as soon as possible and laid a charge against Honey pursuant to section 91(a) that provides;
Reference of complaint to Disciplinary Tribunal
If a Committee makes a determination that the complaint or allegation be determined by the Disciplinary Tribunal, the Committee must—
(a) frame an appropriate charge and lay it before the Disciplinary Tribunal by submitting it in writing to the Tribunal; and
(b) give written notice of that determination and a copy of the charge to the person to whom the charge relates and to the complainant. (my emphasis)
41.3 Referred the matter onto the Police pursuant to sections 78(f) and 79(2)(d) of the Act as above.
41.4 Made application to immediately suspend Mr Honeys licence pursuant to section 92 of the Act that provides
Application for suspension of licence
If, under section 91(a), a Committee lays before the Disciplinary Tribunal a charge against a licensee, the Committee may apply to the Tribunal for an order that, pending the determination of the charge, the licence of the licensee be suspended.
42. Therefore your “making up” of an impossible allegation against the company is a very serious matter indeed, and one that should be addressed by exposure in the fourth estate.
43. The fact that the false allegation is brought with no particularity, and with an absolute inability to pursue it through the disciplinary process makes your intentions very clear, and the public needs to know what the REAA are really about; which is protecting criminal real estate agents.
44. I also believe that your “inquiry” is not even covered under the Act as it does not relate to the terms found in section 3 “in respect of transactions that relate to real estate” and section 4 “for the purpose of bringing about a transaction”. Honeys complaint is clearly false and malicious and our individual actions in response appropriate. You could never genuinely hold a belief that I have breached any of the code of conduct either. My allegations have been proven true, and Honeys proven false.
D. The Importance of transparency and public awareness; especially concerning corruption.
45. In your decision No: CA3873459 you relate your understanding of fairness when making, and facing, complaints;
The complaint was submitted to the Committee with the request that documents contained in the complaint were not disclosed to the licensees complained of.
In the interests of natural justice, it is not appropriate that a complaint proceed without a licensee having an opportunity to respond fully to the matters complained of. To be able to do so in this case the license would need to consider all of the documents.
The complainant was contacted and asked to authorise the release of all documents to the licensees and was informed of the consequences that may arise should this request not be agreed to.
The complainant declined the release of the documentation to the licensees.
The complainant is not prepared to release the information to the licensees in order for them to provide a full response and therefore the rules of natural justice cannot be adhered to. On this basis the Committee has decided to take no further action on this complaint as to do so would be inappropriate.
The Committee has, in its discretion, decided to take no further action in relation to this matter under section 80(2)(c) of the Act because to do so would be inappropriate. (my emphasis)
46. In the same decision you also proclaim to comprehend the importance of the process you control remaining “transparent, independent, and effective”, and that it is in the public interest that certain matters are made public.
One of the Committee’s functions pursuant to section 78(h) of the Act is to publish its decisions.
Publication gives effect the purpose of the Real Estate Agents Act of ensuring that the disciplinary process remains transparent, independent and effective. The Committee also regards publication of this decision as desirable for the purposes of setting standards and that it is in the public interest that the decision be published.
The Committee directs publication of its decision, but omitting the names and identifying details of the complainant (including the address of the property), the licensee and any third parties in the publication of its decision.(my emphasis)
47. I have waited a year for a single telephone call from an investigator after you found the complaint against Honey needed investigating. Your behavior in stymying the investigation into the most serious of criminal offending is, as you say, “disgraceful”.
48. I can’t imagine a Chairperson of a CAC, and a serving Serious Fraud designated officer, having an issue with the proper exposure of corruption. We have an Act that protects “whistleblowers”. See section 5 of the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 that provides;
5 Purpose of Act
The purpose of this Act is to promote the public interest—
(a) by facilitating the disclosure and investigation of matters of serious wrongdoing in or by an organisation; and
(b) by protecting employees who, in accordance with this Act, make disclosures of information about serious wrongdoing in or by an organisation.
49. I do not rely on the Act as I have not disclosed any information belonging to anyone else but me. My point is that New Zealand’s (and International) Jurisprudence gives infinite protection to persons “blowing the whistle”, and I have an enviable record for “blowing the whistle” on corruption in New Zealand, and getting it right.
50. I charged, as you would well know, the Serious Fraud Offices previous Director David Bradshaw, along with then Minister of Justice Douglas Graham with conspiring to defeat and pervert the course of justice in 1998. The $4b fraud odometer fraud was investigated and stopped by me and my brother. Your office had nothing to do with it. In fact your office did everything to hinder the rightful prosecution of the criminal dealers as the REAA are doing with Honey.
51. As you would also be aware the charges were allowed to be issued by the Courts, and the charges alleged that the Director and the Minister conspired not to prosecute 5 car dealers, when the office had sufficient evidence to lay the criminal information’s.
52. The Solicitor General stayed the prosecutions when the Serious Fraud Office laid the charges against the named dealers. From my understanding all dealers charged were convicted, with two of them pleading guilty and receiving jail terms.
53. As you will also know the Securities Commission recently charged Doug Graham with very serious criminal offending involving hundreds of millions of dollars of losses being hidden from investors. I raise this issue because it would appear that Sir Douglas did not mend his ways and my allegations as to his dishonesty were likely very accurate.
E. Further independent reports to be commissioned to prove malfeasance of REAA and CAC’s officers.
54. I have given the Hikaka and Cronje reports to my normal media contacts, and to Lauda Finem, as it has requested to be kept “in the loop”. I will naturally provide a copy of this letter as well.
55. I am to commission numerous further in-depth independent reports relating to all of the actions of various persons thus far and these reports will be made public through media frameworks such as the Sunday Star Times, the Herald, and any website that wants to “put them up on the web”.
56. As a matter of courtesy I will supply the reports to the REAA, the Police, and the Serious Fraud Office. Lets see what the public and agents of good standing think of;
56.1 Mr Hikaka’s reports on Honeys offending of Mr Honey et al;
56.2 Mr Hikaka’s report on the investigation by, and decision of, Mr Manch finding me not “fit and proper”.
56.3 Mr Hikaka’s report on what would explain the REAA’s approval of Mr Honey as a licensed salesperson when they could have made his application “pending” until the outcome of the final investigation, or have suspended his licence till the outcome of the Disciplinary Tribunals determination.
56.4 Mr Hikaka’s report on what would possibly explain the REAA’s and your CAC’s failure to investigate the most serious criminal allegations against Mr Honey and report the matter to the Police, and why you have failed to collect and preserve evidence that would prove the level of the offending thus prejudicing the victims ability to obtain compensation. You must realize that the matter being reported could have led to the Police, as part and parcel of arresting and charging those involved, seizing under warrant all property that could have been earned by, or paid for by the criminal activity pursuant to the Criminal Proceeds (recovery) Act. After all, how is this offending by Honey different to Kim Dotcom?.
56.5 Mr Hikaka’s report on whether there could be any likely veracity to Mr Honeys complaint against me, and why the REAA and CAC chaired by you have acted in the clearly “unprofessional and confrontational” manner you have. I use these words because there can be no merit to your “inquiry” and therefore it can only have been made in order to intimidate.
57. Whether anyone has had contact with that website, or supplied information to that website, is irrelevant to the matters at hand. It would appear from the content of the website referring to Mr Moss and Kristy McDonald that it definitely has a “whistleblower” inside the REAA.
58. Of course if you allege that the content is somehow relevant to the complaint from Mr Honey please advise of the relevance given that his complaint is completely false and without merit.
59. I feel that once the media, in whatever form, gets to grips with what has transpired over the last year or so, there will be an appropriate level of questioning of your motives and the motives of Messrs Manch and Winters, and indeed the members of your CAC.
60. Reporting on matters of fact, and giving opinions, is what the Fourth Estate is all about. The Act cannot have ever been considered to place agents in “opinion prison” or have them not allowed to associate with any person or organization.
61. It would appear that you believe that certain material has come from the Company without detailing what, and how it is “disgraceful”. The complete lack of your particularity is, in my opinion, damning.
62. Please direct your inquiry to the source of what you allege to be disgraceful content on the web. You can reach the web-master directly through the site.
63. I have taken the liberty of asking Lauda Finem if they would communicate with you and they have indicated a willingness to enter communications “on the record” with the REAA and any CAC.
64. If you do not make such an inquiry that will indicate that you are omitting to make a proper investigation and are criminally harassing me, and others involved in making the proper criminal complaints against Mr Honey and others. I must say that I perused the material on the site and referenced it against the Hikaka and Cronje reports and cannot find a single malicious untruth. Everything appears in order albeit that the authors have a gregarious and irreverent writing style. But that is not a crime, or can it be considered disgraceful. In fact the work looks to insure that the industries reputation is made good from where it currently is.
65. The complaint against you would be that you are trying to pervert or defeat the course of justice in;
65.1 Coercing the shareholders of (the company, victim E) and other persons that rely on (the company, victim E)’s existence for their livelihood, to drop their/its complaints against Mr Honey in order that Mr Honey does not face appropriate investigation for Serious Fraud and other criminal behavior.
65.2 Knowingly making preposterous allegations of wrongdoing against the company and others associated with the company based on false and malicious allegations of Mr Honey in preparation of making a knowingly false finding against the company and the associated others.
65.3 Not immediately investigating the criminal offending of Mr Honey as indicated in the Hikaka and Cronje reports in furtherance of a conspiracy to defeat and pervert the course of justice. Just because the Police have not yet assigned the complaint does not and cannot excuse your offending. Of interest Mr Winters wrote to my brother (victim B) saying that such allegations against Honey (as commented on by Mr Hikaka) should be referred to the Police. I feel that Mr Winter does not comprehend how silly that direction was, given the purpose of the act and his supposed role in the REAA. It should be Mr Winter that should be referring the report to the Police.
66. At paragraph 64 and 65 of his report Mr Hikaka has this to say about Honey’s offending being repeated [and thus more serious] if he makes the same false allegations against me and others and Mr Hikaka appears to commend those that wrote the letters that you and your CAC members appear to find “disgraceful conduct”;
“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 criminal liable for repeating the crime.
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 lodge with the with the New Zealand Police, if that has not already occurred.
In addition to earlier identified recommended Police investigations, I consider it is also relevant to the investigations of Mr Honeys 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 with the REAA.
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 lied and deceived her?.
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-Iiga. You have indicated that Mr Lotu-Iiga had subsequent discussions with Dr Blue, who advised him that she had no intention of withdrawing her support from Mr Honey. Accordingly, I would recommend that Mr Lotu-Iiga should also be interviews as part of the Police Investigation.
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 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 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 material respect.” (my emphasis)
67. Mr Hikaka’s findings make a mockery of the actions of MP Jackie Blue, Minister Mr Nathan Guy, and ex CEO Keith Manch, and a mockery of your “inquiry seeking an explanation for apparent disgraceful conduct” from an entity that did not even face a complaint.
68. In stating that you, as a Chairperson of a CAC actually believe the obviously false allegations of Mr Honey, and that you repeat those in furtherance on an inquiry with the purpose of forming a formal charge against the victims of the false allegations, you will be caught as a conspirator.
69. Mr Hikaka indicates that Jackie Blue, Nathan Guy and Keith Manch might have some explaining to do as to how they came to their respective conclusions that I should go, and an unrepentant and recidivist offender, like Honey should stay.
- My behavior has been assertive, but measured, and an appropriate reaction to what I consider to be an absurd lack of inquiry into the serious criminal offending of Mr Honey. It is the REAA’s behaviour that has been disgraceful, confrontational and unprofessional. I have had to spend my own money to do the REAA’s job as I did against the criminal run MVDI.
- I have already telephoned your immediate superior at the Serious Fraud Office preparing the office for the complaint. Your superior has confirmed that any complaint will be treated with normal procedures.
- I believe that your position with the Serious Fraud Office or the REAA is untenable for the obvious reasons that an investigating officer for a statutorily empowered prosecutorial body cannot sit in judgment on another body.
- That is analogous to a Police Officer moonlighting as a District Court Judge. This is the very reason that prosecutors as distinct from the Police and the SFO. It would also seem that the REAA sought to keep the conflict secret when another person phoned and asked as to your fulltime employment. There were several complaints over the appointment of a District Court Judge that was only married to a serving Police Officer.
- I am also aware that you are aware of my past with the Serious Fraud Office that goes back as far as 1997, and clearly you should have recused, and in not recusing you are in the same position as disgraced High Court and circuit Court of Appeal Justice Bill Wilson. As you may or may not be aware on the law of conflict, it is the perception not the reality that counts. It is perceived by me that you would likely hold a grudge. I also referred to your employer as the “seriously flawed office” in my published book.
- I have clarified with another staff member of the Serious Fraud Office that you would more likely than not be aware of the history between the office and me and my brother during the Car Wars campaign, and would more likely than not hold a considerable grudge.
- The complaint against you would be based on the premise that you are alleging the impossible; in that any of the material you speak of [refer to] relating to the company could amount to “confrontational and unprofessional”, and likely to be seen as disgraceful conduct.
- Therefore, if this premise of an “impossible allegation” is incontrovertible, your alternate motive for making an impossible allegation of disgraceful conduct was to intimidate, coerce, and thus pervert the course of justice. And then there is your stymying of the investigation of the Honey complaint.
- Clearly Mr Peter Hikaka, [an ex Police Detective of 30 years experience; 17 in the CIB] does not consider any of the material that you refer to as being confrontational or unprofessional, and therefore your position inquiring a year later can only relate to the content of the Australian blog Lauda Finem that could be perceived as being against the interests of those actually guilty of criminal offending; Honey et al.
- I cannot conceivably believe how you did not recuse yourself being aware that the alleged offending of Mr Honey may well end up in a complaint to your employer.
- (victim D) wanted to know if I could inform him of any matter that could enlighten him as what you would be considering was “unprofessional and confrontational” committed by a legal person [(the company, victim E)].I advised (victim D) that I was unaware of any such material, but that I had instructed Peter Hikaka to investigate and report on numerous matters for the purpose of laying further criminal allegations with the New Zealand Police and the Serious Fraud office against;
- Martin Honey
- Stephanie Honey
- Hemi Taka
- Jackie Blue
- Nathan Guy
- Keith Manch
- Any other party involved in furthering the criminal conspiracy to wrongly accuse me of behavior amounting to criminal offending.
- Any other party involved in conspiring to defeat and pervert the course of justice
Additionally I am aware that charges were laid against you by Tuariki Delamere on or about 26 December 2007. I am aware that you and your office failed to convict Mr Delamere of any charge. Could this not be considered “confrontational and unprofessional” behavior, or running a campaign against Mr Delemere.
There is no such problem with Honeys offending as he will likely plead guilty once things are explained to him by an honest, and straight talking investigator. You clearly can no longer be involved due to your conflicts and your actions, or lack of action to date.
I seek your immediate recusal and that the complaints against Mr Honey be referred by the REAA to the Police. It seems silly to say now but nevertheless I will confirm the obvious. Your attempt to intimidate me failed.
We here at Lauda Finem will not tolerate the stand-over tactics being employed by over paid bloated corrupt arse-hole’s like Ms Anna “canna understand” Tierney and her suck-hole mate Ms Kristy “meal deal” McDonald! Keep it up girl’s!
- She’s a politician nuf said – Is Jackie “I’ve been belted” Blue a bent pollie? (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)
- REAA, favouritism, cronyism and conspiracy; the ethical dilema (laudafinem.wordpress.com)
- The REAA, & the mysterious case of Nathan Guy, Kristy McDonald QC, Crown Law and the Coroner (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)
- REAA; a very very big mistake, conspiracy to defeat the course of justice? (laudafinem.wordpress.com)
- Lauda Finem’s response to New Zealand’s Real Estate Agents Authority (laudafinem.wordpress.com)
- REAA, favouritism, cronyism and conspiracy; the ethical dilemma (laudafinem.wordpress.com)
- REAA: A letter to Ms Anna Tierney (laudafinem.wordpress.com)
- Keith Manch’s victim writes – Jackie Blue, Martin Honey – The “Big Mistake” Plot (laudafinem.wordpress.com)
Crikey dick, how did the director let that shit happen. Just goes to show what a fucking banana republic that we live in. Good work by that Agent. What an amazing guy.