"Give a little" donation pages removed

 The two different donation pages of Nark "Give a little":

For those who are unfamiliar with Give a Little here is an overview:

Overview

 

Givealittle is a zero fees fundraising service that is owned and operated by the Telecom Foundation, the charitable foundation of Telecom New Zealand Limited. We operate Givealittle to facilitate online donations from Donors to Fundraising Members who have set up an online fundraising page for a good cause.

More on the Give a little Website here

Give a little is a great way to advertise for donations for a cause etc. But the flipside to it is its also great for Scammers to use too. Please read further.

From the give a little website:



Cause Page
 

Where a User creates a Givealittle Page to raise funds for a Fundraising Beneficiary with the capacity to self register on Givealittle, the Fundraising Beneficiary must be first registered on Givealittle to enable the User to create a page type which enables us to attribute donations directly to the Fundraising Beneficiary.

The first is the Nark Cause: Amount $2,280.00



35 donars







Donations started 12 August 2011







 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 















Givealittle  Pages

 

All Users may create a Givealittle Page:

(a) for untagged purpose on behalf of an organisation (profile page)

(b) for a specific purpose on behalf of themselves as either an organisation, group or individual user (cause page)

 (c) to the benefit of another organisation or cause (champion page)

 (d) in association with an organised fundraising event or appeal (event page)

A User must ensure that the Content uploaded to a Givealittle Page does not infringe the intellectual property rights of any third party (including copyright). Where it does, the User must obtain the owner's written consent to the use of it.

We reserve the right to remove any Content from any Givealittle Page, at our sole discretion and without notice if any intellectual property rights are contested. If you suspect a breach of any intellectual property right on the Website, please email us at
helpdesk@givealittle.co.nz.

Profile Pages

  

Only Users who operate on a not-for-profit basis (whether holding a Registered Charitable Status or not) can create a Givealittle page for untagged donations. You may only register as a User representing an organisation if you can form a legally binding contract that is enforceable against you.

Code of Conduct

 

 

The integrity of the Givealittle service is dependent upon all Users conducting themselves in a responsible and legal manner. Telecom Foundation operates a moderation, approval and verification process in a best effort to ensure all Users and Content complies with standards required for a healthy public giving community.

 Breaches requiring immediate remedy or invoking termination include (but are not limited to):

 (a) An attempt to use the Givealittle service to raise funds for activities or intentions which are directly or indirectly illegal according to New Zealand law;

 (b) Misrepresentation of identify or affiliation with any other person or organisation;

 (c) Using Givealittle to send junk email or "spam" to people contrary to the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007;

 The User covenants in respect of any Content uploaded on the Website that it does not:

 (b) Detrimentally affect the brand or reputation of Givealittle, the Telecom Foundation, Telecom New Zealand Limited, any other User or any affiliates or partners of Telecom Foundation;

 (c) Be misleading as to the nature, type, service, intentions or benefits resulting from donations to the Content;

 (d) Contain inaccurate, ambiguous, exaggerated, defamatory, untrue, or out of date information;

Donor Trust & Confidence 

 

 It is important to note that not all Fundraising Members and Fundraising Beneficiaries on Givealittle are registered New Zealand charities under the Charities Act. We endeavour, through the Telecom Foundation verification process, to identify whether a Fundraising Member or Fundraising Beneficiary has:

(a) Registered Charitable Status; and/ or

(b) Donee Tax Status

(c) A Verified Bank Account.

Undertaking the Telecom Foundation verification is an optional process for Fundraising Members and Fundraising Beneficiaries to increase public trust and confidence in their Givealittle Page.

Givealittle provides Donors with a Donor Confidence Key on all Givealittle Pages where a donate functionality is enable. This key provides Donors with important information collected by the Telecom Foundation to support informed, independent donation decision making by all Users. All reasonable efforts will be taken to ensure that information is accurate when moderated, approved, verified and displayed in the Donor Confidence Key, however no liability shall attach to the Telecom Foundation in the event of mistake or error in the moderation, approval or verification process.

Taxation and Accounting Matters

 

 It is important to note that the Telecom Foundation is not an accounting, taxation or financial adviser for donations, and Users should not rely on any information given on Givealittle to determine the accounting, tax or financial consequences of making a donation or using Givealittle to fundraise.

We strongly recommend that all Users consult with their own adviser(s) about any accounting, taxation or financial consequences. This is particularly important if:

(a) a Donor requires a tax rebate for their donation, in which case the Donor is responsible for verifying the donee status of the Fundraising Member

 (b) a Fundraising Member is establishing a Givealittle Page for their own cause, in which case the Fundraising Member is responsible for any tax associated with any donations (and indemnifies Telecom Foundation from any liability in this regard)

(c) a Fundraising Beneficiary is required to account for or audit all donations raised by third party entities. 

The Give a little Organisation Page
 

 

 

 

1 Donation recorded





Donar Total: $50.00

 

 

Email for removal of void Nark.Org.nz website



 Removal Request Accepted: 16th January 2014

  



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Termination

 We reserve the right to reject any User registration, Givealittle Page or terminate a registered User without cause or any obligation to discuss the matter with that User.

Without limiting this absolute freedom, we may terminate a User if:

(a) a serious complaint is received or a number of complaints (amounting to what we determine as a serious complaint) are received about the User and his/her/its conduct in using the Website;

(b) if the User breaches these Terms;

(c) if you attempt to login as another User other than at the express and constant direction of that User (where the registered User is not capable of logging-in due to a disability); or

if we deem the User's behaviour to be unacceptable (as solely determined by Telecom Foundation).

Users registered more than once without our express consent may have all of their Givealittle registrations cancelled.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So on the 14th of January 2014 this year, we sent the complaint email to the Give a little website , for removal of both pages relating to Nark. Thankfully after our concerns were read, they removed the pages .

Ms Cherie was quite happy to advertise for donations on the "Give a little" site, right up until the 16th of January this year, even though her Org is Non- Existent and had been from the beginning....

 

This would be from June 2011- January 2014

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is from the Article:

 

'Nark' crusader gains fans

Last updated 08:03 22/06/2011

 

Link here: Stuff.co.nz

 A Ngaruawahia woman is fast becoming one of New Zealand's most popular people on Facebook. CHRIS GARD

She may not have made many friends in Ngaruawahia, but more than 10,000 people like Cherie Kurarangi Sweeney on Facebook.

Ms Sweeney has been called a nark for going public on New Zealand's appalling record of child abuse following the death of a neighbouring infant, Serenity Scott-Dinnington, earlier this year. 

But she has turned the ugly label around by turning the initials into an acronym: Nation of Advocates for the Rights of Kids (Nark).

The group's Facebook page "STOP Death by Abuse of our Children" is liked by 10,241 people, among them politicians including former Maori Party MP Hone Harawira.

"This page will centre on family violence, social issues, child safety, alcohol and drugs and developing support networks in our communities to STOP the Deaths by Abuse of "OUR" Children," Ms Sweeney wrote on the page in a May 13 post.

She was humbled by the amount of support she has had.

The trust which is starting with a $345 in the coffers from public donations will advocate for the nation's children.

Ms Sweeney is establishing a Rest In Peace tab on the site, which will feature pictures of victims alongside inquest reports. 

 

"I tried to get coroners' reports, but they told me it would be $50 per application. With 150 names that's $7500 I don't have."

 

While it's early days  the trust will hold a meeting in Ngaruawahia later this month to draw up its mandate  supporters on Facebook are brimming with ideas, including a national march to raise awareness.

 

"People have designed logos, a few of the MPs have decided to get in on it." Ms Sweeney said.

 

"I can get people together (through Facebook) who are having issues.

 

"There's been heaps and heaps of messages on the page. It's a very big eye-opener for me.

 

"A lot of it is just being able to speak up. We are setting up this Nark Trust here, in Ngaruawahia, and we have to set up a bank account."

 

The Nark Trust will meet at the Ngaruawahia Community House on June 27.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was NO accountability for monies accumulated and the Nark Trust was never set up legally as a Trust, Charity, Org or other...... 

 

So this leaves the question, how much money did Cherie solicit?  Where did that money go?

 

She never got the inquest reports, as she had said in the article.

 

"I tried to get coroners' reports, but they told me it would be $50 per application. With 150 names that's $7500 I don't have."

 

She certainly solicited for monies from the very beginnings.

 

 

If we had not sent a complaint of removal request, to the Give a little site, she would certainly have continued to use the Nark "give a little pages", until this day. She gave no notice to the Give a little site team as to informing them its a non entity and non Transparency of her fake Org. 

 

Ms Cherie Sweeney's lack of integrity is extremely disappointing, and her continuation of using "heartfelt issues" throughout the years as her money incentive, is quite questionable to say the least.

 

 

Scam information in New Zealand and where to go for help.

Consumer affairs NZ website

 Excellent information and recourse's: http://www.consumeraffairs.govt.nz

About Scamwatch  
                   

The aim of Scamwatch is to provide you with information you need to protect yourself from scams, so you can recognise a setup and avoid the hook and the inevitable sting of a scam.

The aim of Scamwatch

The aim of Scamwatch is to provide you with information you need to protect yourself from scams, so you can recognise a set-up and avoid the hook and the inevitable sting of a scam.

 

Almost everyone has been the target of a scam at some stage in their lives, and many people have repeated, ongoing exposure to scam attempts.

 What the research says

Ministry of Consumer Affairs research carried out in 2009 found that

• 15% of New Zealand adults have been scammed or tricked out of money

•  The likelihood of being scammed or tricked out of money does not differ substantially by education, income or age. 

•  Most scams (60%) involved sums less than $1000, and 79% involved a sum less than $5000

Read the full report here [PDF]. Scam research is on page 53-54.

Additionally, based on overseas research conducted in the UK and Australia, we would estimate that the average loss to a scam is around $2,300.

Protect yourself

Scammers create great set-ups, with bait designed to hook you. If you take the hook, they will sting you!
 
Find out how to protect yourself.
 
Find out about types of scams and how they work.
 
The Alert section keeps you informed of scams that are out there circulating in the New Zealand community, so you can be aware and prepared for them.
 
See our latest scam alerts.
 
This section provides alerts based on information reported to Scamwatch by those who have been confronted with scams - and who want to help protect others. It also contains information about scams from the media.

Report a scam

If you want to protect others by reporting a scam attempt that is not already on our Alert section, your report will automatically be sent to the Ministry of Consumer Affairs.
The Ministry may use your information, taking out any personal identity details, to create an alert on Scamwatch to keep others aware and prepared.

 Report a scam to Scamwatch.

 
Scamwatch also provides advice for those who have fallen for the bait and been hooked.

Information on what Scamwatch does. Background information on the annual Fraud Awareness campaign run by the Ministry.

 Link: Types of scams

The types of scams that Scamwatch covers.

Constantly changing

Scammers are constantly coming up with new ways to scam. It's their day job. It could be taking money for goods that don’t exist. Or tricking you into giving them access to your PC. There are countless ways scammers may try to draw you in.

Tell tale signs

The good news is you’re less likely to fall for a scam if you can spot some of the usual signs. Most scams follow basic patterns. This section lists the hallmarks of different types of scams. 

 Do your homework!!

You have less chance of being scammed if you do some research before handing over your cash. Do an online search of the company or person’s name with the word ‘scam’ after it. It may bring up stories of other people who have experienced the same scam.
Charity scams

What charity scams look like and how they work.

 The set-up

A charity approaches you to make a donation.

The hook

You respond generously, without checking the charity's or collector's credentials.

 The sting

There was no charity, your money is gone, and the real people in need get nothing.

How charity scams work

You’re asked to be generous, and you respond. But the charity turns out to be fake, or a scammer pretending to be a real charity. You go from feeling good for helping to feeling like a fool.

Natural disasters are often the trigger for fake charity scams. Scammers asked for money after the earthquakes in Haiti and Christchurch. But any kind of charity can become the subject of a scam.

Scammers know that they can play on your emotions. They may present you with images and stories about sick children or homeless animals.

 

Some scammers set up lotteries and sell tickets. They say the proceeds will be going to charity when only a tiny fraction of the money raised goes to the charity.

Protect yourself from charity scams

• If a charity asks you for money, do some research before saying 'yes' to their appeal. If it’s a well-known charity, email or phone them to check they’re really doing an appeal. If it’s a charity you haven’t heard of, contact the Charities Commission to make sure they’re genuine. You could also put their name into an internet search engine, followed by ‘scam’ to see if there are any reports of it being a scam. 

• If you’re approached face-to-face by someone representing a charity, look for official identification. Even if they have ID, check for signs that the ID may be faked.

• Don’t be pressured or intimidated, or made to feel guilty. Genuine charities would regard such tactics as bad for their reputations.
  
• Ask for full details of the charity, such as name, address, phone number and charity registration details. If the collector is reluctant to give out this information, find another way to contribute.

Help protect others from charity scams

If you've been affected by a charity scam, please help us to warn others by reporting your story to Scamwatch. Your personal details will be treated in the strictest confidence.

Report a scam                      

We may use this information to warn others by keeping the Alerts section of this site up to date, and it will be added to the data which is collected on scams by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs.

Consumer Affairs has teamed up with it's trusted partner Netsafe to allow you to make your report through the ORB.

We will treat your information with the utmost sensitivity. Click the link below to begin your scam report via the ORB.

 Report a scam now.

Note: We may use this information to warn others. It will also help Consumer Affairs to build up an overall picture of scams in New Zealand. You must be a New Zealand resident to report a scam. Consumer Affairs is not an enforcement agency and may not be able to respond to you directly regarding this scam.

 Other agencies that deal with scams

Links to other agencies who give advice on scams or can investigate scams.

New Zealand-based agencies

The Commerce Commission can investigate scams that breach the Fair Trading Act, such as pyramid schemes.

 Visit the Commerce Commission website.

The Department of Internal Affairs deals with indentity issues and spam.

 Visit the Department of Internal Affairs website.

Netsafe gives advice on keeping safe online.

 Visit the Netsafe website.

Consumer NZ have information about scams on their website.

 Visit Consumer NZ's website.

The Securities Commission can investigate investment scams.

 Visit the Securities Commission website.

The NZ Police can investigate fraud that happens in New Zealand.

 Visit the NZ Police website.

The Serious Fraud Office can investigate serious and complex fraud.

 NZ Serious Fraud Office website. The SFO office deals with:

Fraud is defined as dishonest activity causing actual or potential financial loss to any person or entity, including theft of money or other property, by employees or persons external to the entity; and where deception is used at the time, immediately before or immediately following the activity.

Our focus is serious or complex fraud, which we determine using an indicative criteria:

• There are multiple victims (usually investors) of the suspected fraud
• The sum of money lost exceeds $2,000,000
• The alleged criminal transactions have significant legal or financial complexity beyond the resources of most other law enforcement agencies.

In the case of bribery or corruption matters, we focus on crimes involving public officials, which could undermine public confidence in the administration of laws.

Complex or serious fraud is distinct from other dishonesty offences that will ordinarily be a Police matter to investigate. As a small, specialised organisation, we focus on cases that are small in number, but large in terms of the scale of the alleged fraud and/or impact they have on public confidence in the administration of the law, or, the integrity of the business sector.

Crimestoppers
http://www.crimestoppers-nz.org/

 

Fraud Awareness Campaigns                     

The annual campaign run by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs to highlight mass-marketed scams. 
                    

About the Fraud Awareness Campaigns

 

As part of a trans-Tasman approach to combat consumer fraud and scams targeted at consumers, the Australasian Consumer Fraud Taskforce was established in March 2005 and comprised 18 government regulatory agencies and departments in Australia and New Zealand.

 

Agencies participating in the Taskforce

 

New Zealand Government: Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Commerce Commission.

Australian Government:

Attorney General’s Department; Australian Bureau of Statistics; Australian Communications and Media Authority; Australian Competition & Consumer Commission; Australian Federal Police (represented by the Australian High Tech Crime Centre; Australian Institute of Criminology; Australian Securities & Investment Commission; Department of Communications, Information Technology & the Arts

State and Territory Governments:

Australian Capital Territory – Office of Fair Trading; Consumer Affairs Victoria; New South Wales – Office of Fair Trading; Northern Territory – Department of Justice; Queensland – Department of Tourism, Fair Trading and Wine Industry Development; South Australia – Office of Consumer &; Business Affairs; Tasmania – Office of Consumer Affairs & Fair Trading; Western Australia – Department of Consumer & Employment Protection.

Objective

The main objective for Fraud Awareness campaigns are to raise awareness and provide information to New Zealanders on:

• how to spot scams
• how to avoid being scammed, and 
• how to report a scam (via this Scamwatch website) 

Roberta Karangaroa N.A.R.K Org.NZ Chairperson Scammer

An article from Stuff.co.nz regarding Ms Roberta Karangaroa's interesting  governance skills, regarding a Maori Land Trust she was meant to provide "governance training" for it's Trustees ...



Ms Roberta Karangaroa

Roberta Karangaroa, now known as Roberta Matiaha

 

Link is here: Roberta Karangaroa

Trustee wilfully overpaid her husband, judge finds
SIMON DAY

Last updated 05:00 05/08/2013

A Hawke's Bay woman accused of plundering thousands of dollars from a Maori Land Trust to pay for her wedding and to bankroll family and friends has resigned as a trustee.

 

The accusations against Sharon Edwards-Walker are revealed in a Maori Land Court judgment.

 

She was alleged to have made big overpayments from the trust, including more than $120,000 to her husband and his family. She also appointed a friend to provide "governance training" - the friend promptly withdrew $12,000 from the trust for her own use, the court said.

 

While Edwards-Walker and her family were allegedly receiving more than their entitlement in trust dividend payments, other members of the trust received no dividend at all.

 

Edwards-Walker was administrator of Te Raniera Huango Trust, which administers three blocks of Maori Freehold Land with 35 beneficial owners. She was responsible for paying out trust money.

 

Among the accusations of misappropriating money were $6500 to pay for her wedding in 2009. She also allegedly paid $699 on more than one occasion for medical insurance for her husband.

She also "wilfully overpaid" her husband and his siblings from trust dividends, according to the Maori Land Court judgment.

 

She claimed she had been bullied into the payments by her husband and others.

 

The judgment said Edwards-Walker approached a friend, Roberta Karangaroa, to provide governance training to the trustees. Karangaroa persuaded the trustees to add her as a signatory to the trust's accounts. 

 

The judgment said Karangaroa then withdrew $12,000 from the trust for her own use. After a complaint to police, $9500 was recovered.  

 

Judge Layne Harvey said that there could be "no justification" for  Edwards-Walker's conduct and in the absence of any alternative evidence, he concluded that "Edwards-Walker has abused her position as a trustee for personal gain, has placed herself in a conflict of interest position, and has made an unauthorised profit from her office".

 

On the basis of the trust's current level of dividend payments, it would take more than 20 years for the people who had been overpaid to restore those funds to the trust, according to the judgment.

 

Judge Harvey said that, in the absence of any "tenable defence", "there has been significant maladministration of the trust's finances, if not outright misappropriation", with the amount of money involved "as surprising as it is unacceptable".

 

The breaches of general trust law principles were sufficient to warrant Edwards-Walker's removal as a trustee. Judge Harvey said when he put this to Edwards-Walker, she chose to resign.          

The court directed the remaining trustees to obtain legal advice as to what recovery and enforcement actions may be appropriate should the allegations concerning the misappropriation of trust funds be proven. Ms Edwards-Walker was given two months to file a response to the allegations.

- © Fairfax NZ News

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On November 2011 Mark Mansfield made an application to the Maori Land Courts regarding non-transparency and missing monies with-in the Te Raniera Huango Trust. Link is from the justice.govt.nz website.

Note we have only included the relevant Paragraphs pertaining to Ms Roberta Karangaroa, as she is our subject of concern, regarding Nark.Org.Nz (apart from Ms Sweeney obviously). You can read the full complaint and also that of the judges ruling on the link below.

Full document here: Maori Land Courts, justice.govt.nz

Dated on the 28th March 2013

 

 

Continuation and Judgement: From justice.govt.nz

Hearing was on the 4 July 2013 in Hastings and Judge Ruling on the 5 July 2013 

[1] On 2 November 2011 Mark Mansfield filed proceedings per s238 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 seeking financial information from the trustees of Te Raniera Huango Trust. He claimed that they had failed to hold general meetings, provide annual accounts and be accountable to the beneficial owners.

More seriously Mr Mansfield alleged that the trustees had "embezzled" trust funds and accordingly had to be brought before the Court to account for this conduct. I note that Mr Mansfield had made these claims of lack of financial accountability against the trustees in 2009 and the proceedings had been before the Court since then.

[19] Then there is the matter of the $12,000 taken from the trust’s account by Roberta Karangaroa. In my earlier judgment I directed the trustees to recover the outstanding $2,500 from Karangaroa following her repayment of $9,500. It now emerges that Ms Karangaroa claims she has returned that amount to Mrs Edwards-Walker directly, which the latter denies. 

[20] It will be remembered that Ms Karangaroa had been approached to provide "governance training" to the trustees at the request of Mrs Edwards-Walker. At the hearing yesterday Mrs Edwards-Walker confirmed that she had known Ms Karangaroa for many years and had asked her to provide "governance training" to the trustees.

At the previous hearing the trustees accepted they had been persuaded by Ms Karangaroa to add her, a non-owner and a non-beneficiary of the land, to become a signatory for the trust using the pretext that having siblings as trustees signing cheques was not best practice.

 Ironically, as mentioned, Ms Karangaroa then proceeded to withdraw $12,000 from the trust for her own personal use with $9,500 recovered from her following a complaint to the Police. 

[21] Ms Edwards-Walker subsequently claimed that the trust’s then bankers had paid the money out to Ms Karangaroa on only one signature and that on her return from overseas Mrs Edwards-Walker had gone to the bank to sign a withdrawal slip to approve the payment after the fact.

The trustees had been directed to use their best endeavours to contact Ms Karangaroa to give her opportunity to respond to the allegations that had been made against her. To date no such response has been forthcoming. Indeed, Mrs Edwards-Walker claimed that whenever arrangements were made with Ms Karangaroa to hold a meeting she was invariably unavailable at the last minute.

[22] As I mentioned in my previous judgment the trustees are liable to repay this amount if it could not be recovered from Ms Karangaroa. As it was Mrs Edwards-Walker who signed the withdrawal or payment slip, and without the approval of the trustees, I find that she is responsible to repay this amount to the trust. That said, it may now be appropriate for the trustees to put the matter in the hands of a collection agency, in the absence of either repayment or a tenable defence from Ms Karangaroa.

Mr Mark Mansfield's compliant was legally justifiable.

[38] The present application was precipitated by allegations made against the trustees by Mark Mansfield. His original complaints concerned the lack of information available to beneficiaries, lack of meetings and lack of annual accounts. On the face of the evidence before the Court it would appear that many of Mr Mansfield’s concerns have been borne out and his complaints justified.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we can see throughout this whole matter, Ms Roberta Karangaroa and her "governance skills" along with dipping into another Trust's money, is of particular concern.  The similarities' a quite striking, as to Ms Roberta Karaangaoa's elusiveness in (being contactable/available) when $12,000 was taken from the trust’s account

From the post above:

"The trustees had been directed to use their best endeavours to contact Ms Karangaroa to give her opportunity to respond to the allegations that had been made against her. To date no such response has been forthcoming."

Both Ms Cherie Sweeney and Ms Roberta Karangaroa were very good at becoming unavailable through out our experiences with Nark.Org.Nz, on the Community Group Page.  When they eventually managed to grace page from time to time, they were always using excuses why they were away and that their time was limited. 

 

Also Cherie's continuous, "personal financial burdens" that were endless. Once questions of missing monies were brought to light, they totally avoided answers to our concerns.

 

Yes, Ms Roberta Karangaroa is well experienced in "spinning the truth".  The only thing is both Cherie and Roberta keep contradicting themselves.

Now if this was going in November 2011, we certainly have more knowledge now on the Ms Roberta' background and her love for Trusts, Money, and certainly trying to obtain it paper free, obligation free, question free, evidence free and most importantly..... tax free! This is certainly the case with Cherie Kurarangi Sweeney, included.   

 From the Charites.govt.nz Website.....

http://www.register.charities.govt.nz/CharitiesRegister/Search

The Charities that Ms Roberta Karangaroa established. These ones are registered, however she is involved with many that aren't, ie Nark, Personal land trusts among others. We learnt along this journey that just because a Trust, Charties, Org etc aren't funded; certainly doesn't mean they don't get huge donations which are conveniently unaccounted for.  The many events that Ms Karangaroa and Cherie Kara Kurarangi Sweeney organized, brought in huge amounts. 

Officer Name	Charity Name	Registration
		Number	Status	Date
Roberta Karangaroa	National Te Koru Puawai Charitable Trust	CC31518	Registered	23/09/2008
Roberta Karangaroa	Riverslea Tu Tangata Incorporated Charity Trust	CC31450	Registered	22/09/2008
Roberta Karangaroa	Hawkes Bay Community Law Centre Trust	CC37364	Registered	3/02/2009

 

Roberta Karangaroa was also a trustee for the Maatangireia Trust. Non existent currently.




.

Roberta certainly has many years experience in "governance" for trusts etc.

 *Interesting how, the moment a complaint was made to the Police, Ms Roberta Karangaroa coughed up most of it. 

Ms Roberta and Cherie are experienced over many years in creating, hui's, meetings, media, events, getting funding (including Government funding) for their scam ideas
 

They have numerously used "heart-breaking" issues in NZ to persuade many to donate to their scams.   So, it's certainly of no surprise that Ms Roberta Karangaroa (currently of the Riverslea Trust, Hastings, among other trusts) would be quite persuasive in getting money from Trusts, she can certainly talk her way of a paper bag...... 

Another interesting  point is, when all this was going on....... Pete George of Your Nz, (Nark.Org.NZ, Board member) still supported them.  All their spinning, lies, abusiveness toward members and non-accountability of where monies were?









Pete George Party Your Dunedin Standing for Dunedin City Council - Central Ward Dunedin City Mayor (dreamer)



Pete George, certainly has a way with words.  He constantly bleats out "Transparency" but never follows through with that word...... Pete you really need to listen to yourself.  You've certainly never been "Transparent" by any means.

 Not a good political move Pete George.

So being that we are the NZ Public, we  decided to do our Civic duty, and pay Pete a visit on his, "Pete George for Dunedin Mayor" Facebook page he created September last year.......quite a catchy title, "Good luck with that Pete, go live that dream!"

 



 



And after 10 hours.... our message was removed,  and he's suddenly  laying low.  Pete is about as Transparent as a Kiwi made Gum Boot!  





 

 

Yep, this explains it then...

 

This is information for the New Zealand Public, by the New Zealand Public. We are here to keep NZ informed on this serious issue regarding the Scam Nark.Org,nz and also the two woman who have endeavoured with their "causes, pleas, hui's, events...etc". Purely profit driven and for so long and had gone unnoticed until now.

Cherie Kurarangi Sweeney of Nark.Org.Nz and Roberta Kararangi of the Riverslea Trust, are quite probably two of the best scammers in NZ.



Mrs Cherie Kara Kurarangi Sweeney of Nark.Org.NZ