Michael Laws claims the Ombudsman is IRRELEVANT!

I’ve had numerous people say to me “surely not even Michael Laws would be crass enough to make the claim that the Ombudsman is irrelevant”.Reproduced below is a cameo demonstrating exactly how far out of line the Mayor and his Council actually got.

Obviously Michael Laws along with the rest of the Wanganui District Council need to read the Ombudsmans Information Brochure.I have reproduced the opening explaination of the powers of an Ombudsman for the benefit of anyone who may need assistance in the future.

What can an Ombudsman do for you?

An Ombudsman investigates complaints about administrative acts and decisions of central and local government agencies.
An Ombudsman:

• Is an independent investigator

• has wide powers to investigate government agencies and to call them to account for their actions

• will give your complaint careful and just consideration

• will decide whether the agency’s acts or decisons were unreasonable,unfair or wrong

• may recommend a remedy where a complaint is found to be justified

Ombudsmen can investigate complaints against:

• government agencies,including those responsible for benefit payments,housing,health,immigration,passports,
  accident
  compensation,education,taxation and child support.

• local government agencies,including those responsible for roads,drainage,nuisance and animal control, planning and the granting and enforcing of building or resource consents.

  
  

  Hopefully the Wanganui District Council and Michael Laws will come to realise that there are recourses if they dont represent the community when they should.

Its All Very Well To Claim Legal Loophole

But I have yet to hear an explaination for the Non chargeing of fines demanded by the Dangerous Dog requirements as per the Dog Act 1996 and the agreement signed between Pleasants and the Wanganui District Council.By anyone’s calculations there is some $650 unaccounted for- now tell me who gave the authorisation not to levy it? No-one then why wasn’t it charged? As I see it -there is $300 per dog for non-registration , then there is the registration levy for a dangerous dog , that calculates out $112.50 not the $75.00 as per that receipt. Then there is the good owner rebate given on the second dog that the owner wasn’t entitled to-so all up that comes $652.50. I’m also curious as to why that receipt was altered(DX. added)The date of the receipt is actually the 15.8.06 and that begs all sorts of questions – like how come the dog was released before the section 31 was served (16.8.06) the agreement was signed (17.8.06/18.8.06) and of course how come an unsigned agreement was supplied to Kensington Swan in September?

Note the signature – Kevin Broome , Head Ranger was at the hearing and well aware of the classification and agreement-No excuse

Timeframe raises questions

Its all very well for the Wanganui District Council to claim the legal opinion proffered by Kensington Swan lets them off the hook -but the sad fact is that the timeframe doesn’t fit. The timeframe is as follows
Dog attack 16.7.06
Hearing 4.8.07
Release of dog from pound 15.8.06
Visit to Michael Laws office at his invitation 1.9.06
Voluntary opinion from Ombudsman 11.9.06
Requested opinion from Nanaia Mahuta 25.9.06
Kensington Swan report 27.9.06
I really have enough respect for the intellect possessed by the masses to be quite sure they will work it out for themselves.

As Promised

I would suggest that Michael Laws behaviour in this little cameo was outside the prescribed code of conduct. The excerpt I used was off Laws website and the purported zero tolerance has been much lawded by Michael and his partyThe final e-mail from Michael would have been some vitriolic comment and much to the consternation of half of the media in New Zealand I bounced it using an anti-spam program.(just a clue – er it washes mail very well.)
Of course as most are aware I did exactly as promised and did take it to the nation with outstanding results.(Closeup) The Council needs to take careful note that whilst I have never been one to threaten -anything Ive said Im going to do Ive done- so in simple Kiwi language – watch this space.

Legal Loophole

What few would realise is that the much proclaimed legal loophole was only made so by Michael Laws and the Wanganui District Council in the process of trying to make the whole carry on look legal. The reality is that both Namaia Mahuta and the Ombudsman Beverley Wakem had already said very clearly that whilst I had the legal duties of an owner there’s no way I could be the owner. Now the only way to prove this is of course to take it to court and if thats the case so be it.The ombudsman’s opinion was readily shared with the council and Michael Laws who not only said it was irrelevant but immediately went off and got another opinion that of course fitted more with his Vision. Sorry folks. For those not in the know Michael Laws party is named Vision. Unfortunately its been running very much one eyed in my case. I had a good smile to myself when I included Michaels little e-mail to me saying that the ombudsman was irrelevant in the complaint to the ombudsman- I wish I could have seen her face. I would like to be a fly on the wall when Michael finds out just how unirrelevant the ombudsman is. I wonder how far outside of the code of conduct he is what with telling me Im deluded , the Ombudsman is irrelevant and Nanaia Mahutua doesn’t count .The other interesting point is that the only part of the legal opinion that is tested in court is the very part that the council and Michael Laws have chosen to ignore-which reads as follows
6.1. In our view the dangerous dog classification which Council have agreed with the owner in addition to the further restrictions requiring the dog essentially to be kept securely on the property in the care of Mr and Mrs Pleasants go a significant way to achieving the objectives of the Dog Act in this case. The point could also be made that should Mr and Mrs Pleasants breach any of the terms of the dangerous dog classification they are liable for prosecution and destruction of the dog MUST follow unless there are exceptional circumstances. In those circumstances the publics interest in further prosecution action in light of the unusual circumstances of the case is arguably limited.
This of course begs the following questions- is a 4ft/1.2m fence termed secure. Is taking the dog off the property staying within the agreement.
Is not paying 150% of the required dog registration staying within the classification and agreement.Is taking the dog off the property into public places unmuzzled staying within the classification.
Obviously the Wanganui District Council thinks so I wonder why?

I Wonder Why

Had a call from TVNZ unfortunately Michael Laws was unwilling to appear on the program. Strange that he always seems so eager to take up any offer of publicity and yet he has been totally absent from the scene except for a lopsided answer to Closeups program. Its interesting because the reality is that it is very much the kettle calling the pot black.He seems to suffer from selective amnesia something the Ombudsman is taking a very keen interest in and their report is keenly awaited . It will be posted on the web and made available to both producers that I have been dealing with.

Breaking News

Had a phonecall from Phil Wallington of Topshelf Productions asking me to appear on his program “Nail the Bastard”. Naturally I have agreed and he and his team will be in Wanganui to film this coming week.There are two other cases that will be covered here in Wanganui -one the very sad case of two extremely elderly and frail people who have lost their home help and the poor man who put his car so he thought safely in the council carpark at the airport only to come back and find that it had gone awol. So the Wanganui District Council is going to be investigated twice over this week- they aren’t having a very good time. You have to ask yourself why?In my case they have operated outside of the Local Govt Act, their own code of conduct , the dog act and of course the agreement that they themselves wrote up with the owners of the dog that so badly mauled me Dot and Graeme Pleasants

Dog Attack

On the 16/7/06 On the 16th July 2006 I was badly mauled by a German Shepherd dog that I was exercising. The dog bowled me to the road and continued mauling me until my husband arrived on the scene and pulled the dog off. He was exercising  the second dog owned by the same owners Dot and Graeme Pleasants (President of the Wanganui RSA and one of the 12 ambassadors to Wanganui City).I ended up in hospital for 3 days with 85 stitches.The medical care I received was excellent but it still took 7 weeks for the wounds to heal.A subsequent “hearing” held by the Wanganui District Council released the dog to the community with a robust agreement which if it had been enforced would have been adequate. Unfortunately the agreement was never enforced.The main requirements of the agreement included the requirements of the dangerous dog act including some extra restrictions such as the dog was only ever to be handled by the owners and never to leave the property except under extenuating circumstances. The Wanganui District Council are satisfied with the dog being secured by a 1.2m fence- Ive dealt with pugs and foxies that would make light of a fence that height never mind a very dangerous dog.Both dogs were unregistered. The fine for not being registered was never charged ($300 per dog) The requirements of the existing agreement also listed a registration of 150%-mysteriously a normal fee (less the good owner rebate)was charged with a neutered rebate being given before the dog was even neutered.The owners were given a good owner rebate on the second dog -they weren’t entitled to it.The interesting legal situation is that as the dog in question was unregistered and therefore did not have an owner it could have been easily euthanaised by the Council- a fact they never acquainted me with at the time.(I wonder why) After the hearing when I rightly made it very plain that I was disastisfied with the Councils inaction they then went and got a legal opinion which stated that I was the owner – something voluntarily disputed by the ombudsman who has yet to give a full legal opinion on the actions of the Wanganui District Council. Mayor Michael Laws declared that the Ombudsman was irrelevant and sought other legal advice (again I wonder why-surely it wouldn’t be because the decision didn’t fit with the outcomes he had in mind)The legal opinion proffered by Wellington firm Kensington Swan also included the very sound advice that the dangerous dog act and the agreement must be enforced and their opinion was actually based in good part on this premise. For reasons that now may be dawning on the reader the Wanganui Disctrict Council have chosen to ignore this advice

Hello world!

Fo 32 years I have been operating a boarding kennel, cattery & grooming service in Wanganui New Zealand.