The REAA; lies,delusion, politicians and willful blindness

The very bent ex-cop Mr Keith Manch the ex REAA Registrar that prompted our ongoing investigation. Mr Manch, having left the REAA in a hurry, now heads up yet another National Party disaster, Maritime New Zealand

Note; there’s a small technical glitch and some of the text in the Jon Edwards report is missing we’re working on the problem, in more ways than just one.

Over the past two months, in our ongoing investigation of  New Zealand’s Real Estate Agents Authority (REAA), Lauda Finem has received a number of “brown envelopes”. One of those parcels contained information and documents that related to the hiring of yet another ex-cop, the disgraced former head of Police Standards, Inspector Jonathon Moss.

We have since discovered that there had been a big brouhaha in 2010 when this Inspector Moss was outed and a criminal investigation into his behavior commenced:

There had also been an earlier investigation into Moss’ behaviour which culminated in his departure from the police force, a hurried departure which we now believe may have been designed to terminate the investigation and protect a third party.

This the first of two investigations came about because there had been allegations that Moss had suborned perjury; a subordinate officer was allegedly asked by Moss to lie about his involvement in an assault. Yet another case of the bashing of a prisoner  in the back of a police van – more of the police brutality that this particular police force has become renowned for.

It had also also been alleged that Moss had breached a new police code of conduct , a code that Moss himself  had been instrumental in drafting and implementing following a commission of inquiry into police conduct.

That inquiry, conducted by Dame Margaret Bazley was highly critical of New Zealand’s police force; especially their preocupation with corruption and rapes, behaviour that New Zealand’s infamous police officers have been found guilty of committing time and time again, and have also grown oh so fond of attempting to conceal:

Bent ex-cop Inspector Jon Moss

Interestingly in the second investigation into Moss the then commissioner of Police, Howard Broad, fudged the interview and gave no indication as to whether Moss’s recent alleged offending had occurred whilst he was still in the police force or working at the REAA:

Police Commissioner Howard Broad this morning announced a criminal investigation.

He said it had emerged that either before or after he left the police, Mr Moss “may have had a relationship with an official of another agency with links to police”.

“The propriety of that relationship has caused disquiet,” Mr Broad said.


Whilst another woman, Deborah Te Kawa, later came forward in 2011 claiming an extramarital affair with Moss we believe that there was yet another woman involved with Moss, a woman that both Moss and the New Zealand police are still trying to protect.

If the information that Lauda Finem has received, as to the identity of that third person, is genuine then its a damning indictment on the REAA, its chair, the board and the authorities staff.

By way of explaination, with this post we thought it necessary to start at the end of the story. Following the outing of Moss as an employee of the REAA Ms Kristy McDonald QC, Chairperson of the REAA’s Board, very cleverly commissioned a report, which in our veiw was designed to conceal more than it revealed.

Having read the report and then referring to the documents we’ve been given we genuinely believe that the report was designed as a white-wash; with no purpose other than the exculpation of the key players, we also believe that the real victim in this matter was Ms Janet Mazenier, the executive registrar at the time, its our view that she had been made the scape-goat and was then hung out to dry, so to speak, possibly when she decided not take part in a cover-up .

Again interestingly the spokesperson for the REAA at the time, Dan Ormond, also failed to comment on whether or not Ms Mazenier’s hurried departure from the REAA was in anyway related to the jobs for the boy’s scandal”, a conspiracy that, in Australia at least, would most certainly have been considered serious corruption:

Authority spokesman Dan Ormond told NZPA that Mr Moss was staying at the REAA and would not be stood down or taking leave while the review was conducted.

Asked if the resignation of REAA chief executive Janet Mazenier was related to Mr Moss’ conduct, Mr Ormond declined to comment.

As a statutory body, which is to be found “under the umbrella” of New Zealand’s Ministry of Justice, the  REAA and its employee’s are bound by a code of conduct. However, this fact seems to have been overlooked by some very senior employees of the Authority and the Minister responsible who, in the absence of any plausible excuse, have and continue to act corruptly.

Based on the evidence we have seen and the opinions sought from senior investigators, including retired Australian police officers, this corrupt behaviour appears to be systemic, with key employees and CAC members all engaging in tactics obviously designed to conceal the criminal offending of colleagues, friends and politicians.

Our own research brings into question the suitability of a number of the key office holders within the REAA, and this is the first in a number of posts in which we will begin to deal with that very gnarly problem.

Over the past two months following our post, Open letter to New Zealand’s real estate agents, we have had a number of cases brought to our attention by people that have asked to remain anonymous, stating that they fear for their own personal safety, if named.

REAA Chairperson: Kristy McDonald QC

Now back to ex-cop Inspector Jonathan Moss and the story of his employment with the REAA. As said earlier, the REAA chairperson, Kristy McDonald QC (also a member of the Crown prosecution panel in Wellington and the Serious Fraud Office prosecution panel) commissioned a report subsequent to the Medias discovery that the disgraced ex-cop Moss was working as a senior investigator with the Authority.

In that report we found a number of glaringly obvious attempts, which in our view were designed to manipulate the outcome,  to steer the investigation toward a  favorable finding; so as to exculpate the key stakeholders, those people who should have shouldered the blame, the individuals that were really behind the hiring of Jonathan Moss. Amongst the reports content you will find our observations and serious concerns in blue text:


1. This  independent  review  has  been  commissioned  by  the  Chair (Kristy McDonald QC)  of  the  Real Estate Agents Authority, on behalf of the Board in order to seek clarification as to the appointment process, as a result of questions being raised about the process of appointment of Mr Jonathan Moss to a senior position within the Authority.

Terms of Reference 

2.The terms of reference are simply to “undertake a review of the employment process  of  the  Senior  Manager,  Enforcement,  and  provide  a  report  detailing your findings”.


3. For the purposes of this review, I have:

Reviewed  all  relevant  documentation including  email correspondence referring to the appointment process;

Met  with  and  interviewed  key  parties,  including former  Chief  Executive, Janet  Mazenier,  Dean  Winter,  Steve  Haszard  and  Johnny  Gowland  of Power House People

Spoken by telephone to Mr Moss for clarification of some issues. Reviewed relevant REAA policies and available material on best practice in recruitment.

Steve Haszard

In our view the investigator, John Edwards LLB,  at this point in his report had already started to mislead the intended audience, he has not interviewed all of the key players in this fiasco, both Mr  Jon  Duffy  and  Dave  Stewart were very much intigral. Both men, undoubtedly ex-cops, should have been interviewed. Both men had hands on roles in recruiting Jonathan Moss, to the extent that they were both pushing for Moss to be appointed to the position.

They no doubt also played a large part in advising Janet Mazenier on Moss’s suitability, Mazenier had absolutely no experience in this field and as such would have relied heavily on both men and Kristy McDonald for their advice and opinions. The fact that Duffy and Stewart had departed the REAA, as had Janet Mazenier, who was interviewed, is completely irrelevant and in our view extremely suspicious. We believe that its likely both men refused or had been instructed not to co-operate – we’ve seen it all before!

4. Two  key  personnel,  Mr  Jon  Duffy  and  Mr  Dave  Stewart,  have  not  been interviewed as part of this process.  Mr Duffy was employed by the Authority at  the  relevant  times,  and  was  directly  involved  in  the  initial  assessment  of Mr Moss’ application to be employed as an investigator, but has subsequently left the organisation.  Mr Stewart is out of the country until the end of July.
Email  records  are  available  which  illustrate  the  involvement  of  the  former, and  Mr  Stewart  has  provided  the  Authority  with  a  written  record  of  his involvement.  Findings

• The  appointment  process  was  an  commonplace  operational  matter, managed by the Chief Executive and her senior   staff.

• The  recruitment  occurred  at  a  very  busy  time,  during  the establishment phase  of  the  Authority.    Many  priorities  vied  for  the  attention  of  senior management,  including  establishing  processes  and  procedures  for investigations,  training  staff  and  dealing  with  an  “avalanche  of complaints” which created an unanticipated workload.

• The recruitment of Mr Moss to a senior management position occurred in two  stages. He  was  initially  hired  on  a  fixed  term  contract  into  the position  of  investigator,  and  later  applied  for  and  was  appointed  to  the position of Senior Manager‐Enforcement.

• At  each  stage  Mr  Moss  made  full  disclosure  of  the  circumstances  of  his departure from Police, and the fact that a criminal inquiry was under way into  an  allegation  that  he  had  asked  a  person  with  whom  he  was  in  a
relationship  to  lie  about  an  alleged  assault.    Mr  Moss  was  at  all  times anxious to avoid any embarrassment to the Authority.

• The  two  stage  process,  and  the  fact  that  Mr  Moss  approached  the Authority directly, rather than through  a recruitment firm, created some confusion  as  to  whether  reference  checking  had  been  undertaken  and whose role it was to do it.

• There  were  some  departures  from  best  practice  however  any  such irregularities  were  not  material  in  this  case,  and  did  not  affect  the outcome  or  result  in  any  unfairness  to  any  other  candidate.  In  other words, had the process been a text book example, it is likely that Mr Moss would have been appointed to both positions.

• Mr  Moss  appeared  on  paper,  and  at  interview  to  be  the  most  highly qualified candidate for the position.  The review has found no impropriety in the recruitment process.

• This  review  has  found  no  reason  to  impugn  the  decision  to  employ  Mr Moss,  either  initially  as  an  investigator,  or  subsequently  as  Senior Manager –Enforcement.


5. Early  in  2010  the  REAA  management  identified  a  need  to  recruit  more investigators to cope with a greater than expected workload.

6. Recruitment of investigators was the role of John Duffy and Dean Winter.  On 29  January  they  instructed  PowerHousePeople  (“PHP”),  a  human  resources firm,  to  assist  in  recruiting  two  investigators.    Johnny  Gowland  from  PHP advertised  the  positions,  received  and  reviewed  CVs,  and  undertook preliminary interviews of 12 candidates.  Of those 12 he selected 4 as suitable
for participating in a panel interview.

7. Steven  Haszard,  a  solicitor  from  Meredith  Connell  in  Auckland  had  been advising the REAA from November 2009 to January 2010.  Meredith Connell, which  holds  the  Crown  Solicitor  warrant  for  Auckland,  had  acted  for  the predecessor  to  the  REAA,  the  Real  Estate  Agent’s Licensing  Board,  and  was ideally  placed  to  assist  the  REAA  in  its  establishment  and  implementationphases.   In February, the Chief Executive, Janet Mazenier asked Mr Haszard to oversee the Authority’s investigations function, for three to four days per week.

8. A colleague of Mr Haszard’s from Meredith Connell was a former professional associate

of Mr Moss.  She had spoken to Mr Moss of Mr Haszard’s work, and of the fact that they were recruiting investigators.

9. On 2 March Mr Moss sent Mr Haszard an email which said:


Hi Steve – I was talking to Sarn Herdson tonight and she mentioned that you are doing some work for the Real Estates Agents Authority in Wellington.

I believe you are aware of the circumstances of my retirement from Police in that Sarn briefed you so that you were across any risk to Meredith Connell. I  am  now  starting  to  look  for  employment  and  I  did  notice  Investigators  jobs  with  the Authority in the last week or two.  I think the jobs have been taken down now though.

This is just a query – as an experienced senior investigator, as to whether the Authority are  interested  in  considering  me  either  in  a  role  or  perhaps  as  a  (cheap)  contractor, perhaps.

I am also familiar with the complaints/investigations process for Police and IPCA and so understand the requirements for the various levels of complaint/issues. If you would rather not be involved in this that is fine, I can go direct to the Authority.
I can send a CV.

Its quite clear that Moss has a “special” relationship with Herdson, after all he was chatting to her that night, over coffee, on the phone or was it pillow talk?

10. Mr Haszard replied the same day, saying:

“Hi Jon.  Your email is timely.  If you send me your CV I will happily pass it on to those who matter.”

Indeed his email was timely. it should be noted, Sarn Herdson, was at this time, employed by Mr Steven Haszard’s team of Crown Solicitors, Meredith Connell in Auckland, was Jonathan Moss in Auckland at the time  he sent this email? We’re not sure but we do have more evidence of Moss’s later visits to Auckland, visiting  Sarn and Meredith Connell.

11. Mr  Moss  responded  with  an  email  to  which  his  CV  was  attached. In  the covering email he said:

Without overstating the situation, I would ask that you brief Kristy McDonald or the CEO on  my  application  and  situation.    I  do  not  want  to  embarrass  her  the  Authority  (sic) especially in its infancy.

12. Mr  Moss  included  as  referees,  Assistant  Commissioner  Viv  Rickard,  and  Mr Wayne  Annan,  General  Manager  Human  Resources  NZ  Police.   Mr  Haszard forwarded  the  email  and  CV  to  the  Chief  Executive  on  the  afternoon  of  3 March.  His email said “Now this is a CV”.  By that he meant that Mr Moss’ CV had  stood  out  in  terms  of  quality  and  experience,  from  others  he  had  seen submitted for the investigator roles.

Moss also stood out as a result of the abuse of his position as a police officer, seriously dysfunctional libido and bed hopping antics, all of which must have been known to Steven Haszard,  Sarn Herdson and Kristy McDonald QC, especially the later two women who were  clearly (given there apparent knowledge of his “wonderful and lovely” nature) good “friends” with Moss. Sarn Herdson, now a coroner, apparently had a really big thing for cops, she still does, we’ve been told that she’s in a relationship with yet another senior cop who’s also resigned, Inspector Gary Davey, not from the police force per-say, just his local area command, if its true it’s a bit of a concern.

Source:  Aisling officer quits over police morale (3rd August 2011, New Zealand Herald)

13. By  this  time  the  interview  panel  (John  Duffy,  Dean  Winter  and  Johnny Gowland) were on the last day of interviews.

14. Mr Haszard briefed the Chief Executive on Mr Moss’ circumstances, namely, that  he  had  left  the  Police  during  an  employment  investigation  into  a relationship with a colleague (which had been reported in the media at the time), and that a complaint had been made to and was being investigated by Police that he had been a party to an assault in a Police van, and that he had asked an officer to lie about his involvement.

Source: Senior policeman resigns over old work affair (26th September 2009, New Zealand Herald)

15. The  Chief  Executive  passed  on the CV  to  John  Duffy  and  Dean  Winter  with instructions  to  add  him  to  the  pool.    She  did  not  advise  them  of  the circumstances of his departure from the Police, or of the extant inquiry into his conduct.  Her explanation for this is entirely reasonable. She thought that Mr  Moss  had  disclosed  personal  information  and  that  that  information  was
not  relevant  to  the  interview  panel.    Had  the  panel  found  Mr  Moss  not suitable  for  the  position,  based  on  his  qualifications,  experience,  of perception of “fit” with the organisation, the disclosure would have been for nought.   The Chief Executive also had a brief exchange of text messages with the Chair, knowing that the Chair had had a number of professional dealings with  senior  Police.    The  Chair,  who  did  not  know  Mr  Moss  in  a  personal capacity, but was aware of his professional reputation through her work with
Police,  responded  positively. Ms  Mazenier  recorded  in  a  file  note  for  the purposes  of  dealing  with  a  request  under  the  Official

Janet Mazenier

Information  Act, the following exchange:

Janet Mazenier to Kristy McDonald QC, 3 March 2.23:

“K, do you know a chap John Moss – potential investigator?”

Kristy McDonald QC to Janet Mazenier:

“From Police? formr professional stds? If it is – grab him.  He’s a wonderful and lovely guyU wld get on well with him”

Janet Mazenier to Kristy McDonald QC:

“Yep – same guy – Steve found him

Kristy McDonald QC to Janet Mazenier:

He’s great

Janet Mazenier to Kristy McDonald QC:

“Steve or John?! (both..)”

Kristy McDonald QC to Janet Mazenier:

Actually meant John but both”

Clearly Kristy McDonald must have know Moss well, after all had a high opinion of him, she had also worked with both Moss and Sarn Herdson in various capacities, not the least of which was their mutual involvement with the Independent Police Conduct Authority (IPCA). In one case, May 2009, Kristy McDonald was appointed by the IPCA to review the Scott Watson case and Sarn Herdson was also involved during her first stint as a coroner.

Source: QC to review plea by convicted killer (9th May 2009, New Zealand Herald)

16. There  was  no  discussion  at  this  stage  between  the  Chair  and  the  Chief Executive of the disclosures made by Mr Moss to the Authority about his past. Because his application was late, and came directly to the Authority, and not through  PHP,  Dean  Winter  was  asked  by  the  Chief  Executive  not  to  put  the application through the PHP process, thereby avoiding the fee that would be otherwise  due  to  PHP.    PHP  advise  that  these  things  happen  from  time  to time,  and  while  they  are  disappointing  from  a  commercial  perspective, recruitment  agencies  usually  let  them  pass  on  the  basis  that  the  ongoing relationship, and future work is more important than making an issue out of a particular case.  In this case PHP accepted that decision, while noting that there are risks in not having all candidates go through the same process.

This paragraph is absolute bullshit, has John Edwards inteviewed Mr  Jon  Duffy  and  Mr  Dave  Stewart yet, no of course not, and that is why, we believe, he decided not to pursue these two bent cops.

And then there’s Dean Winters so called integrity ” Dean  Winter  was  asked  by  the  Chief  Executive  not  to  put  the application through the PHP process, thereby avoiding the fee that would be otherwise due  to  PHP“.This fact also also begs the question why was Moss not referred to PHP, why was he given a special pass, via Meredith Connell, straight to Janet Mazenier, not bad for civil servants, lets check out some of Deans other concerns:

17. On receipt of the CV, it appeared to Mr Winter that Mr Moss was almost too good  to  be  true.    He  had  been  a  senior  investigator  with  the  Police,  and appeared over‐qualified for the position of investigator. He decided to ma ke some  checks  of  his  own  with  contacts  in  the  Police,  and  discovered  that  he had  left  the  Police  during  the  course  of  an  investigation  into  a  relationship with a constable.

Just how was it that Dean Winter was able to access confidential police information on Moss, Winter was no longer a serving police officer, no longer legally able to access police records, how is it then that we are expected to believe John Edwards bullshit accounts of Winters possibly “criminal” activities in obtaining confidential information. Just who were Winters police contacts? Names, dates,this important corroborating evidence is clearly missing from the Edwards report – why?

18. He gave this information to the Chief Executive, and was annoyed to discover that she already had that information but had not advised him.

This so called report is getting worse by the paragraph! Again it appears that no corroborating evidence was sought from Mazenier personally, instead Edwards relies on an email (which has been heavily redacted), sent to Haszard to confirm Winters claims. Mazenier in that email states; “….consider this a warning to us both!” What exactly had she meant by warning? Exactly what advice had Kristy McDonald given Mazenier after Mazenier had informed her of the situation? Had she advised Mazenier to keep quite on the subject of Moss’s past indiscretions and just hire him?

Moss was after all hired, therefore to conclude, without evidence supporting that Kristy McDonald had not had a say in the decision would be rather strange indeed, nevertheless that conclusion is reached by Edwards. Not a problem Mr Edwards simply neglects to include any reference to McDonald’s response’s to Mezenier’s concerns via emails, telephone calls, text messages etc – why?.

19. Dean Winter and John Duffy arranged for Mr Moss to travel to Wellington for an interview on Saturday 6 March.

Remember these two are the one’s that had pushed Janet Mazenier to hire Moss, she foolishly trusted these two, both ex-cops obviously both corrupt ex-cops. (We base that view not just on these events, the REAA’s future failure to investigate Martin Honey Ray White is further evidence of a predilection for cover -up’s)

20. At interview, Mr Moss appeared to be a superior candidate.  He made it clear that he would be happy for the Authority to undertake any inquiries into his background.

“Superior candidate”, really were’s the evidence, given that Edwards conveniently conceals the identity of the other candidates and their qualifications and then theres this issue,  given Winters off the record inquiries, and his so called serious concerns why exactly was it that no formal inquiry was made of police at that time? 

21. Contemporaneously  with  this  process,  and  following  the  interview  there were a number of discussions, and email exchanges as to the relative benefits to be  gained  by  the  organisation  from  his  impressive  qualifications and experience  versus  the  possible  reputational  risk  of  engaging  someone  who had left the Police in the circumstances Mr Moss had.  For example:

Janet Mazenier to Steve Haszard (crown solicitor)
Wednesday 3 March 6:49 pm

Steve,  fyi  Dean  and  Jon  are  interviewing  Jon  Moss  on  Saturday  in  Wellington.    Dean’s
reaction at our meeting this afternoon appears to have been driven off the fact that Jon
M’s CV is so rich so he did a bit of research which resulted in him finding out about the
situation regarding the complaint.  Dean does reflect the fact that the universal view is
that Jon M fell on his sword , was cleared and was targeted [what’s been redacted…]  and deserves a break, so
there is no judgment remaining there by Dean.
But, Dean is (probably rightfully) a bit miffed we didn’t mention it at the meeting, and
later when he asked you one‐on‐one about him….consider this a warning to us both!

Steve Haszard to Jane Mazenier
Wednesday 3 March 22:08

Possibly rightfully so.  First step in the process was interview and then consideration of
other issues.  Must say I am still not completely convinced the authority would want to
take on the reputational risk (spoke with Jon on the phone and he has not been cleared
by  the  IPCA  yet).    Anyway,  that  is  food  for  thought  for  next  week  …  amongst  other

Janet Mazenier to Steve Haszard
Thursday 4 March 5:25 am

OK, we’ll tread with some caution – I do wonder whether Kristy is aware of the issue too – will check with her.

Janet Mazenier to Jon Duffy
Sunday 7 March 7:19 am

Hi  Jon  Dean  and  I  had  [a]  good  chat  –  is  definitely  a  tricky  situation.    I  will  ring  Jon
tomorrow  as  I  need  to  get  the  situation  clear  then  I’ll  speak  to  Kristy  –  ordinarily  I wouldn’t do this given it is an operation matter [but] there are potentially reputational

Janet Mazenier to Steve Haszard
Sunday 7 March 7:21 am

Steve,  FYI  Jon  and  Dean  are  keen  to  engage  Jon  Moss  however  in  the  circumstances  I need to ensure I am very clear about the matters that are still underway. 

Steve Haszard to Janet Mazenier
Monday 8 March

Couldn’t agree more Janet

Based on the information we’ve received it appears that there are a few emails missing?

22. As  indicated  above,  in  accordance  with  good  practice  (the  “no  surprises principle”), the Chief Executive also kept the Chair informed.  On 8 March the Chief Executive sent a text to the Chair saying:

“K, I need to talk to you about Jon Moss & the response to the READT folk.  Dan & I r in Greymouth 2day – will be free up till 1:45pm – when suits you?.

So where’s the verbatim response from the chair “Kristy McDonald QC?, surely it would have been on the same mobile phone? Why conceal that? Nevertheless it is concealed!

The Chair responded that she would be in a meeting, but if the Chief Executive called at 12:30, she would exit the meeting to take the call.  During this call the CE for the first time apprised the chair  of  the  nature  of  Mr  Moss’  disclosures  as  described  above. No
contemporaneous  notes  were  kept  of  the  call,  but  it  is  clear  that  the  Chief Executive  advised  the  Chair  that  she  was  considering  employing  Mr  Moss despite  the  matters  he  had  disclosed  about  the  complaint,  and  the circumstances of his departure from the Police.

No contemporanious notes, and McDonalds a QC? Yeah right, who are they trying to kid, in fact  given the circumstance, as entitled, we would be inclined to draw a negative inference; what are they trying to hide?

23. Dean  Winter  went  on  leave  prior  to  the  decision  to  engage  Mr  Moss  being made.    Because  of  the  outstanding  complaint,  he  suggested  to  the  Chief Executive that Mr Moss could be taken on as a contractor. This would enable the Authority to make use of his skills, without being committed to keeping him on should the Police investigation disclosed by Mr Moss conclude that Mr
Moss was guilty of a criminal offence.

24. The decision to employ Mr Moss was made between Mr Duffy (is that the same Mr Duffy that Mr Edwards had decided he needn’t interview?) and the Chief Executive, as illustrated in the following email exchange.

Jon Duffy to Janet Mazenier
Sunday 7 March 09:11

Hi Janet
One  of  the  possibilities  that  Dean  and  I discussed  was  bringing  him  on  in  an  advisory
role for 3 months until the result of the investigation into him is known.  He would be
invaluable in assisting with the operations manual and the review as he has basically just
done the same thing at the Independent Police Complaints Authority. We could then look
at an Investigator role after that if the investigation finds no case to answer.
Obviously  there  are  budgetary  considerations  as  we  would  still  need  tow  new
Investigators in the mean time, but it could be a way to mitigate the risk and not lose his

Janet Mazenier to Jon Duffy
Sunday 7 March 11:25

Thanks yes Dean mentioned that idea, but I am keen for you and I to explore that first
with  Steve  as  he  is  leading  the  overall  QA  piece  of  work  (of  which  he  complaints
procedures manual is only one of the outputs).  I’ll call Jon for a chat tomorrow.

25. Mr  Moss  was  engaged  on  a  12  month  contract  dated  9  March. Despite  the date on the cover page of the contract showing that the engagement was to commence  on  9  March,  Mr  Moss’  signature  at  the  end  of  that  contract  is
witnessed with a date stamp of 10 May.  A likely explanation, confirmed by Mr Moss was that the formal execution of the contract was overlooked until the permanent contract was ready to be executed.  Both were then executed, together with a memo signed by Mr Moss rescinding the earlier contract.

26. At the same time as the recruitment of the two investigators was occurring, there was a great deal of activity going on in the authority to cope with the “avalanche of complaints”.  One of these things was a review of the structure

and  roles  to  improve  workflow.    The  Chief  Executive  made  a recommendation to the Board that a new senior management position should be created, Senior Manager –Enforcement.  The restructure would double or triple the enforcement capacity of the Authority.  An employment consultant, David Stewart, of Human Value completed a draft position description on 15

27. Pending the recruitment of a suitable person to fill that role, Steve Haszard was acting in the role of Enforcement Manager, with responsibility for quality control and structural reform.

28. In  order  to  ensure  an  “arms  length”  approach  to  recruitment,  and  that  the process would not discriminate between internal and external applicants, the Chief Executive engaged PHP, as well as David Stewart, (from Human Value) to  recruit  the  Senior  Manager  –  Enforcement.    PHP  was  to  advertise  the position  internally  and  externally,  to  identify  suitable  applicants  through
their own networks, to shortlist and release any unsuitable candidates, and report  to  Mr  Stewart  as  the  Chief  Executive’s  agent. The  position  was advertised  on  18  March.   Due  to  the  need  to  fill  the  position  as  quickly  as possible applications were sought by 25 March.  Mr Moss, who was the only internal candidate, was interviewed by PHP on 29 March.

29. PHP gave Mr Stewart a list of 7 potential candidates on 30 March 2010.  Also on 30 March 2010, Mr Moss, aware that some uncertainty remained as to the disposition of the Police investigation into an allegation against him, emailed Mr Haszard saying:

Jon Moss to Steven Haszard (Crown Solicitor) 3o March

Steve  –  I  spoke  with  Viv  Rickard  last  night  and  asked  for  an  update.    Below  is  his
response.  I would expect to receive a formal letter in due course.
The  file  will  be  sent  to  the  IPCA  for  review.  A  letter  would  normally  be  sent  to  the
Commissioner advising of the Authority’s review of the matter.  I have no idea how long
that process might take.
That would be the end of it.I will leave this for you to advise Janet.

Attached – email from Viv Rickard to Jon Moss (cc Steve Hinds NZ Police)

Assistant Commissioner of Police,Viv Rickard to Jon Moss

Kia ora Jon

We will catch at some stage in Wgtn. You queried the final outcome of the enquiry.
I apologise that I have not responded formally to you in this regard.  As you know the
enquiry  was  all  but  completed,  but  for  completeness,  we  carried  out  a  further  enquiry
(out of Auckland with an ex‐member) last week.

The ex‐member has not provided any further/different information.
Therefore I can advise that the NZ Police have no cogent evidence that an assault took
place in the back of a prison van when [complainant] was present and there is no cogent
evidence indicating that you asked her to lie to investigators.  Accordingly, I have taken
the decision that no further Police action will be taken.

Feel free to discuss further.  I will try and make contact with you personally.

Kind regards


Deborah Te Kawa

It would later be exposed (June 2010) that Viv Rickard, the Assistant Commissioner of Police had concealed  important evidence, a  letter sent to him by Deborah Te Kawa advising him of her own extra-marital affair with Jon Moss at the time Moss had just been investigated for the first affair with his subordinate officer Katie Scott – Yet another relationship which Moss had deliberately failed to disclose.

Source: Officer’s ex-lover tells of ‘manipulative’ relationship (2nd July 2010 – Dominion Post, Fairfax)

Why had Rickard concealed this important information from the commissioner of Police, Howard Broad, for two months? Perhaps he realised that the letter would fire up the investigation again? Which of course it inevitably did, with a second investigation into Moss being initiated by Broad when Rickard’s “now you see it, now you don’t” slight of hand with the Te Kawa letter was made public.

Source:  Top officer kept claims secret (20th March 2011 – New Zealand Herald)

Looking at the chronology, Jon Moss’s email of the 30th March 2010 was within that two month period, its therefore highly likely that Rickard was already in possession of Te Kawa’s letter when he sent his very “friendly” email to Moss purportedly clearing him, for Moss to then immediately forward on to Steve Haszard (crown solicitor).

Also of serious concern is the fact that John Edwards, the investigator/report writer commissioned by Kristy McDonald QC (the REAA Chair) has omitted to include the date of Rickards email to Moss – Why? If it was attached to Moss’s email to Haszard that detail would clearly have been available to Edwards.

30. Mr Stewart met with 4 candidates recommended by PHP.  Of these, one (“A”) had  been  approached  by  PHP,  and  for  his  own  reasons  did  not  want  his identity disclosed to the Authority until he was sufficiently advanced in the process,  and  confident  that  he  would  want  the  job  if  offered. He  was considered  by  PHP  to  be  a  very  strong  candidate. Another very able candidate  was  overseas,  and  was  advised  that  due  to  the  need  to  have someone in the position as soon as possible, his candidacy would not proceed to final interview stage.

31. The process was that long listed candidates would be interviewed by PHP, Mr Stewart  would  interview  a  shortlist,  and  then  a  final  interview  would  be undertaken by the Chief Executive and Mr Haszard (on the basis that he was acting  in  the  role  to  be  filled).    Mr  Stewart  advised  PHO  that  for  various reasons 3 of the 4 shortlisted candidates would not proceed to interview.  He recommended  just  one  candidate  as  the  preferred  candidate.    That  person was  Mr  Moss,  who  was  then  interviewed  by  the  Chief  Executive  and  Mr Haszard.

32. By the time Mr Stewart had met with the Chief Executive to determine who was  to  be  interviewed,  candidate  “A”  had  still  asked  that  his  identity  be withheld from the Authority.  Mr Stewart emailed PHP on 15 April and said:

As  I  suspected  [the  Chief  Executive]  feels  that  [A’s]  experience  (without  divulging
specifics and his name) are not substantially greater than Jon Moss so they are going to
run with Jon’s interview today and then make a decision if he is the right candidate or if
they need to re‐visit others.

Candidate “A’s” experience was not substantially greater, what does that mean, where’s the evidence for this claim? If it was in anyway greater then surely the man (A) should have been interviewed. No, this job had clearly been ear-marked for Moss from the outset. The creation of the new position just when they thought they’d managed to fly Inspector Jonathan Moss and his nefarious past under the radar of public scrutiny – Who was really pulling the strings at the REAA? We’ve already found at least two more examples of the “Jobs for the boy’s” and “Girls” philosophy at the REAA, and in both cases they point to the hand of no one other than the Chairperson Kristy McDonald QC. One of those examples also appears to constitute a serious breach of the principles of fairness and conflicted interest.

33. As  it  happened,  after  that  email  had  been  sent,  candidate  A  had  called  Mr Stewart to say he would be interested in pursuing the role.  In a further email to PHP David Stewart said:

I advised him that the internal candidate was being strongly considered and then they
would  make  a  decision  if  they  need  to  go  external  again.  Unfortunate  that  in  the  11th
hour his application came though and without giving full details of his background  (and
disclosing his identity) I could not demonstrate a greater strength than the internal

34. Mr Gowland from PHP responded the same day saying:

Whilst  disappointing  that  we  could  couldn’t  get  A  to  final  interview  stage  we  will  talk
with him today and manage this. Pending this afternoon’s meeting please advise when
you would like us to conduct full reference checks on the internal ‐ Jon Moss.

35. The  interview  of  Mr  Moss  with  Mr  Haszard  and  the  Chief  Executive proceeded that day.  At interview, Mr Moss was again at pains to explain that he  did  not  want  the  circumstances  of  his  departure  from  the  Police  to embarrass  the  Authority.    The  offer  from  PHP  to Mr  Stewart  to  undertake reference  checking  was  not  taken  up. Mr  Stewart  advised  that  his understanding  was  “that  Powerhouse  had  already  provided  robust  reference checks  to  REAA  at  the  initial  time  of  recruiting  Jon  Moss  to  the  Investigator role”.

“The  offer  from  PHP  to Mr  Stewart  to  undertake reference  checking  was  not  taken  up” Now why would they, its clear that a reference check would have totally fucked their plans to promote Moss into a higher paying position which we believe was created for him.

36. Because of his role in introducing Mr Moss into the organisation, Mr Haszard made  “informal”  inquiries  of  his  contacts, including  former  and  serving senior  officers,  to  ask  about  Mr  Moss’  performance,  as  he  would  not  have been  wanting  to  be  responsible  for  a  “dud”  getting  the  job.    It  should  be emphasised  that  these  enquiries  were  not  about  the  conduct  or  complaint
issues,  they  were  merely  around  his  work  performance. Mr  Haszard  was satisfied that Mr Moss had made a full disclosure of the former issues to the Chief Executive and that she would be able to deal with those as she saw fit.

Clearly, this is willful blindness on the part of Steven Haszard, who were these contacts, these men or woman who where able to separate out Moss’s work performance from his alleged criminal offending, Haszard must have very unique contacted if he expects to be believed, and it comes as no surprise that John Edward’s doesn’t name them!

37. On 15 April at 5:24 pm, the Chief Executive emailed Jon Moss, offerring him the position of Senior Manager – Enforcement.

Complete with a huge salary, similar to money he’d been getting in the police force.

38. There is one further aspect of this second recruitment process that needs to be  mentioned  as  part  of  this  review.    On  30  March,  the  REAA  received  an anonymous  letter  which  made  a  number  of  allegations  about  Mr  Moss,  and his  fitness  for  employment  with  the  Authority.  The  letter  referred  to  the allegations  surrounding  Mr  Moss’  departure  from  the  Police,  and  made  a number  of  assertions  as  to  his  fitness  for  employment  as  a  result  of  those allegations,  and  of  the  relationship  he  had  while  employed  with  the  Police.

This  letter  came  after  some  odd  anonymous  telephone  calls  apparently intended to obtain information as to the nature of Mr Moss’ employment with the Authority.  PHP too, received a number of calls from a person ostensibly enquiring  about  the  Senior  Manager  –  Enforcement  position,  but  which  in fact were intended to elicit information about Mr Moss.  The caller identified
herself as being a current public servant, and then sent in her CV, but did not then proceed with her application.  The way in which that person presented herself caused some concerns with the recruiter.

39. On receipt of the anonymous letter, the Chief Executive discussed its contents with Mr Moss, and concluded that there was nothing alleged in it (apart from the writers interpretations of the events and their significance) which added to what Mr Moss had already disclosed.  In addition, as it was anonymous, it was discounted, and no further notice was taken of it.

The last three paragraphs are where real concern should lay, Mr Edwards appears to have disregarded a whistle-blower, simply by dismissing it as anonymous, yet he provides little if any supporting evidence, such as the contents of the anonymous letter, a letter that might have inculpated Moss and Sarn Herdson Perhaps? If allegations of corrupt behaviour had been made in this so called anonymous letter why then did Edwards not investigate them thoroughly, instead of forming an opinion based on just that, his opinion! Its vert easy to make things disappear with a little literary slight of hand.

Legal and Policy issues

40. There  is  very  little  in  the  way  of  regulation  around  recruitment  practices apart from the general provisions of the Human Rights Act, Privacy Act, the Fair Trading Act and the like.

41. As a Crown Entity, REAA is subject to the Crown Entities Act 2004.  Section 118 of that Act recites Crown Entities’ obligations as a “good employer”.  The term  “good  employer”  is  defined  as  “an  employer who  operates  a  personnel policy  containing  provisions  generally  accepted  as  necessary  for  the  fair  and proper  treatment  of  employees  in  all  aspects  of  their  employment,  including
provisions requiring”; (c) the impartial selection of suitably qualified persons for appointment; and

42. This obligation appears to have been complied with in the recruitment of Jon Moss for the position of investigator, and for recruitment as Senior Manager – Enforcement.    I  have  found  no  evidence  to  suggest  that  partiality  was  an element of the decision to employ Mr Moss at that time (except to the extent that an employer is entitled, even obliged to be “partial” to the most suitable candidate).

43. Nor  is  there  very  much  available  by  way  of  “best  practice”  guidelines  for crown  entity  or  even  state  sector  employers.    I  note  that  in  its  2005/2006 Annual Report the State Services Commission said:

Projects  have  been  established  and  project  managers  appointed  for  a  number  of  new
initiatives, including State sector employment brand research, syndicated procurement
of  an  Employee  Engagement  Survey  and  the  development  of  a  guide  to  best  practice
recruitment tools.

44. Enquiries of the SSC indicate that this latter piece of work has not been done. Nonetheless, SSC could be expected to show a leadership role in recruitment practice.  Its own internal recruitment policy says (inter alia):

• Structured process 

– Selection and assessment processes should be structured, consistent and transparent to
   give all applicants an equal opportunity to demonstrate their suitability for a position.

– All shortlisted candidates must complete:

– an application form- a New Zealand Security Intelligence Service (NZSIS) request and consent for a
   basic check form
– a criminal conviction form
– a Ministry of Justice request for a copy of personal information form
– a health declaration
– a competency self-assessment form.

• Pre-appointment checks

– Reference checks, criminal history checks and a NZSIS basic check must be carried out
   for the preferred applicant prior to recommending an appointment.

45. There  is  no  suggestion  that  SIS  checks  would  be  a  prerequisite  for employment  to  the  REAA,  however,  the  policy emphasises  the  need  for reference checks.  Its more extensive internal guidance material includes the following:

Reference checks
Reference checks must be carried out for the preferred applicant prior to recommending
an appointment.  The convenor or an appropriate delegate should carry out the check.
Reference checking is used to:
• verify information supplied by the preferred applicant during the interview/assessment


• follow up on any relevant areas of concern the panel has.
Applicants should provide the names of at least two referees who have been forewarned they may be called.  The referees should be able to be contacted by telephone to provide the opportunity to ask follow‐up questions to their responses.

Reference  checks  can  only  be  made  with  the  referees  that  have  been  nominated  or
agreed to by the individual.  However, the panel can request the names of other referees
from the applicant to assess suitability against specific competencies.

Before contacting referees, select the competencies where verification is needed or any
areas of concern.

It is important to confirm and clarify the past and any current relationship between the
referee and the applicant as any personal relationship and the type of work relationship
may impact on the usefulness and relevance of the information.

Where  the  referees  have  not  provided  sufficient  (or  specific)  information,  ask  the
applicant  for  the  name  of  more  referees,  indicating  the  type  of  information/referee

If  the  reference  checks  raise  or  confirm  any  doubts  about  the  preferred  applicant’s
ability to perform the job:

• seek further information from the applicant or
• reference check the next most preferred applicant.

Note: The Privacy Act allows for ‘evaluative material’ that has been obtained from a referee in the course of a selection process to be withheld from the applicant if a referee has been promised that the information supplied will be held in confidence.

All information obtained from referees should be placed in a sealed envelope and held on the vacancy file.Refer to the verbal reference check form – the questions may need to be adapted to suit the particular position/applicant.

46. These  would  appear  to  be  prudent  steps.    While  they  were  clearly  not undertaken  in  this  way  in  the  case  of  Mr  Moss’  employment,  there  is  no suggestion  that  in  that  case,  the  failure  to  follow  a  practice  of  that  nature would have lead to any different decision being made about his suitability for the job, or the assessment that he was the best qualified candidate.

47. The  Office  of  the  Auditor‐General  rarely  reviews  recruitment  practices,  and has  likewise  issued  no  guidance  or  best  practice  material  for  employers. However  in  Part  2  of  its  inquiry  into  the  appointment  of the  Head  of Immigration, MaryAnn Thompson the Auditor‐General said:

After withdrawing from the recruitment process for the role of chief executive of DPMC, Ms Thompson applied for the role of Deputy Secretary (Workforce) at the Department of Labour.  The  process  appears  to  have  been  reasonably  standard,  but  there  were  some aspects  of  the  process  that  departed  from  good  practice.  I  do  not  consider  that  these departures had a significant effect on the outcome of the process.

The Department of Labour used a consultant, a contestable process, an interview panel, and  reference  checks.  Although  Ms  Thompson  was  interviewed  by  the  panel,  her  late application bypassed the consultant’s usual process without any documented rationale for  this,  and  records  were  not  retained  by  the  Department  of  Labour.

The  offer  of employment to Ms Thompson was made before reference checks were carried out, and the  offer  was  not  conditional  on  the  outcome  of  the  reference  checks.  Even  though  Ms Thompson had previous public sector experience, this deviated from my expectations of good practice. However, my findings are limited to this one recruitment process.

The then chief executive of the Department of Labour and Ms Thompson’s employer, Dr James  Buwalda,  became aware  from  Mr  Wintringham  in  2007  that  a  question  had previously  arisen  about  Ms  Thompson’s  PhD.  This  was  in  the  context  of  an  external review  Dr  Buwalda  was  commissioning  into  some  immigration  decisions  for  family
members of Ms Thompson (discussed in Volume 1). At this time, Mr Wintringham was a member  of  the  Department  of  Labour’s  Audit  Committee.

Dr  Buwalda  did  not  believe that there was an outstanding issue to be resolved, and so did not do anything with this
information. With hindsight, it would have been helpful for this information to have been passed on to Dr Buwalda’s successor.

Ministers’ knowledge of the PhD uncertainty

Ministers  were  not  aware  of  the  PhD  uncertainty  until  just  before  it  became  public  in May  2008.  That  is consistent  with  the  norms  governing  when  it  is  appropriate  for Ministers to be informed about employment matters in the public service.

Timely reminder for all employers within public entities 

This case illustrates that it is important for all public sector employers to consider the general  and  specific  approach they  take  to  verifying  the  information  presented  in  a curriculum vitae (CV). They also need to be aware of the link between these procedural steps  in  recruitment  processes  and  the  broad  collective  role  they  play  in  safeguarding
the integrity of the public sector.

The extent of checks required is likely to vary depending on the seniority of the role and the nature  of  the  experience  and  qualifications  needed.  The  applicant’s  previous  work history may also be relevant. However, each entity within the public sector is a distinct organisation, and each chief executive is responsible for their employment practices. An individual  having  previously  worked  in  the  public  sector  cannot  be  a  reason  for  not carrying out a proper recruitment process with the appropriate checks.

It  is  reasonable  to  expect  a  more  robust  approach  to  be  taken  for  chief  executive  and senior positions than for other positions, given the leadership and management role they have in an organisation. Although the checking processes may at times appear mundane, those  making  senior  appointments  need  to  be  aware  of  the  risk  that  incorrect information  in  a  CV  potentially  raises  a  question  about  an  applicant’s  integrity.

For senior  public  sector  roles,  that  is  a  risk  that  needs  to  be  scrupulously  managed.  In fairness to the individuals, it is important to dispel a question if it is unfounded. For the organisation, and for the sector as a whole, it is important to ensure that any integrity risk raised by a credible source is addressed.

48. Applying  those  observations  to  the  recruitment  of  Mr  Moss,  it  is  clear  that many  elements  of  good  practice  were  present;  the  use  of  independent consultants,  a  structured  and  fair  interview  process  and  others.    Absent however, was a full and formal process or referee checking and qualification verification.

49. Having  said  that, it  is  unlikely  that  had  those  processes  been  followed,  and formal  checking  undertaken,  there  would  have  been  any  different  outcome. Mr  Moss  was  identified  as  the  best  person  for  the  job.    Informal  checks confirmed  that  there  was  no  reason  to  doubt  his  previous  performance  in similar  roles,  or  that  he  had  withheld  any  information  which  might  have
affected the decision to offer him employment.

50. It  is  an  open  secret  that  employers  often  use  informal  checking  processes, whereby staff use personal contacts and connections to ascertain the “fit” of a candidate  for  a  position.    It  is  not  best  practice  to  rely  on  such  measures, which  are  usually  confidential  and  often  “off  the  record”  in  a  contestable process.  Doing so exposes an organisation to risk (of breach of the Privacy Act for one) and raise the serious question of how a prospective employer is to treat any adverse information that comes through such channels.

51. These concerns were not an issue in the present case, as Mr Moss had given a broad authority to the Authority to enquire as it saw fit (even though, in one case the “informal contacts” were used prior to that consent being given), and those sources of information gave no cause for concern about employing him.

52. In addition to the concern about the use of “informal contacts”, the absence of adherence  to  a  standard  policy  can  lead  to  (and  in  this  case  did  lead  to) confusion  about  who  was  doing  what.    Mr  Moss’  initial  application  was received outside the PHP recruitment policy, and thereby missed the checks that  would  have  been  a  standard  part  of  the  services  offered  by  that  firm.
When he applied for the Senior Manager‐Enforcement position as an internal candidate, assumptions were made that reference checks would already have been a part of the initial process.

John Edwards must have very little regard for the average person intelligence and that of the whistle-blowers and others that his report attempts to shaft.


53. The  REAA  should  adapt,  and  adopt  as  its  own  recruitment  policy,  the guidance and policy of the State Services Commission

John Edwards

John Edwards

John Edward’s so called investigation and report is obviously nothing more than a snow-job, it contains falsehoods, blatant lies and contradictions, in fact so many holes it’s nothing short of a colander . What we here at Lauda Finem would like to see is that the entire board of the REAA, their CAC members and staff be investigated and if found to be corrupt sacked, prosecuted and or imprisoned.

So as to facilitate that thorough investigation  we would like to see Ms Kristy McDonald, the Coroner Sarn Herdson, Nathan Guy MP, Steven Haszard of  Meredith Connell Crown Solicitors and Jonathon Moss et al interviewed again, this time by an honest cop.

Moreover to assist in the process of that thorough investigation all telephone records, computers and any other potential source of incriminating evidence stored at the offices of the REAA or in fact the homes of its employees or statutory office holders should be be seized by warrant. After-all that’s what has and would happen here in Australia – we think that New Zealand’s naive public need’s to catch up, “to adapt and adopt”, an anti corruption body such as ICAC so as to catch these bastards at it.

As an aside, and possibly an  by way of explanation for Edwards bullshit report, John Edwards is apparently good mates with the Minister Nathan Guy, John Key and his staff and of course Kieth Manch,“Chop Chop” the man who Nathan Guy had replace Janet Mazenier. It would also appear that Mr Edwards had done quite a bit of work for Keith Manch over at the Department of Internal affairs, one of Edwards specialties being Cyber Law, what’s a cyber law type doing being asked to investigate and write a report on an employment issue, there would have been far more appropriate choices.

Was it Kieth Manch that recommended John Edwards to McDonald after all we know that Manch was Nathan Guys “Mr Fix It”, a man who lack of respect for democracy extended to shredding official document so as to prevent them becoming public. John Edwards must have been paid a lot to produce his cover-up report, his credibility must have also suffered as its not all that convincing , in fact we wonder if Nathan Guy even read the shite given that by the looks of it he had known the outcome was in the bag:

Nathan Guy

“A statement today by Associate Minister of Justice Nathan Guy said he welcomed a review into Mr Moss’s employment at the authority.

“The review finds that there was no impropriety in the employment process and that full disclosure of the police investigation was made by Mr Moss,” Mr Guy said.

“However, I am concerned this situation was allowed to arise. I am disappointed that there were failures in best practice, and that there was no formal system for checking referees.”

Mr Guy said Ms McDonald had assured him the Real Estate Agents Authority employment procedures were under review.

“The REAA has an important role to play in licensing real estate agents and providing help and support for the public. I want to see this good work continued,” Mr Guy said”


Oh thats right the Minister, Nathan Guy’s also a friend of Jackie Blue MP he’s taught her well, she knows how the REAA’s system works, and has in turn used it to the advantage of yet another National Party fuck buddy, Mr Martin Honey, a criminally insane fraudster who, with his very timid bullshitting wife Stephanie, owns and operates Martin Honey Ray White Real Estate, its a vicious circle is it not, especially in a very very small country like New Zealand. As for Janet Mazenier’s interest in cyber/internet issues that involved the “Crown” take a look at the YouTube clips in Related material and articles below.

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 is “somehow” 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 so that the likes of Martin Honey and his corrupt national party mates cant touch it………so pop back soon!

Bibliography (REAA CAC Anna Tierney) (REAA CAC Anna Tierney) (REAA CAC Anna Tierney),3746,en_2649_34135_35532108_1_1_1_1,00.html

Related Articles:

Categorised in: , ,

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: