Get Adobe Flash player

Minister must act immediately

Andrew Ketels,

Ministerial Advisor,

Office of Hon Maggie Barry ONZM,

Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage.

 

 

Dear Sir,

 

Re: Te Papa misleading the public.

 

Thank you for transferring our OIA request to the Ministry of Culture and Heritage.

 

I have since received a reply from Mr Ralph Johnston, Manager Heritage Policy and am extremely concerned, “Te Papa has no plans to redevelop its Treaty of Waitangi exhibition in the short term, although a renewal of the museum in the coming years may see changes to that area”.

This means that over 1.5 million visitors to Te Papa per year will continue to to be denied a vital part of New Zealand’s history by Te Papa.

The Treaty of Watangi gave Britain sovereignty over all the islands of New Zealand and tangata Maori the same rights as the people of New Zealand under the laws and dependency of New South Wales for only 12 months ( 21 May 1840 until 3 May 1841) when Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter dated the 16 November 1840 separated New Zealand from New South Wales and made New Zealand into an independent British Colony on the 3 May 1841 with its own Governor and Constitution to form a government to make laws with courts and judges to enforce those laws, irrespective of race colour or creed. Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter was New Zealand’s true Founding Document and first Constitution. See the attached disk by the authority of the Chief Archivist, Archive New Zealand entitled, “Charter of 1840, Constitution of the Colony of New Zealand into a separate colony. 16 November 1840”.

Te Papa will continue to mislead its 1.5 million visitors a year by completely ignoring this vital part of our history with no intention of correction for a number of years, if ever.

This corruption can only be occurring due to a hidden agenda by those in charge of the exhibitions at Te Papa and the Minister must intervene and order the redevelop of the Treaty of Waitangi exhibition immediately with recognition of Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter as New Zealand’s true Founding Document and first Constitution.

For the Minister, Hon Maggie Barry to fail to act immediately can only show the Minister and the government are part of the corruption which we will endeavour to make the public of New Zealand aware through our website.

Te Papa and the Minister has a duty to inform Te Papa’s 1.5 visitors a year of the true history of New Zealand and not just that which suits Te Papa’s history curators hidden agendas and the benefit of one small group of New Zealand Citizens that can claim a minute trace of tangata Maori ancestry.

 

I have enclosed a brief article on my research into Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent which we encourage the Minister to read as it gives the importance of the Royal Charter to New Zealand’s history that Te Papa deliberately omits from its exhibits, especially the Proclamations by Governor William Hobson and  the First Sitting of the  Legislative Council of New Zealand.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ross Baker.

Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

This email appears our website, www.onenzfoundation.co.nz with those already posted. The public have a right to know they are being denied a vital part of our true history by Te Papa.

Corruption within Te Papa

The One New Zealand Foundation Inc. has asked the Minister for Culture and Heritage, Hon Maggie Barry under the Official Information Act to look into the corruption that has been allowed to escalate at Te Papa over the years until its History Curators have taken it upon themselves to “choose which aspects of New Zealand history are covered in each display”.  If the taxpayers and people of New Zealand are to finance and support Te Papa, then it must display all our history and not that which, “Te Papa’s history curators choose” that is solely to benefit the descendants of tangata Maori.  See letter below from Mr Ralph Johnston and the ONZF reply.

 

I also suggest you read Governor Hobson Proclamations at the end of Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letter Patent.  They show the importance of the Royal Charter that is completely ignored at Te Papa.  The Royal Charter is our ‘true’ Founding Document and ‘first’ Constitution.  

treaty

One New Zealand Foundation Inc

P.O.Box 7113, Pioneer Hwy, Palmerston North. Email ONZF@bigpond.com.au

 

21 August 2016.

 

Mr Ralph Johnston,

Manager,

Heritage Policy

Ministry for Culture and Heritage.

 

Dear Sir,

 

Thank you for your letter dated the 17 August 2016 regarding the Treaty of Waitangi exhibit at Te Papa.

 

You state, “As a museum appealing to a broad international audience of all ages, Te papa must necessary choose which aspects of New Zealand history are covered in each display”. You then state, “It is appropriate that the decisions of how to portray New Zealand’s history are made by Te Papa’s history curators”, finally finishing with, “I trust this satisfies your request for information”.

 

Sir, your letter does not satisfy my request for information, in fact it disgust me that the Manager of the Heritage Policy for the Ministry of Culture and Heritage endorses Te Papa’s corrupt staff that “choose” our history to mislead the people of New Zealand and its 1.5 million visitors a year. No one has the right to “choose which aspects of New Zealand history are covered by each display”.  

 

There is no doubt from your comment, Te Papa has been high-jacked by a few people to feather their own nests by misleading the people of New Zealand and its 1.5 million visitors a year of New Zealand’s true history.

 

The Treaty of Waitangi was only to give Britain sovereignty over all the islands of New Zealand and tangata Maori the same rights as the people of England under the laws and dependency of New South Wales and that’s exactly what it did on the 21 May 1840. Queen Victoria or Lt. Governor Hobson did not have the power or authority to give tangata Maori any special rights in the Treaty of Waitangi not already enjoyed by all the people of England under English law, and none were given.

 

The history curators at Te Papa have conveniently omitted the Preamble to the Treaty in their displays. Without the Preamble the Treaty can be and is being distorted to satisfy the descendant’s of tangata Maori and not “all the people of New Zealand” as intended by those that signed it in 1840. See attached, “When in doubt – Consult the Preamble.

 

Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840, which is completely ignored at Te Papa separated New Zealand from New South Wales on the 3 May 1841 and made New Zealand into a British Colony with its own Governor and Constitution to make laws with courts and judges to enforce those laws irrespective of race, colour or creed. This occurred just 12 months after the Treaty was signed and filed away after Britain gained Sovereignty over all the islands of New Zealand and is a vital piece of New Zealand history that Te Papa completely ignores and must be displayed for all to read and understand. Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter is New Zealand’s ‘true’ Founding Document and ‘first’ Constitution! See attached, Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent.

 

It seems Te Papa has become a “haven of corruption” by a few for their own gain. Te Papa belongs to “all the people of New Zealand” and not a few that have decided to “choose and display” only parts of our history to benefit those that can claim a small trace of tangata Maori ancestry.  Over 500 chiefs acknowledged and accepted the fact they were “tangata Maori” when they signed the Treaty and not “tangata whenua” or the Indigenous People of New Zealand but this is also overlooked at Te Papa.

 

Sir, your attached letter and this reply will appear on our website as the people of New Zealand have a right to know who is behind the corruption at Te Papa and it seems the Ministry for Culture and Heritage is just as corrupt as those in charge of displaying their “chosen” history.

 

The One New Zealand Foundation Inc. asks the Minister for Culture and Heritage, Hon Maggie Barry to look into the corruption that has been allowed to escalate at Te Papa over the years until its history curators have taken it upon themselves to “choose which aspects of New Zealand history are covered in each display”.  If the taxpayers and people of New Zealand are to finance and support Te Papa, then it must display all our history and not that which, “Te Papa’s history curators choose” that is solely to benefit the descendants of tangata Maori.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ross Baker.

 

Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

  1. Minister of Culture and Heritage, Hon Maggie Barry.

 

 

See attachments below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When in doubt – Consult the Preamble

 

Both the Maori and English treaties of Waitangi were between tangata Maori and Queen Victoria for Britain to gain sovereignty of all the islands of New Zealand but over the years there has been on-going debate over the wording of both documents.

 

Unfortunately, people fail to read the Preamble, which in any document explains the clauses of a document if they are ambiguous or not fully understood.

 

The Tiriti o Waitangi states the word, “Kawanatanga” and there has been ongoing debate whether it means “sovereignty” or “governorship”. The Preamble of both treaties state, “To all places of New Zealand which may be given up now or hereafter to the Queen”, therefore, this can only mean “sovereignty”. (Official translation of the Tiriti o Waitangi for the Government of the day by Mr T E Young of the Native Department in 1869).

 

Maori also call themselves “tangata whenua” but the Tiriti o Waitangi states 3 times, twice in the Preamble and once in Article 3 that the chiefs who signed the Tiriti o Waitangi were “tangata Maori” and not “tangata whenua”. Over 500 “tangata Maori” chiefs acknowledged, accepted and signed the Tiriti o Waitangi as “tangata Maori”, not tangata whenua or the Indigenous People of New Zealand.

 

It was the “tangata Maori” that were given “The same rights as the people of England” in Article 3, not “tangata whenua” or the Indigenous people of New Zealand as they had long gone.

 

While Article 2 of the English version does not mention “all the people of New Zealand”, both Treaties state, “Tangata Maori would be give the same rights as the people of England…….. to their lands, their settlements and all their property”. Once the Treaty was signed, “all the people of New Zealand” came under the dependency and laws of New South Wales under one flag and one law irrespective of race, colour or creed.

 

Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840, our ‘true’ Founding Document and ‘first’ Constitution confirmed the above when it made New Zealand into a British Colony with its own Governor and Constitution to make laws with courts and judges to enforce those laws, but still under the watchful eye of Great Britain.

 

On the 26 September 1907 New Zealand became the Dominion of New Zealand with complete self-government by proclamation of King Edward VII. New Zealanders became British Subjects with British Passports.

 

In 1947 New Zealand adopted the Statute of Westminster that gave New Zealand complete control over its domestic as well as its foreign affairs and all the people of New Zealand became New Zealand Citizens with New Zealand Passports.

 

Three long debated questions answered by one simple document, the Treaty of Waitangi. Who would have guessed it was so simple after so many years of debate and so many books written!

 

So when in doubt – Consult the Preamble

 

Complied by Ross Baker, Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc. 10/8/2016.  Copyright.

 

 

Time to Honour Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent

 

OUR ‘TRUE’ FOUNDING DOCUMENT AND ‘FIRST’ CONSTITUTION

The Government continues to use the Treaty of Waitangi as our Founding Document to give part-Maori privilege and advantage over those who cannot claim a minute trace of Maori ancestry when the Treaty only gave Maori, “the same rights as the people of England”. The Treaty of Waitangi was the most generous gift to a primitive people on their way to self-destruction that was ever given by a super power. After Lt. Governor Hobson had declared Sovereignty over New Zealand on the 21st May 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi had served its purpose and was put into storage where it was later damaged by fire and rats.

clip_image002[2]By 1831 intertribal fighting had devastated the “tangata Maori” population and 13 Ngapuhi chiefs asked King William IV to be their guardian and protector, but it was soon found this could only be successfully achieved by Britain obtaining sovereignty over all the Islands of New Zealand and “tangata-Maori” becoming British Subjects.

During 1840, starting on the 6th February the Treaty of Waitangi was signed between 512 “tangata Maori chiefs” and Queen Victoria where the chiefs gave up their territories and governments to legally allow British Sovereignty over all the Islands of New Zealand under the dependency and laws of New South Wales. This arrangement only lasted for 12 months before New Zealand separated from New South Wales by Royal Charter and became a British Colony

With British Sovereignty firmly asserted, Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840 ratified that Sovereignty had been legally and morally obtained by Great Britain over all the Islands of New Zealand. This was recognised and accepted by the rest of the world, including the hundreds of Chiefs that attended the Kohimarama Conference in 1860 and Maori Parliament in 1879.

Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent with its Royal Seal attached separated New Zealand from New South Wales on the 3 May 1841 and New Zealand became a British Colony with a Governor and a Constitution to form a legal government to make laws with courts and judges to enforce those laws, all under the watchful eye of Great Britain. Lt. Governor Hobson was sworn in as our first Governor on the 3 May 1841 and the first sitting of the Legislative Council (Government) was held on the 24 May 1841.

If the Government continues to use the Treaty of Waitangi as our Founding Document and not the Royal Charter/Letters Patent we will never solve our racial and social problems, the Treaty will continue to drive a wedge between the people of New Zealand.

treaty2The Treaty of Waitangi was an agreement between “tangata Maori” and Queen Victoria for Britain to gain sovereignty over the Islands of New Zealand. Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent was our ‘true’ Founding Document and ‘first’ Constitution that set up our Political and Justice systems under one law for all.

In 1947, with the adoption of the Statute of Westminster that granted New Zealand complete autonomy in domestic as well as foreign affairs, we all became New Zealand Citizens under one flag and one law, irrespective of race, colour or creed.

It is interesting to note that Te Papa and the Ministry of Justice Electoral and Constitutional Policy Unit do not hold copies or any information on the Royal Charter/Letters Patent. We asked Te Papa under the Official Information Act (OIA), “Does Te Papa have a copy of Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter and if so, why is it not given its rightful place at Te Papa”? Claire McClintock, Senior Advisor, Office of the Chief Executive, Te Papa, Museum of New Zealand replied. “Te Papa does not have a copy of the Charter”.

We then asked the Ministry of Justice under the OIA, “Why is Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent not mentioned or part of New Zealand’s Legal System”? Fiona Illingworth, Manager, Electoral and Constitutional Policy, Ministry of Justice replied, “Your request is refused under Section 18(g) of the OIA 1982 as the Ministry of Justice does not hold any information relating to your request”.

cdUnbelievable when it is held in the Constitution Room at Archives New Zealand and listed as, “ACGO 8341, 1A19, R21434434, Charter of 1840, Constitution of the Colony of New Zealand into a separate colony, 16 November 1840“.

Our governments and academics have completely ignored the Royal Charter/Letters Patent as our ‘true’ Founding Document and ‘first’ Constitution since the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act.

There is no doubt the Government and some part-Maori do not want this document made pubic as it would show how the people of New Zealand have been misled by their Politicians and Governments since the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act and the apartheid Waitangi Tribunal it created. Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent is our Founding Document and first Constitution as confirmed by the New Zealand Gazette Notices below.

 

 

Gazette Notices and Proclamations that made New Zealand into an Independent British Colony.

THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT GAZETTE.

(PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY)

No 12 [KORORAREKA BAY OF ISLANDS, MAY 6, 1841] GRATIS.

DECLARATION OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF NEW ZEALAND, AND THE

APPOINTMENT OF HIS EXCELLENCY, CAPTAIN WILLIAM HOBSON, RN

AS GOVERNOR IN CHIEF IN AND OVER THE SAME.

THE CAPITAL.

By the latest accounts from Auckland we learn that the “James” had arrived from London bearing HIS EXCELLENCY’S Commission as Governor in Chief, in and over the Islands of New Zealand, and her Majesty’s Order in Council for their separation from New South Wales. His EXCELLENCY was pleased to appoint Monday last for Proclaiming the same, and shortly afterwards a Levee was to have been held. In the Evening HIS EXCELLENCY was to have given a grand Dinner at Government House, to which all the elite of Auckland and the surrounding country have received invitations.

KORORAREKA.

Early in the morning of Monday last, the day appointed for Proclaiming HIS EXCELLENCY as Governor in Chief, &c., we were proud to observe the ships in the Harbour decorated with numerous flags. At noon they fired a Salute in honor of the occasion. The Union Jack floated

in front of the stores of Messrs Henry Thompson and Co., over the premises of Messrs Edney and Hemmings, and also at the Flag Staff Hill.

THE ILLUMINATIONS.

It is impossible for us in our limited space to describe the demonstrations of joy the inhabitants manifested in the evening on the happy occasion. Illuminations – fire-works – burning of tar barrels – firing of muskets and pistols from the hills and all parts of the Town – the parading of a band of music through the streets – the rejoicing of the Mauries – their war and other dances – all tended to make it one of the happiest possible. Among the best illuminated premises we noticed the Russell Hotel, which was very brilliant, as were those of Messrs Edney and Hemmings, on the Beach Mr. Dunn’s Inn, York street, Wood’s Hotel, the Gazette Printing Office, Captain Clayton’s new house, Mr Fenton’s &c., &c. The night was remarkably clear – the reflections of the red blaze from the Town mingling with the softened light from the “young May moon” falling upon the sparkling waters of the Bay produced a charming effect. There could not be less than two hundred Mauries on the Beach during the evening. We regret that His Excellency had not witnessed the fervour of their rejoicing. Several of the men carried muskets and powder flasks – many Maurie boys carried small flags on handsomely carved batteaus(?) – and the females, also, vied with their partners in their manifestations of delight. The entire proceedings happily passed over without the slightest accident.

A party of Gentlemen were entertained at dinner by Henry Thompson, Esq., at his residence, Kororareka, – for the particulars of which we are indebted to a gentleman who was present. Although the party consisted of Mr. Thompson’s own friends, yet it was purely a public dinner, and was given by him in honor of His Excellency’s Appointment to the Governorship-in-Chief of New Zealand. The guests were – Captain Beckham, our Police Magistrate, Robert Fitzgerald, Esq., the newly appointed Police Magistrate, Frederick Whittaker, Esq., Captain Anwyl, John Scott Esq., W. S. Graham Esq., Captain Peil, Alexander Kennedy, Esq., Eugene Cafler, Esq., Daniel Pollen Esq., M.D. and John Hoggard Esq. Mr Thompson acted as Chairman, and Mr Grahame as vice Chairman. The cloth having been removed the usual toasts of – The Queen and the infant Princess – Prince Albert and the Royal Family – and the Army and Navy – were proposed and drank with all the honors. John Scott Esq., replied to the last toast on behalf of the Army with all the enthusiasm which should belong to every British Officer, and which he strongly felt at the announcement of the toast, as it recalled to his recollection those happy days of his life when he had the honor of belonging to that glorious establishment. The Chairman now called for bumpers – rose to propose the Toast of the Day and spoke as follows: Gentlemen, – we have assembled here this day for the purpose of celebrating an event of the highest importance in our admired land. At noon of this day His Excellency the Governor proclaimed New Zealand a distinct and independent Colony – an event which will live long in our memories, and will form the subject of conversation of many a future and happy hour. But, gentlemen, we have met here more particularly for the purpose of doing honor to His Excellency Captain Hobson, on his appointment to the Governorship-in-Chief of New Zealand – a measure, which has produced in my breast, and which I am certain, will be responded to by every heart present – but one feeling, namely, that of unmingled delight. Had there been time since our arrival here, which was only yesterday, to have called a public dinner, it certainly would have been done, and even yet if one is got up, I have no doubt all present will be happy to attend. But it seemed to me that our rejoicings at Kororareka should be simultaneous with those at Auckland. Accordingly, Gentlemen, I avail myself of the pleasure of your company on this day, to what may be termed a private public dinner. Gentlemen, – His Excellency, previous to his arrival in this Colony, had already earned for himself a name, which guaranteed its descent into posterity. It was his good fortune to distinguish himself in an elevated position in the service of his Country. He belongs, Gentlemen, to the most glorious Establishment – to the most formidable armada that ever graced and terrified the world. His Excellency has now, however, entered on an entirely different sphere, and there can be no doubt that the same energy – the same judgment, and the same ability that qualified him so well for Naval Command will fit him for the high office to which it has pleased Her Majesty to appoint him. To

Captain Hobson’s amiability, to his love of justice, to his strict regard for economy, and to his sterling integrity. I can bear witness; and that he may be an excellent Governor, it is only necessary that he should have around him good and faithful Councillors – men of informed and independent minds –

THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT GAZETTE.

(PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY)

No 13 [KORORAREKA BAY OF ISLANDS, MAY 13, 1841] GRATIS.

PROCLAMATION

 

BY HIS EXCELLENCY CAPTAIN WILLIAM HOBSON, GOVERNOR AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF IN AND OVER THE COLONY OF NEW ZEALAND AND ITS DEPENDENCIES.

WHEREAS HER MAJESTY has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, bearing date the Sixteenth Day of November, in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty, to erect the ISLANDS of NEW ZEALAND into a SEPARATE TERRITORY by the Name of HER MAJESTY’S Colony of NEW ZEALAND: Now, therefore I THE GOVERNOR AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF, by COMMISION under the GREAT SEAL appointed, do hereby Notify and Proclaim that under Her Majesty’s said LETTERS PATENT the ISLANDS of NEW ZEALAND are henceforth to be designated and known as HER MAJESTY’S Colony of NEW ZEALAND and its DEPENDENCIES. And I do hereby further Notify and Proclaim, that Her Majesty has been pleased to direct that the Three Principal Islands of NEW ZEALAND hereafter or commonly Called – “THE NORTHERN ISLAND,” “THE MIDDLE ISLAND,” AND STEWART’S ISLAND” shall henceforth be designated and known respectively as “NEW ULSTER,” “NEW MUNSTER” AND “NEW LEINSTER,” of which all Her Majesty’s Subjects are hereby required to take Notice. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL AT GOVERNMENT-HOUSE, AUCKLAND, THIS 3RD DAY OF MAY, IN THE FOURTH YEAR OF HER MAJESTY’S REIGN, AND IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND FORTY-ONE.

By His Excellency’s Command, (SIGNED)

WILLOUGHBY SHORTLAND. W. HOBSON, GOVERNOR.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.

PROCLAMATION.

BY HIS EXCELLENCY CAPTAIN WILLIAM HOBSON, GOVERNOR AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF IN AND OVER THE COLONY OF NEW ZEALAND AND ITS DEPENDENCIES. &c., &c., &c,

WHEREAS HER MAJESTY has been graciously pleased, by Commission under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, bearing date the sixteenth day of November, in the Year of our Lord 1840, to constitute and Appoint me, WILLIAM HOBSON, ESQUIRE, CAPTAIN IN HER MAJESTY’S ROYAL NAVY, to be GOVERNOR AND COMMANDER IN CHIEF in and over Her Majesty’s Colony of New Zealand and its Dependencies.

NOW THEREFORE I the GOVERNOR and COMMANDER –IN-CHIEF aforesaid, do hereby Proclaim and Declare that I have this day have taken the prescribed Oaths and assumed the Administration of the Government accordingly. And I do hereby further Proclaim and Declare, that Her Majesty Has been pleased to appoint an EXECUTIVE COUNCIL for the said Colony, and to nominate and appoint the undermentioned Persons to be Members thereof, – That is to say:-

THE COLONIAL SECRETARY OF THE SAID COLONY FOR THE TIME BEING

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE SAID COLONY FOR THE TIME BEING

THE COLONIAL TREASURER OF THE SAID COLONY FOR THE TIME BEING

And I do hereby Proclaim and Declare, that Her Majesty has been further pleased to Appoint a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL for the said Colony of New Zealand and its Dependencies, – and to Appoint and Direct that such Legislative Council shall be formed and shall consist of the following Members:-

HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR FOR THE TIME BEING

THE COLONIAL SECRETARY FOR THE TIME BEING

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE TIME BEING

THE COLONIAL TREASURER for the time being, AND

THE THREE SENIOR JUSTICES OF THE PEACE, nominated as such in any Commission of the Peace to be issued by me, the said GOVERNOR AND COMMANDER- IN-CHIEF, or by the Governor or Acting-Governor for the time being. The GOVERNOR, fully impressed with the magnitude and importance of the duties thus confided to him, is supported by the hope that Almighty God will bless his best efforts to give full effect to these Her Majesty’s most gracious measures for the establishment of Peace and Order in this important Colony; and he relies with confidence on the loyalty of the Colonists, and on their hearty cooperation with the Government in cultivating those feelings of mutual good will which alone can insure to them the future benefit of Her Majesty’s solicitude for their welfare and prosperity.

The GOVERNOR avails himself of this occasion to appeal to the good feelings of the Colonists generally in favour of their fellow subjects of the NATIVE RACE, who require only instruction and good example to become equal to Europeans in moral, as they are already in physical attainments, and to point out to all who really have the true interests of the Country at heart, the propriety of conciliating their affection by making every charitable allowance for their defects, and by conducting all intercourse with them in a spirit of justice and forbearance. The GOVERNOR trusts that he will be afforded the satisfaction of hereafter knowing, that His endeavours for the accomplishment of Her Majesty’s gracious and benign views have not been employed in vain.

Given under my Hand and Seal at Government House, Auckland, this 3rd day of May, in the Fourth Year of Her Majesty’s Reign, and in the year of our Lord one Thousand Eight Hundred and Forty-one.

(Signed)

WILLIAM HOBSON,

GOVERNOR.

THE NEW ZEALAND GOVERNMENT GAZETTE.

(PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY)

No 17 [KORORAREKA BAY OF ISLANDS, June 24, 1841]  GRATIS.

First Sitting Of THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF NEW ZEALAND.

HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR, according to notice, opened the first Session of the Legislative Council of New Zealand, on the 24th May alt.

Honorable. W.SHORTLAND, Colonial Secretary,

Honorable FRANCIS FISHER, Attorney General,

Honorable GEORGE COOPER, Colonial Treasurer,

E.S.HALSWELL, Esq., one of three Senior Justices,

Being present received the Oaths and took their Seats in the Legislative Council accordingly.

JAMES COATS, Esq., was appointed Clerk of the Council, and took the Oaths of Office.

HIS EXCELLENCY then delivered the following SPEECH:-

I have availed myself of this early period to assemble the Members of the Legislative Council for the purpose of bringing under consideration, certain measures, which the altered circumstances of the Colony seem to me urgently to require. At this our first Meeting, I deem it proper to draw your attention, not only to the Royal Charter, but to the highly important Instructions under the Royal Signet and Sign Manual, which accompany it. The Charter as you are already aware, erects the Islands of New Zealand, and certain Dependencies, into a separate Colony, under the Superintendence of a Governor and Commander-in-Chief. It constitutes a Legislative Council, who are empowered to enact Laws and Ordinances for the Local Government of the Colony. It authorises the establishment of Courts of Justice, and the issue of Commissions of the Peace—and, in fact brings into complete operation, British Laws, throughout the whole Colony of New Zealand.

The Instructions under the Royal Signet and Sign Manual more particularly define the functions of the Governor and Council, and in a clear, perspicuous manner point out the duties of each. In order that you, Gentlemen, may have an opportunity of acquainting yourselves with those particular duties, I have directed the Instructions to be laid on the table, and kept open for your perusal in the Council Chamber.

I regret that I cannot at the present Meeting, lay before you the estimates of the following year, which, although in a forward state of preparation, are incomplete, owing to the non-arrival of the directions from the Lords of the Treasury, of which I am advised, and which may be daily expected.

HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR, continues: GENTLEMEN, –I shall lay before you an Ordinance for the present re-adoption of all such Acts of New South Wales as were in force previous to our separation, and are now applicable to this Colony. It is not my intention, however, eventually to propose for your adoption, the Laws of New South Wales, but it will be my endeavour, during the recess, aided by the advice and assistance of the Law Officers of the Crown, to prepare for your consideration, such Laws as will best provide for the Administration of Justice, and the contingencies of social life, which may be expected to arise in New Zealand, therefore the measures now proposed to you, must be deemed temporary, and contingent as resulting from the present peculiar condition of the Colony. By command of Her Majesty I will bring under your consideration, the Repeal of the Land Commission Act, and submit for your adoption, an Ordinance for the same general purposes, but granting to the Governor of New Zealand, the same powers as those heretofore enjoyed by the Governor of New South Wales. I will likewise lay before you, Bills for the Regulation and Collection of the Revenue of Her Majesty’s Customs, for establishing Courts of Quarter Sessions and Requests, and for the prohibition of Distillation. – These, Gentlemen, are the only subjects for the present, on which I shall require you to deliberate.

GENTLEMEN, –We have a solemn and important duty to perform: by our means conflicting interests are to be reconciled; Harmony and Tranquility established, and measures are to be adopted for improving and elevating the character of the Aboriginal Inhabitants. In this salutary work, I confidently look for your cordial assistance and cooperation, and I trust under Devine Providence, we shall be enabled to accomplish these important objects, and give effect to Her Majesty’s gracious and benign views for the welfare, prosperity, and Civilization of this Colony.

After laying on the Table the Indemnity Bill, THE GOVERNOR adjourned the Council until

Thursday, 27th May 1841.

CONCLUSION by Ross Baker, researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

Any breach against the Crown can only be a breach against the laws of New Zealand and not the Treaty of Waitangi or the Waitangi Tribunal, where only those with a minute trace of Maori ancestry can lay a claim or participate. All alleged claims against the Crown since 1975 should have been heard by our Justice System where all New Zealand citizens could have participated as they were in the 1930’s and 1940”s when most of the recent claims were “fully and finally” settled. They should not have been heard by the apartheid Waitangi Tribunal or the Crown that allows our history and the Treaty of Waitangi to be continually distorted to allow these claims to proceed. The Treaty of Waitangi or Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent gave no exclusive rights to Maori; we were all given the same rights under one flag and one law, irrespective of race, colour or creed!

The Treaty of Waitangi was an agreement between Queen Victoria and “tangata Maori”.

The Royal Charter/Letters Patent was our ‘true’ Founding Document and ‘first’ Constitution.

The People must speak out as our Politicians and Governments have misled us since 1975.

New Zealand Independence Day must be celebrated on the 3 May each and every year.

 

Compiled by Ross Baker. Researcher, One New Zealand foundation Inc. 28/6/14 (c)

Become a member of the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. to help claim back our Rights as New Zealand Citizens under one flag and one law irrespective of race, colour or creed.

 

Membership Form

 

One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

P.O.Box 7113, Pioneer Hwy, Palmerston North. Email: ONZF@bigpond.com.au

To join or renew your membership, please print this page, complete the form and post to the ONZF.

Mr, Mrs, Ms________________________________________________________________

Address___________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

Email Address    ___________________________________________________________

Membership Fee.

Double $35 [   ]     Single $15 [   ]     Pensioner/Student  $10 [  ]

New member [  ]    Renewal [   ]         Receipt required [   ]

Your financial and moral support are essential for the ONZF to achieve its aims. Donations gratefully accepted.    [ $                           ]

Direct payment: ANZ 010338-0046989-00

Cheques may be made to the One New Zealand Foundation and posted to

PO Box 7113, Pioneer Hwy, Palmerston North.

ONE FLAG – ONE LAW – ONE NEW ZEALAND

Facts on “The English Treaty of Waitangi”

Facts on “The English Treaty of Waitangi”

       Independent research by Ross Baker. 31 July 2016. (Copyright).

 

Part 1.                                 Part 2. New Zealand officially becomes a British Colony.

 

I researched the Littlewood document in 1990 and found it was Lt. Governor Hobson’s “final” English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi that Rev Henry Williams and his son Edward translated into the Tiriti o Waitangi on the 4 February 1840. I also researched Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/ Letters Patent in 2013 and found it was New Zealand’s ‘true’ Founding Document and ‘first’ Constitution. I have now researched the English Treaty and found it is an ‘official’ Treaty of Waitangi. My research below is based on the facts available and not speculation and/or circumstantial evidence.

A few months ago I decided to further research the English Treaty of Waitangi and found some interesting facts but some people are very upset with my research into the English Treaty as they say this will give Maori special rights over their fellow New Zealanders but I can see no reason why; both Treaty’s gave Britain, “Sovereignty over all the Islands of New Zealand and tangata Maori the same rights as the people of England”. No more – no less!

Since Rev Robert Maunsell’s dairies were burnt in a fire there has been much speculation and/or circumstantial evidence on the English Treaty of Waitangi that was signed and witnessed at Waikato Heads on the 11 and 26 April 1840 and later fully executed with the Royal Seal by W. Hobson, Lieutenant Governor.

Some researchers have stated, a CMS printed copy of the Tiriti o Waitangi was read and discussed at Waikato Heads on the 11 and 26 of April 1840 and the first 5 chiefs at Waikato Heads signed this document before space ran out and an “unofficial” English Treaty, one of 9 compiled by Lt. Governor Hobson’s secretary, James Freeman, from James Busby’s draft notes was produced and used to hold a further 39 signatures, therefore, the English Treaty is “unofficial”.

Lt Governor Hobson had 200 copies printed of the Maori Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) by the Church Mission Societies (CMS) printer, Rev William Colenso.

Rev Benjamin Ashwell assisted Rev Robert Maunsell in gathering signatures and also witnessed the English Treaty that was signed at Waikato Heads on the 11 April 1840. During my research I could find no documented evidence of the CMS printed Maori copy of the Tiriti o Waitangi being read, discussed or signed at Waikato Heads on the 11 or 26 April 1840.

As can be seen from the English Treaty below, Rev Robert Maunsell and Rev Benjamin Ashwell witnessed the 32 signatures on the English Treaty with, “The proceeding names have been obtained by us at this station. I embrace all as we can conceive, with the exceptions of two names, the principle men of the Waikato”.  April 11, 1840, Waikato Heads. R. Maunsell, B. Aswell. Thirty two chiefs signed the English Treaty at Waikato Heads on the 11 April 1840 and the two missing names mentioned being the chiefs of Kawhia and Aotea.

The 7 signatures obtained later on the English Treaty by Capt. W L Symonds states, “Signed before me on April 26th 1840” and again there is no mention of the CMS printed version being read or discussed.

The English Treaty is witnessed, dated and the location given by Maunsell, Ashwell and Capt. Symonds and is signed and sealed by W. Hobson, Lieutenant Governor, therefore, a fully executed document but there is no date,  location, signature or seal by Hobson on the CMS printed copy below , therefore, it has no real status as a legal document. I am sure if Maunsell had used the CMS copy at Waikato Heads he would have made a note of this with the date and location on it as well as asking Ashwell to witness it as he had the English Treaty. It seems Ashwell was not present when the signatures on the CMS printed copy were obtained.

The Treaty of Waitangi consists of 2 parts plus the Consent from the chiefs.

Part 1. The Preamble which explains the reason for the treaty and can be used to clarify its meaning if there is any ambiguity in the either treaty.

Part 2. The 3 Articles or laws which explains that Britain will gain sovereignty over all the Islands of New Zealand and tangata Maori would be given the same rights as the people of England. At this stage Hobson signs and seals the document.

These are the terms of the offer put to the chiefs by Lt. Governor Hobson.

Part 3. The Consent where the chiefs understood the agreed to the offer/terms of the treaty that was “Done at Waitangi on the 6 February 1840” and accepted by them all. “In witness whereof our names or marks are affixed”.

If Hobson had signed below the Consent it would be part of the treaty but as he signed above this part he referred to Maori only and the reason why it is stated, “The treaty consists of 3 articles/laws”. I believe the Preamble should be part of the Treaty as it explains the articles/laws. If in doubt of its meaning, reference is made to a Preamble of the document.

Maori also say they are the Indigenous People of New Zealand or tangata whenua but all the chiefs signed the treaty as tangata Maori and not tangata whenua as their ancestors knew they were not the Indigenous People of New Zealand.

Some say, “Done at Waitangi on the 6 February 1840”, which is written at the end of the Consent in both the English Treaty and Tiriti o Waitangi means the English treaty is not “official” because it was not, “Done at Waitangi on the 6 February 1840”, but the definition of “Done” is, “Used to indicate that the party accepted the terms of an offer”, and as the English Treaties “terms of an offer” are exactly the same as the Tiriti o Waitangi in giving Britain sovereignty over all the Islands of New Zealand and tangata Maori the same rights as the people of England and was signed, witnessed and fully executed by Hobson, it is an “official” Treaty of Waitangi.

All those that signed the Treaty at Waitangi or elsewhere “Consented” to the “terms of an offer” Hobson put to them at Waitangi on the 6 February 1840 by consenting to, “Done at Waitangi on the 6 February 1840”.

Research shows the CMS printed copy and the English Treaty were folded together when despatched to Hobson to be signed and sealed. Some researchers have said Hobson stuck the two documents together with wax before he signed them to make them one document but Hobson had just had a stroke and could only use his left arm so this would have been impossible unless he had someone do it for him but there is no mention of this, so this is once again based on speculation. The two documents were sent to Hobson as two separate documents and they are now two separate documents, therefore, this does not prove that the CMS printed copy of the Tiriti o Waitangi was read, discussed and signed at Waikato Heads on the 11 April 1840. There is no evidence of who stuck them together or who pulled them apart but we do know they are not stuck together when they were sent to Hobson to sign and are not stuck together now.

I also found a very interesting statement in the New Zealand History website but once again is only speculation.

The printed copy of the treaty. (CMS copy of the Maori version)

“This copy is most likely an addition to the Waikato-Manukau copy in English that missionary Robert Maunsell received in late March or early April 1840. Maunsell witnessed all five names on the sheet. The chiefs, from Ngāti Pou on the Waikato River and Ngāti Te Wehi at Whāingaroa (Raglan) may have been visiting Maunsell’s mission station at the mouth of the Waikato River”.

Some researchers also say the rule of “contra proferentem” makes the English treaty “null and void” but the definition of ‘Contra Proferentem Rule‘ is, “A rule in contract law which states, that any clause considered to be ambiguous should be interpreted against the interests of the party that requested that the clause be included”. If there is any ambiguity in the treaty such as the word “kawanatanga” then the Preamble explains this by stating, “All the places of New Zealand which may be given up now or hereafter to the Queen”. Sir Apirana Ngata endorsed this when he stated in his book, The Treaty of Waitangi – An Explanation, “The chief’s placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the Sovereignty and authority to make laws”   The Preamble explains, both Treaty’s gave Britain, “Sovereignty over all the island of New Zealand and tangata Maori the same rights as the people of England”. No more, no less!

As for “forests and fisheries” stated in the English Treaty, the Treaty did not say “Maori” would have blanket possession of forests and fisheries, it said that each individual chief that signed the Treaty would have possession of “their” forests and ‘their” fisheries if they could prove the forests and fisheries belonged to them under English law.  This part of the treaty (Article 2) was not a blanket cover to Maori as a whole, it referred to “their” forests and fisheries of each individual chief that signed the treaty. While the English treaty stated “their fisheries and forests” the Tiriti stated all “their” possessions which would also mean “their forests and fisheries” if they could prove they were “theirs” under English law.

This is exactly what both Treaties said, it’s just that the English Treaty mentioned “their” forests and fisheries and the Tiriti said all “their” properties which would include “their forest and fisheries” if they could prove they were “theirs” under English law.

The problem is, individual tribes do not have to prove the forests and fisheries were “theirs” to the Waitangi Tribunal. If the Government used Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent and not the Treaty, then this would never happen as each individual tribe would have to prove in a court of law the forest and fisheries had not been sold and were still “theirs” under English law.

Most Deeds of Sale to the Crown stated all timber, rivers, lakes minerals etc. were included in the sale and as the seabeds and foreshore where held in the public domain under English law, I don’t see how individual chiefs could own the fisheries when Queen Victoria and Hobson did not have the power or authority to give Maori any special rights in the Treaty not already enjoyed by all the people of England.

The Law of Nature states, “By the law of nature these things are common to mankind –the air, running water, the sea and consequently the shores of the sea”
– Institutes of Justinian 500AD. This is also part of the Magna Carta.

 

There is also no mention of “all the people of New Zealand” in the English treaty, as in the Maori text, because the treaty was between Queen Victoria and the tangata Maori chiefs, but once Britain gained sovereignty over all the Islands of New Zealand, “all the people of New Zealand”, including tangata Maori came under one flag and one law – English Law.

 

Governor Hobson gave the following instruction to Captain Bunbury when he went South gathering further signatures, The treaty which forms the base of all my proceedings was signed at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840, by 52 chiefs, 26 of whom were of the federation, and formed a majority of those who signed the Declaration of Independence. This instrument I consider to be de facto the treaty, and all signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original document”. My emphasis added.

 

Hobson also made it very clear to all those gathering further signatures, they must fully explain the “terms” of the treaty until the chiefs understood them before they were allowed to attach their names of marks.

 

The Chiefs consented to the terms” of the original document and the “terms” in both treaties were, “Britain would obtain sovereignty over all the Islands of New Zealand and Maori would be given the same rights as the people of England” to “their” Estates, “their” forest and fisheries and all “their” property under English law, “the same rights as the people of England”. (Articles 1, 2 and 3 in both treaties)

 

It was the “terms” of the treaty Hobson was referring to in the instructions to Capt. Bunbury above.

 

If we read both treaties and understand them fully this would clarify much of the confusion and distortion by the Waitangi Tribunal. The “terms” are exactly the same in both treaties and do not include the “Five Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi”. These are no more than a fiction dreamt up by Geoffrey Palmer and his mates in Parliament and deprive non-Maori of their lawful rights. England had no racial laws and the Treaty put tangata Maori under the same laws as the people of England.

 

My main concern about the English Treaty all previous research has been based on speculation and circumstantial evidence. I have thoroughly researched the English Treaty and there is no mention that the CMS printed copy being read, discussed or signed at Waikato Heads on the 11 April 1840. The English treaty used at Waikato is signed by 39 chiefs, witnessed by Maunsell, Ashwell and Symonds and fully executed by W. Hobson, Lieutenant Governor. The CMS printed copy is not witnessed by Ashwell or Symonds or executed by Hobson.

 

My research also shows that the English Treaty, while not originally intended to be an “official Treaty” by Hobson, was fully executed by him as an “official Treaty”. It may not have been what Hobson wished for, but it was witnessed by authorised officials, dated and the location given before being signed and sealed by Hobson, then added to the “official” list of signatures and the number of treaties gathered.

 

Both Treaty’s put New Zealand under the laws and dependency of New South Wales on the 21 May 1840 until Britain declared sovereignty over all the Islands of New Zealand on the 3 May 1841, Twelve months later Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent, dated the 16 November 1840 separated New Zealand from New South Wales. Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent is completely ignored by most researchers, government historians, the government, the Waitangi Tribunal and Te Papa, our National Museum, which misinforms over 1.5 million visitors of our ‘true’ history each year.

 

For full information on Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent, click onto www.onenzfoundation.co.nz, then click on ‘Royal Charter’ in the right hand column.

 

Once New Zealand was separated from New South Wales on the 3 May 1841, New Zealand became a British Colony with a Governor and Constitution to form a government to make laws with courts and judges to enforce those laws; irrespective of race, colour or creed, but under the watchful eye of Great Britain.

 

Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent was the document which ‘founded’ New Zealand as an independent British Colony with its own Constitution to form a political and justice system on the 3 May 1841, therefore, Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent is New Zealand’s ‘true’ Founding Document and ‘first’ Constitution enabling New Zealand to became an Independent British Colony with its own government under one flag and one law irrespective of race, colour or creed.

 

Summary.

As I stated at the beginning of this article, researchers have stated, “a CMS printed copy of the Tiriti o Waitangi was read and discussed at Waikato Heads on the 11 and 26 of April 1840 and the first 5 chiefs signed this document before space ran out and an “unofficial” English Treaty written by Lt. Governor Hobson’s secretary, James Freeman, was compiled from James Busby’s draft notes and used to hold a further 32 signatures, therefore, the English Treaty is not official”.

 

From my research, I could find no evidence the CMS printed copy of the Tiriti o Waitangi was ever read, discussed or signed at Waikato Heads on the 11 April 1840 but this is still not to say it was not and we will possibly never know but I cannot see any reason why it really matters if the CMS printed copy was  read at Waikato Heads or not as the “terms” of both treaties state, “Done at Waitangi on the 6 February 1840’ is what really matters as both Treaties “offered” the same “terms”, “Britain would gain sovereignty over all the Island of New Zealand and Maori would be given the same rights as the people of England”. At Waitangi, Hobson shook each chiefs hand after they signed the Treaty with the words “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people”, which was followed by 3 hearty cheersOn the 21 May 1840 when Britain declared sovereignty over all the Island of New Zealand, the Treaty of Waitangi had served its purpose and was filed away were it should have remained. 

The Treaty of Waitangi had little impact on the settlers as most were British Subjects but it gave tangata Maori protection of their lands from stronger tribes, stopped cannibalism, gave a purpose to life through Christianity and stopped the senseless fighting for the fun of it and the feasts that followed, but best of all, it gave tangata Maori the same rights as the people of England – British Subjects of the most powerful nation at the time without lifting a finger.

 

It’s a little known fact the chiefs had sold over two thirds of New Zealand before the Treaty was signed but most of this land was confiscated by the government after the Treaty was signed without compensation and returned to the thousands of slaves being released now New Zealand was under English law.

 

Just twelve months after the Treaty was signed Britain decided that New Zealand must separate from New South Wales to become an Independent British Colony with a Governor and Constitution to set up a political and justice system under one flag and one law – English Law. Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letter Patent; New Zealand’s ‘true’ Founding Document and ‘first’ Constitution achieved this on the 3 May 1841, the day we must all celebrate as New Zealand’s Independence Day as they did in 1841.

 

While the Treaty of Waitangi gave Britain sovereignty over all the Islands of New Zealand and tangata Maori the same rights as the people of England, it had nothing to do with setting up our political or justice systems in New Zealand. Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent made New Zealand into an Independent British Colony with its own political and justice systems, therefore, any alleged breaches against the Crown today by Maori can only be breaches of New Zealand’s laws and not the Treaty of Waitangi.

 

We must force Government to recognize and use Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent, our ‘true’ Founding Document and ‘first’ Constitution, a vital part of our history which separated New Zealand from New South Wales and made  New Zealand into an Independent British Colony with its own political and justice systems.

 

While Maori must celebrate Waitangi day as the day they were released from their primitive ways of cannibalism, slavery and senseless fighting; all the people of New Zealand, irrespective of race, colour or creed must celebrate Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent, the day New Zealand became and Independent British Colony with its own political and justice systems.

 

The 3rd of May is the day all New Zealanders must celebrate as the day New Zealand became an Independent British Colony under one flag and one law.

 

Over the years there has been much speculation and/or circumstantial evidence surrounding the English Treaty of Waitangi by many researchers and historians and I believe this article has succeeded in sorting out speculation from fact. Some say it will give Maori more power to take our public owned resources, but if we force governments to stop ignoring the Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent and the laws it provided, then we have nothing to worry about.

 

Finally, at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter what Hobson said before, during or after the Treaty was signed by both parties, the only thing that matters is what was written on the treaties that were signed by over 500 chiefs, witnessed and fully executed and sealed by Hobson whether in English or Maori.

 

As the chiefs Consented to the “terms offered” by Lt. Governor Hobson at Waitangi on the 6 February 1840, then they must accept their ancestor’s agreed to give Queen Victoria sovereignty over all the Islands of New Zealand and in return, tangata Maori received the same rights as the people of England. They became British Subjects.

 

It is wrong to use the Treaty of Waitangi to claim against the Crown as both treaties had nothing to do with setting up New Zealand’s political, legislative or justice systems.

 

If Maori want to claim against the Crown, then they must claim through our justice system set up by Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840 and not the Treaty of Waitangi as the Treaty of Waitangi only gave Britain sovereignty over all the Islands of New Zealand and tangata Maori the same rights as the people of England under the dependency and laws of New South Wales.

 

In 1947 New Zealand adopted the Statute of Westminster, which gave New Zealand total control over its domestic and foreign affairs and all the people of New Zealand became New Zealand Citizens with New Zealand Passports under one flag and one law irrespective of race, colour or creed.

 

From my research based on the documented evidence available, I found the English Treaty is an “official” Treaty of Waitangi.

 

Independent research by Ross Baker.  31 July 2016. Copyright.

One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

P.O.Box 7113, Pioneer Hwy, Palmerston North, 4443, New Zealand.

To join or renew your membership, please print this page, fill in and post to ONZF.

Mr, Mrs, Ms___________________________________________________________________________

Address_________________________________________________________________

 

Email Address _____________________________________________________________________

 

Membership Fee. Double $35 [   ]     Single $25 [   ]     Pensioner/Student  $10 [  ]

 

New member.  [  ]                   Renewal  [   ]                       Receipt required [   ]

 

Donations gratefully accepted.   [$       ]

 

 Your financial and moral support are essential for the ONZF to achieve its aims.        

 

Direct payment to: ANZ 010338-0046989-00 [ $              ]

 

Cheques may be made to the One New Zealand Foundation and posted to:

 

PO Box 7113, Pioneer Hwy, Palmerston North.

 

Website: www.onenzfoundation.co.nz

 

ONE LAW –  ONE FLAG – ONE NEW ZEALAND

 

 

Books written by Ross Baker for the One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

Further information and documented evidence to support the above can be found in the following books published by the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. P.O. Box 7113, Palmerston North, 4443. The books are $10-00 each including P & P while stocks last.

Year                            Name                                                                                ISBN

1992      He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people.                          0-473-02600-7

1998      From Treaty to Conspiracy – A Theory.                                 0-473-05066-8

2011      New Zealand in Crisis.                                                    978-0-473-18629-6

2013      Stolen Lands at Maunganui Bluff.                                   978-0-473-24939-7

2013      Colonisation – The Salvation of the Maori Race.            978-0-473-24938-0

2013       Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter.                                     978-0-473-25808-5

 

2013       Why Allan Titford Was Jailed for Twenty-Four Years.    978-0-473-30262-7

 

2016      New Zealand’s Forbidden History                                    978-0-473-35390-2

 

.

NZ officially becomes a British Colony

NZ officially becomes a British Colony

        Independent research by Ross Baker. 31 July 2016. (Copyright). 3/8/2016

Part 2.                                        Part 1. Facts on the English Treaty of Waitangi.

 New Zealand could only become an Independent British Colony by Royal Charter. Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840 officially severed New Zealand’s link to New South Wales to become a separate Colony of the United Kingdom on the 3 May 1841. Our ‘true’ Founding Document and ‘first’ Constitution.

William Hobson had been appointed Britain’s consul to New Zealand in 1839. He was instructed to obtain sovereignty over all or part of New Zealand by Treaty with the consent of “a sufficient number of chiefs”. New Zealand would then come under the authority of George Gipps, the Governor of New South Wales and Hobson would become Gipps’ Lieutenant-Governor in New Zealand.

Shortly before Hobson left Sydney in January 1840, Governor Gipps had issued a proclamation extending the boundaries of New South Wales to include such territory in New Zealand as might be acquired in sovereignty. The Legislative Council of New South Wales passed an Act extending to New Zealand the laws of New South Wales on 16 June 1840 and established customs duties and courts of justice in New Zealand. The relationship with New South Wales was intended to last only while British sovereignty over New Zealand was being asserted.

On 21 May 1840 Lt. Governor William Hobson proclaimed British sovereignty over all the Islands of New Zealand; the North Island on the basis of “cession through the Treaty of Waitangi” and the southern islands, which was virtually unpopulated at the time, by “right of discovery”. At this time, signatures to the Treaty were still being collected. Hobson wanted to declare the Crown’s authority over the whole country because he had learned that the New Zealand Company had plans to set up its own administration around Cook Strait and the threat of the French annexing New Zealand to France. Once Britain obtained sovereignty over all the Islands of New Zealand, the Treaty of Waitangi had served its purpose and was filed away where it should have remained.


New Zealand could only become a British Colony by Royal Charter

New Zealand could only become a British Colony and set up its own political, legal and justice systems by Royal Charter which was issued by Queen Victoria on the 16 November 1840. Even before Hobson’s dispatch reporting his proclamations had reached London, his political masters had decided to make New Zealand into a separate colony. Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent for erecting the Colony of New Zealand also gave a Constitution to set up a nominated Legislative Council. The first Legislative Council was held on the 3 May 1841 with Lt. William Hobson being sworn in as the first Governor of New Zealand.

This vital piece of setting up New Zealand’s political, legal and justice systems is completely ignored by Governments in favour of the Treaty of Waitangi and worst still, Attorney General, Hon Geoffrey Palmer’s dreamt up, “Five Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi”, which deprived non-Maori of their rights under the Royal Charter.

The Treaty had nothing to with setting up New Zealand’s political, legal or justice systems and should not be used by government when hearing alleged claims against the Crown.

The Treaty of Waitangi gave sovereignty of New Zealand to Great Britain and tangata Maori the same rights as the people of England under the laws and dependency of New South Wales, but New Zealand became a separate Crown Colony by Royal Charter and Letters Patent issued by Queen Victoria on the 16 November 1840. The Royal Charter was New Zealand’s ‘true’ Founding Document and ‘first’ Constitution as it included all the people of New Zealand, irrespective of race, colour or creed and not just between tangata Maori and Queen Victoria as the Treaty of Waitangi.

Many politicians and most of the population do not know Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent even exists because the professional historians and the Government completely ignores it in favour of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Royal Charter was New Zealand’s ‘true Founding Document and ‘first Constitution that separate New Zealand from the dependency of New South Wales to become an Independent British Colony with its own government to make its own laws.

Extract from page 1 and 2 of, Regulations and other Subordinate Legislative Instruments: Drafting, Publications, Interpretation and Disallowance, by Ross Carter, Parliamentary Council Office, Wellington.

“The first written law in force and enacted in New Zealand was subordinate legislation. New Zealand was initially a Dependency of its parent Colony, New South Wales. On 15 June 1839, the territory comprised in the commission of Sir George Gipps, Governor of New South Wales, was enlarged by Letters Patent. Gipps accordingly became the Captain-General and Governor-in-Chief of the colony of New South Wales and of “any territory which is or may be acquired … by Her Majesty, Her Heirs or Successors within that group of islands in the Pacific ocean commonly called New Zealand”. The Governor and Legislative Council of New South Wales were authorised to enact laws for New Zealand as a Dependency”.

 “On 16 June 1840, the Legislative Council of New South Wales passed an Act providing for the extension to New Zealand of New South Wales laws, so far as they could be applied to New Zealand. In all, six New South Wales Acts were enacted for New Zealand”.

The Treaty of Waitangi signed in the first 5 months of 1840 by over 540 tangata Maori chiefs was a document to allow New Zealand to come under British Sovereignty/rule and the dependency and laws of New South Wales, which could not and was never challenged by other Nations. It also gave tangata Maori the same rights as the people of England under English law which was quickly accepted by the chiefs abolishing slavery, genocide, cannibalism and embracing Christianity among many of the chiefs and tribes of New Zealand.  In 1990, our Attorney General, the Hon David Lange made a statement on the ABC “Four Corners” program, “Did Queen Victoria for a moment think of forming a partnership with a number of signatures, a number of thumbprints and 500 people, Queen Victoria was not that sort of person”.


New Zealand Becomes a Separate Crown Colony by Royal Charter.

  Ross Carter, Parliamentary Council Office, Wellington continues, “New Zealand became a separate Crown Colony by Royal Charter and Letters Patent issued by Queen Victoria on 16 November 1840. The Charter and Letters Patent created a Legislative Council to make laws. They also authorised that the Legislative Council to make, following any relevant Royal instructions, “all such laws and ordinances as may be required for the [Colony’s] Peace, Order, and good government”. Royal Instructions provided that the Council comprised the Governor of New Zealand and at least six other persons (the Treasurer, the Attorney-General, the Colonial Secretary and three Senior Justices of the Peace). A quorum was five members including the Governor, who had the sole rights to propose ordinances and raise questions for debate and could rely on the support of the three permanent officials”.

The Treaty was never intended to be a document that set up our political, legal or justice systems in New Zealand, it was solely to allow Britain to gain sovereignty over all the Islands of New Zealand under the dependency and laws of New South Wales by asking 540 tangata Maori chiefs to give up their territories and governments to Queen Victoria. No more no less. It was solely a document, a contract between Her Majesty, Queen Victoria and 540 tangata Maori chiefs to allow Great Britain to rule over all the Islands of New Zealand.

Over the years it has been taken that the Treaty of Waitangi set up our political, legal and justice systems but this was achieved with Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840. This was our first Constitution under Great Britain’s rule that separated us from New South Wales dependency and made New Zealand into an Independent British Colony with its own Governor, Constitution and government to make laws with courts and judges to enforce those laws, irrespective of race, colour or creed, but all under the watchful eye of Great Britain.

Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent has been completely ignored by our professional historians and governments. Te Papa does not even have a copy of it on its premises, therefore, misleading over 1.5 million visitors a year of New Zealand’s true history!


The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.

The Treaty of Waitangi had nothing to do with setting up our political, legal or justice systems in New Zealand, therefore there should never have been a Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 or the Waitangi Tribunal it created. The claims before the Tribunal are not Treaty claims; they are alleged breaches against the government or the Crown and should be heard by our courts today as they were in the 1930’s and 1940’s where most claims were “fully and finally” settled or in the case of the Te Roroa claim and many others, rejected.

If the claims before the Waitangi Tribunal were heard by the Courts where the claimant’s “dreamt up and selective evidence” could be cross-examined and rejected, then most claims would fail due to lack of documented evidence held in our archives. The Treaty of Waitangi had nothing to do with setting up our political, legal or justice systems in New Zealand. In fact, Lt Governor Hobson was never instructed by Lord Normanby or had the authority to give Maori special rights in the Treaty that were not already enjoyed by all the people of England under English law, and none were give!

A big ask; but we must put the Treaty where it belongs, tucked up in our archives and start using Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840 as our ‘true’ Founding Document and ‘first’ Constitution that set up New Zealand’s political, legal and justice systems as intended, irrespective of race, colour or creed.

 May 3, the day we must all celebrate our Independence.

For further information, www.onenzfoundation.co.nz and click on ‘Royal Charter’.

              One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

P.O.Box 7113, Pioneer Hwy, Palmerston North, 4443, New Zealand.

To join or renew your membership, please print this page, fill in and post to ONZF.

Mr, Mrs, Ms___________________________________________________________________________

Address_________________________________________________________________

 

Email Address _____________________________________________________________________

 

Membership Fee. Double $35 [   ]     Single $25 [   ]     Pensioner/Student  $10 [  ]

 

New member.  [  ]                   Renewal  [   ]                       Receipt required [   ]

 

Donations gratefully accepted.   [$       ]

 

 Your financial and moral support are essential for the ONZF to achieve its aims.        

 

Direct payment to: ANZ 010338-0046989-00 [ $              ]

 

Cheques may be made to the One New Zealand Foundation and posted to:

 

PO Box 7113, Pioneer Hwy, Palmerston North.

 

Website: www.onenzfoundation.co.nz

 

ONE LAW –  ONE FLAG – ONE NEW ZEALAND

 

Books written by Ross Baker for the One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

Further information and documented evidence to support the above can be found in the following books published by the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. P.O. Box 7113, Palmerston North, 4443. The books are $10-00 each including P & P while stocks last.

Year                            Name                                                                                ISBN

1992      He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people.                          0-473-02600-7

1998      From Treaty to Conspiracy – A Theory.                                 0-473-05066-8

2011      New Zealand in Crisis.                                                    978-0-473-18629-6

2013      Stolen Lands at Maunganui Bluff.                                   978-0-473-24939-7

2013      Colonisation – The Salvation of the Maori Race.            978-0-473-24938-0

2013       Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter.                                     978-0-473-25808-5

 

2013       Why Allan Titford Was Jailed for Twenty-Four Years.    978-0-473-30262-7

 

2016      New Zealand’s Forbidden History                                    978-0-473-35390-2

Nine million people will be misinformed by Te Papa.

Nine million people will be misinformed by Te Papa.

 

From: Ross Baker

Sent: Friday, June 10, 2016 1:57 AM

To: Arapata Hakiwai

Cc: Maggie.Barry@parliament.govt.nz

Subject: Re: Redevelop of Treaty of Waitangi Exhibition.

 

Dr Arapata Hakiwai,

CEO Te Papa.

Dear Sir,

 

Thank you for your email below explaining that Te Papa will be renewing all of it permanent exhibitions, including the Treaty of Waitangi over the next 5 – 6 years. This will mean that between 7.5 and 9 million people (2015 figures) will be misinformed of New Zealand’s “true” history.

 

As I explained in my email below, “

Research shows the Treaty of Waitangi only gave, Great Britain sovereignty over all the Islands of New Zealand under the dependency and laws of New South Wales and tangata Maori the same rights as the people of England”, but Te Papa exhibits the Treaty of Waitangi  as our “Founding Document. The attached articles explains the purpose of the Treaty of Waitangi and how New Zealand’s true Founding Document and first Constitution was Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840 but this is completely ignored by Te Papa in favour of the Treaty of Waitangi”.

 

From the email below dated the 9 July, 2014, Clair McClintock, Te Papa wrote, “I assure you that we are well aware of the Royal Charter which separated New Zealand from New South Wales jurisdiction and established the country as independent under a Governor”.

 

Sir, it is of great concern to the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. and I am sure most New Zealanders that while Te Papa is fully aware of Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent, it fails to inform the 1.5 million people a year that pass through Te Papa of its existence.

 

As you can see I have also forwarded this email on to the Minister of Arts, Culture and Heritage, Hon Maggie Barry, as I believe she has a right to know Te Papa has failed to inform the people that visit Te Papa each year of New Zealand’s most important document that separated New Zealand from New South Wales dependency and became a independent British Colony with its own Governor and Constitution to form a legal government to make laws with Courts and Judges to enforce those laws, irrespective of race colour or creed.

 

I have again attached a copy of our book, “New Zealand’s Forbidden History” and  “Treaty of Waitangi – RIP” I have previously sent to Te Papa for the Minister’s information.

 

We ask that Te Papa immediately renews its Treaty of Waitangi exhibition and gives Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November1840 its true place in our history before another 1.5 million people a year are misinformed of New Zealand’s “true” history.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Ross Baker.

 

Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

cc, Hon Maggie Barry, Minister of Arts, Culture and Heritage.

 

This email and attachments will appear on our Website, www.onenzfoundation.co.nz.

 

Treaty of Waitangi, R.I.P.!

 Treaty of Waitangi, R.I.P.!

 The Treaty of Waitangi – 21 May 1840 – 3 May 1841

 

For far too long our governments, legislators and historians have been using the Treaty of Waitangi as our founding document that set up our judicial and political systems in New Zealand but the Treaty had nothing to do with our judicial or political systems within New Zealand, absolutely nothing!

The Treaty of Waitangi only gave sovereignty of New Zealand to Britain and tangata Maori the same rights as the people of England under the dependency and laws of New South Wales. No more – no less!

The 500 plus chiefs that signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840 signed as “tangata Maori” and not tangata whenua as they knew they were NOT the tangata whenua or indigenous people of New Zealand. Check out the Tiriti o Waitangi.

Queen Victoria or Lt. Governor Hobson did not have the power or authority to give tangata Maori any special rights or privileges in the Treaty not enjoyed by all the people of New Zealand and none were given.

By the 21 May 1840 the Treaty had served its purpose and was filed away where it should have remained; Britain had declared sovereignty over all the Islands of New Zealand which has been acknowledged internationally ever since.

From 21 May 1840 when Great Britain declared sovereignty over all the Islands of New Zealand until the 3 May 1841 (12 months) New Zealand was under the dependency and laws of New South Wales.

In 1947 New Zealand adopted the Statute of Westminster, which gave New Zealand complete control over its domestic and foreign affairs. All the people of New Zealand became New Zealand Citizens under one flag and one law.

The Treaty of Waitangi had nothing to do with the laws in New Zealand. After the 3 May 1841 all the laws of New Zealand were made and enforced by the New Zealand Government, therefore any claims by Maori against the Crown can only be breaches of the laws of New Zealand and NOT the Treaty of Waitangi as the Treaty made no laws, except to cede sovereignty of New Zealand to Britain and to give tangata Maori the same rights as the people of England. No more, no less

Until we force our governments, legislators and historians to recognise Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent as our Founding Document and first Constitution, Maori will continue to claim under the Treaty of Waitangi when the Treaty of Waitangi was not mentioned in the Royal Charter, the Constitution or the setting up of our judicial and political systems in 1841.

The Treaty of Waitangi had served its purpose by 21 May 1840 and was filed away where it should have remained, but has been continually altered and used by governments, our legislators, historians and Maori to deprive the people of New Zealand of their rights under Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent and the Statute of Westminster.

Maori have no rights to our water, air, sea-beds, foreshore or any other natural resources, they belong to all the people of New Zealand, irrespective of race, colour or creed., “By the law of nature these things are common to mankind –the air, running water, the sea and consequently the shores of the sea”, The Law of Nature by the Institute of Justinian 500 AD and was incorporated into New Zealand’s Laws by Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840, our true Founding Document and first Constitution.

As Sir Apirana Ngata, Minister of Native Affairs stated in 1923 in his book, The Treaty of Waitangi – An Explanation, “If you think these things are wrong, then blame your ancestors who gave away their rights when they were strong”.

 

For further information, check out, www.onenzfoundation.co.nz/RoyalCharter.

By Ross Baker, Researcher One New Zealand Foundation Inc. 29/5/16. (C).

Speaker of the House Refuses to Act

Speaker of the House Refuses to Act

On the 9 November 2015 the ONZF lodged an Official Complaint with the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon David Carter re the Ombudsman’s, “Inability to perform the functions of the office”.

 

After numerous emails asking when we would expect a reply to this letter, we received a reply on the 29 March 2016 stating, “There is nothing in the material you have provided that demonstrates that the Chief Ombudsman did not carry out her function”.

While the Chief Ombudsman’s officials found that the Crown’s documents to purchase Mr Titford’s freehold titled farm to help settle Te Roroa’s alleged Treaty of Waitangi claim had been tampered with and the Crown paid Notary Public stated he did not give Mr or Mrs Titford legal advice or representation as he was only a witness, the Chief Ombudsman refuses to accept this saying, “She could find nothing to show the documents had been tampered with or that Mr and Mrs Titford had not received legal advice or representation when they signed the Sale Agreement”.

When will this cover up by the Crown end and the Crown accepts the documents supplied by those involved at the time show the documents were tampered with and Mr and Mrs Titford did not have legal advice or representation.. Documents do not lie, only those hiding the truth lie!

In 2012 the Crown gave Mr Titford’s estranged wife immunity to help the Crown jail Mr Titford for 24 years without a fair trial by refusing him to call witness to defend the alleged conviction against him.

Please read emails from bottom up.

From: Ross Baker

Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 9:49 AM

To: Lisa Kinloch

Cc: John Key

Subject: Re: Response from Rt Hon David Carter, Speaker of the House of Representatives

 

Rt. Hon David Carter,

Dear Sir,

 

So the Speaker of the House is quite happy for a Chief Ombudsman to mislead the Crown Law Office to allow the Crown to use corrupt methods to steal Mr Allan Titford’s freehold titled farm to help settle Te Roroa’s alleged  Treaty of Waitangi claim.

 

This then led to the Crown giving Mrs Titford immunity to help the Crown lay charges against Mr Titford and convict him without a fair trial for 24 years.

 

While I thought it was only a few people in Government/Crown that were corrupt, it now seems the whole Government/Crown is prepared to continue with the corruption to hide the truth from the public.

 

Sir, it will never go away, the documents left by those involved at the time will not allow it.

 

It’s very sad when a Government is prepared to let a man rot in jail to protect itself!

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Ross Baker.

 

Researcher, One New Zealand foundation Inc.

 

  1. Hon John Key, Prime Minister.

 

This correspondence will appear on our website, www.onenzfoundation.co.nz as the public has a right to know the Speaker of the House has joined the corruption.

 

From: Lisa Kinloch

Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 4:28 AM

To: Ross Baker

Subject: RE: Response from Rt Hon David Carter, Speaker of the House of Representatives

 

Mr Baker

As you will see from the last correspondence the Speaker sent, he will not be corresponding with you further on this matter.

Kind regards
Lisa
Sent with Good (www.good.com)

 

From: Ross Baker
Sent: Tuesday, 19 April 2016 2:52:45 a.m.
To: Lisa Kinloch
Subject: Re: Response from Rt Hon David Carter, Speaker of the House of Representatives

Lisa,

 

Could you please confirm the Speaker of the House received this email and what action he is taking.

 

Regards,

 

Ross Baker.

 

From: Ross Baker

Sent: Saturday, April 9, 2016 7:58 AM

To: Lisa Kinloch

Subject: Re: Response from Rt Hon David Carter, Speaker of the House of Representatives

 

Rt. Hon David Carter,

 

Dear Sir,

 

Thank you for your email in reply to my letter dated 4 November 2015.

You state in your email, “There is nothing in the material you have provided that demonstrates that the Chief Ombudsman did not carry out her function”.

Sir, I set out 4 issues where the Chief Ombudsman, Dame Beverley Wakem did not carry out her functions. The most damaging being her statement to the Crown Law Office that Mr and Mrs Titford had legal representation when Mr and Mrs Titford signed the sale documents for the Crown to purchase their farm in 1995.

The Chief Ombudsman, Dame Beverley  Wakem deliberately supported the Crown Law Office that the Titford’s had legal representation when they signed they the sale documents when they did not.

She also stated she could find nothing to support our complaint of the Crown Law Office tampering with the documents, but her Official’s found that the Crown Law Office had remove the Memorandum signed by both Mr Titford and the Crown paid Notary Public, Mr Sam Samec and attached to the Sale Agreement. I have previously sent your the documented evidence to substantiate these facts.

Sir, these are not my findings, they are facts stated by the Crown paid Notary Public Mr Sam Samec in his letter of the 19 June 2009 and the Chief Ombudsman’s officials in her letter of the 27 June 2007.

Section 6 of the Ombudsman’s Act states, (1) Any Ombudsman may at any time be removed or suspended from his/her office by the Governor-General, upon an address from the House of Representatives, for the inability to perform the functions of the office, bankruptcy, neglect of duty, or misconduct.

As the Speaker of the House of Representatives, you have a duty to bring to the attention of the House that Dame Beverley Waken failed in, “Her ability to perform the functions of the office”.

If Dame Beverley Wakem had performed the functions of the Office of Chief Ombudsman, then the sale of Mr Titford’s freehold titled farm at Maunganui Bluff would have been declared null and void and the Crown would not have given Mr Titford’s estranged wife immunity to help the Crown jail him for 24 years without a fair trial.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ross Baker.

 

Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

 

From: Lisa Kinloch

Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 6:45 AM

To: Ross Baker

Subject: Response from Rt Hon David Carter, Speaker of the House of Representatives

 

Dear Mr Baker

 

I refer to your letter of 4 November 2015 in which you criticise the outcome of an investigation made in 2007 by the former Chief Ombudsman, Dame Beverley Wakem ‘regarding the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement and deed relating to Mr Allan Titford’s farm, and the rather confusing number of copies which had appeared’.

 

You disagree with the conclusions reached by Dame Beverley and the opinion that she formed at the time and her subsequent responses to your further inquiries. You claim that the Chief Ombudsman made “errors” that you believe impacted adversely on Mr Titford.

 

As I have advised you previously,  Ombudsmen are appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of Parliament and have the statutory responsibility to consider, and where appropriate, to investigate and form an independent opinion on complaints about the administrative actions and decisions of agencies subject to the Ombudsmen Act 1975, where those actions or decisions affect any person in a personal capacity. There is nothing in the material you have provided that demonstrates that the Chief Ombudsman did not carry out her function. That you disagree with the outcome and allege some form of collusion between the then Chief Ombudsman and the Crown is not a basis for me to intervene. Ombudsmen are accountable to Parliament for the general performance of their functions. I have no authority, statutory or otherwise, to instruct Ombudsmen on how or whether to carry out an investigation, or to review their opinions or decisions with respect to individual complaints. It is not a Speaker’s function to act as a form of appeal authority regarding such matters or to intervene on the basis that an Ombudsman has reached a conclusion with which a complainant disagrees.

 

If you believe that the outcome of Dame Beverley’s investigation precludes you from pursuing other legal remedies, I note that Section 33(3) of the Ombudsmen Act makes it clear that an Ombudsman’s opinion on a matter is not definitive and does not affect any other rights a complainant may have to pursue a claim in another forum.  Section 33(3) provides:

 

The provisions of this Act are in addition to the provisions of any other enactment or any rule of law under which any remedy or right of appeal or objection is provided for any person or any procedure is provided for the inquiry into or investigation of any matter, and nothing in this Act shall limit or affect any such remedy or right of appeal or objection or procedure as aforesaid.

 

In all the circumstances, no useful purpose will be served by further communication regarding this matter.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Rt Hon David Carter

Speaker of the House of Representatives

 

Lisa Kinloch

Senior Private Secretary

 

Office of Rt Hon David Carter, Speaker of the House of Representatives

 

 

From: Ross Baker [mailto:onzf@bigpond.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 8 March 2016 5:50 a.m.
To: Lisa Kinloch <Lisa.Kinloch@parliament.govt.nz>
Cc: John Key <john.key@national.org.nz>
Subject: Re: Official Complaint from the One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

Lisa,

 

You wrote on the 7 February 2016, a month go, “I can assure you a response will be forthcoming from Mr Speaker as soon as he is ready and able to provide it.”

 

If the Speaker cannot respond after 4 months, then the Prime Minister should look into the ability of the Speaker to perform his job in the public’s interest.

 

There is no doubt from my original letter that there was coercion between the Ombudsman and the Crown Law Office during the investigation into the sale of Mr Titford’s farm.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ross Baker.

 

Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

cc Hon John Key,  Prime Minister.

 

 

From: Ross Baker

Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 4:27 AM

To: Lisa Kinloch

Subject: Re: Official Complaint from the One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

Lisa,

 

Our complaint against the Ombudsman, Dame Beverly Wakem was made on the 9 November 2015.

 

It is an absolute disgrace that the Speaker has been unable to reply in this time, nearly 4 months.

 

There is a man rotting in jail because of the corruption in government such as the coercion between the Crown Law Office and the Ombudsman when the Crown took his farm under duress, without legal advice and tampered with documents and now it seems the Speaker has joined in the corruption by failing to respond to our complaint.

 

He had has plenty of time to be “ready to provide it”, but perhaps the pressure put on him by government he is un-“able to provide it”.

 

It will not go away, all the documents left by those involved at the time will not allow it.

 

Either the Speaker can clear up this corruption within Government or he can become part of it, the decision is his and his alone!

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ross Baker.

 

Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

From: Lisa Kinloch

Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 6:20 AM

To: Ross Baker

Subject: RE: Official Complaint from the One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

Good morning Mr Baker

 

I can assure you a response will be forthcoming from Mr Speaker as soon as he is ready and able to provide it.

 

Regards

Lisa

 

Lisa Kinloch

Senior Private Secretary

 

Office of Rt Hon David Carter, Speaker of the House of Representatives

 

Parliament House | Wellington | New Zealand
DDI + 64 4 817 9323 | Fax + 64 4 817 8140 | Mobile: 0275 472 473

 

 

From: Ross Baker [mailto:onzf@bigpond.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 16 February 2016 11:29 p.m.
To: Lisa Kinloch <Lisa.Kinloch@parliament.govt.nz>
Subject: Re: Official Complaint from the One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

Hi Lisa,

 

Another month has pasted and still no reply. Could the speaker also be protecting the Crown as the Ombudsman?

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ross Baker.

 

Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

 

From: Lisa Kinloch

Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 1:27 PM

To: Ross Baker

Subject: RE: Official Complaint from the One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

Good afternoon Mr Baker

 

Mr Speaker has been away from Parliament & these things take time for him to consider.

 

I can assure you that he will be responding to you as soon as he is able to.

 

Kind regards

Lisa

 

Lisa Kinloch

Senior Private Secretary

 

Office of Rt Hon David Carter, Speaker of the House of Representatives

 

Parliament House | Wellington | New Zealand
DDI + 64 4 817 9323 | Fax + 64 4 817 8140 | Mobile: 0275 472 473

 

 

From: Ross Baker [mailto:onzf@bigpond.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 2 February 2016 4:26 p.m.
To: Lisa Kinloch <Lisa.Kinloch@parliament.govt.nz>
Subject: Re: Official Complaint from the One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

Lisa Kinloch,

Senior Private Secretary,

Office of Rt Hon David Carter,

Speaker of the House of Representatives

 

Dear Lisa,

 

It is now nearly a month since you said the Speaker of the House would look into the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. complaint against the Chief Ombudsman, Ms Beverley Waken dated the 4 November 2015.

 

If the Chief Ombudsman had not made her very biased judgements against Mr Allan Titford in the Crown Law Office’s favour when the Crown took his freehold titled farm under duress, without legal advice and the use of corrupt documents, it is quite possible Mr Allan Titford would not be in the position he is in today.

 

Three months seems a long time for the Speaker of the House to give a decision when we have laid all the fact, with documented evidence in front of him.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ross Baker.

 

Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

From: Lisa Kinloch

Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2016 7:57 AM

To: Ross Baker

Subject: RE: Official Complaint from the One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

Good morning Mr Baker

 

I will look into this for you & will be in touch.

 

Kind regards

Lisa

 

Lisa Kinloch

Senior Private Secretary

 

Office of Rt Hon David Carter, Speaker of the House of Representatives

 

Parliament House | Wellington | New Zealand
DDI + 64 4 817 9323 | Fax + 64 4 817 8140 | Mobile: 0275 472 473

 

 

From: Ross Baker [mailto:onzf@bigpond.com]
Sent: Thursday, 7 January 2016 10:22 a.m.
To: Lisa Kinloch <Lisa.Kinloch@parliament.govt.nz>
Subject: Re: Official Complaint from the One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

Lisa Kinloch,

Senior Private Secretary,

Office of Rt Hon David Carter,

Speaker of the House of Representatives

 

Dear Lisa,

 

Your response from the Speaker dated the 23 December 2015 was on a completely different matter. See attached letter.

 

The complaint I am referring was dated the 4 November 2015 and headed, “Official  Complaint  from  the  One  New  Zealand  Foundation Inc.,  re  the Ombudsman’s, “Inability to perform the functions of the office”. See attached letter.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ross Baker.

 

Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

 

From: Lisa Kinloch

Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2016 5:31 AM

To: Ross Baker

Subject: RE: Official Complaint from the One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

Good morning Mr Baker

 

A response from Mr Speaker was sent to you on this matter on 23 December 2015.

 

Kind regards

Lisa

 

Lisa Kinloch

Senior Private Secretary

 

Office of Rt Hon David Carter, Speaker of the House of Representatives

 

Parliament House | Wellington | New Zealand
DDI + 64 4 817 9323 | Fax + 64 4 817 8140 | Mobile: 0275 472 473

 

From: Ross Baker [mailto:onzf@bigpond.com]
Sent: Thursday, 7 January 2016 8:16 a.m.
To: Rt. Hon. David Carter <David.Carter@parliament.govt.nz>
Subject: Fw: Official Complaint from the One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

Hon David Carter,

Speaker of the House,

Parliament Building,

Wellington.

 

Dear Sir,

 

Could you please give an update on our complaint; re the Ombudsman’s, “Inability to perform the functions of the office”.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ross Baker.

 

Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

From: Ross Baker

Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 5:28 AM

To: David.Carter@parliament.govt.nz

Subject: RE: Official Complaint from the One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

Hon David Carter,

Speaker of the House,

Parliament Building,

Wellington.

 

Dear Sir,

 

Please find attached an Official  Complaint  from  the  One  New  Zealand  Foundation Inc., re  the Ombudsman’s, “Inability to perform the functions of the office” and a PDF copy of , “Why Allan Titford was jailed for twenty four years” .

 

Please refer all correspondence to: ONZF@bigpond.com.au

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ross Baker.

 

Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

 

ONE NEW ZEALAND FOUNDATION INC.

Email: ONZF@bigp[ond.com.au

 

4 November 2015.

 

Hon David Carter,

Speaker of the House,

Parliament Building,

Wellington.

Without Prejudice

Dear Sir,

 

Re: Official Complaint from the One New Zealand Foundation Inc., re the

       Ombudsman’s, “Inability to perform the functions of the office”.

 

The One New Zealand Foundation Inc. believes it has a duty to inform Parliament of the Chief Ombudsman, Dame Beverley Wakem’s Inability to perform the functions of the office”.

 

On the 26 March 2007 the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. asked the Chief Ombudsman, Beverley Waken to investigate sale documents that had been tampered with by the Crown Law Office when purchasing Mr Allan Titford’s farm at Maunganui Bluff in 1995. On the 15 May 2007 the Chief Ombudsman agreed to investigate our complaint, “Regarding the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement and deed relating to Mr Allan Titford’s former farm, and the rather confusing number of copies which had appeared”.

 

Since this time, the Chief Ombudsman, Dame Beverley Wakem continues to state, “I could find nothing to support your allegations”. But her reports, her Officer’s investigations and the documents we have on file from those involved at the time tell a completely different story as shown below.

1.     The Chief Ombudsman’s report dated the 27 July 2007, states, “From my Officer’s perusal of a substantial number of files held by the Office of Treaty Settlements and by the Crown Law Office, there is no doubt that Mr Titford had, rightly or wrongly, a sense of grievance about the sale of his farm. He held the view he was pushed into the sale without justification”. From the investigations by the Ombudsman’s officials, there is no denying Mr Titford sold his farm under duress and without justification, but the Chief Ombudsman refuses to acknowledge this fact.

 

2.     The Chief Ombudsman’s report dated the 20 December 2007, states, “The Crown’s officials perhaps did not consider it appropriate for it to be authenticated as part of the agreement in view of the comments at the end of the document. For the documents to have been initialled might have suggested agreement with the views you had stated“. The document removed was Mr Titford’s signed and witnessed Memorandum, “To attach to the liabilities” that was attached to the sale agreement when Notary Public, Mr Sam Samec, returned it to the Crown Law Office on the 12 December 1995. Mr Titford had stated at the end of the document, “I, Allan Titford believe we have been pushed into this list of creditors as a result of the Waitangi Tribunal claim”. The Crown Law Office had no right to remove this Memorandum by tampering with the agreement after Mr Titford had signed it and Notary Public, Mr Sam Samec had witnessed it. But the Chief Ombudsman stated, “I could find nothing to support your allegations”.

 

  1. On the 6 March 2008, we wrote to the Solicitor General, Dr David Collins, QC explaining the discrepancies with the sale documents to acquire Mr Titford’s farm. On the 17 March he replied, “The Ombudsman dealt with this matter in a previous communication with you last year. I understand the Ombudsman found nothing to support your allegations of tampering or corrupt use of the documents. Rather the Ombudsman commended there was a clerical error or errors in the handling of the documents at the time. I consider the Ombudsman’s inquiry disposes of the allegations”. The clerical errors were in fact, the Crown Law Office had deliberately removed the Memorandum from the sale agreement and had substituted page 11 of the sale agreement after Mr Titford had signed it and Mr Samec had witnessed it. Hardly “A clerical error or errors”!

4.     On the 25 February 2013 we wrote to the Solicitor General, Mr Michael Heron, QC asking him if the Titford’s had legal advice when they signed the Sale Agreements on the 12 December 1995. He replied, “Please refer to the letter of 27 June 2007 sent to you by the Ombudsman. That letter set out the findings of the Ombudsman’s investigation into circumstances surrounding the execution of the sale agreement. The Ombudsman found that Mr. Samec provided legal advice to the Titfords and that “there is no substance in the allegations that Mr and Mrs Titford did not receive legal advice at the time of the execution of the 1995 documents”. The Solicitor General had used the Ombudsman’s false information to clear the Crown Law Office of executing the sale agreement without the Titford’s having legal advice. Notary Public, Mr Samec was employed and paid by the Crown to witness the documents.

 

The Ombudsman’s report dated the 27 June 2007, page 6, (30) (1) states, “Mr Sam Samec (who I think is in his 80’s) now has no recall of the transaction. His file has been destroyed””, but we found in June 2009, Mr Samec was in his 60’s and still working for Crisp, Hudson and Mann, Solicitors, Tasmania.

 

How could the Ombudsman have found Mr Samec provided legal advice when she states he had no recall of the transaction and he had destroyed his file? The only conclusion we can come to, the Chief Ombudsman was supporting the Crown Law Office when it used corrupt documents to acquire Mr Titford’s farm under duress and without legal advice

 

In an affidavit from Notary Public, Mr Sam Samec to the Tasmanian Disputes Tribunal dated the 19 June 2009, he stated, “I suspect I was merely acting as a Notary Public, but possibly I was acting as a solicitor for the New Zealand Crown”. He also stated on page 3 (10), “I reject any allegation that I instructed Mr. or Mrs. Titford to sign anything. I was merely a witness. I did not stop Mr Titford from amending the documents”. 

Mr Titford’s New Zealand lawyer Clive Jackson stated in his letter dated the 23 August 2000, “I did not provide you with any legal advice in respect to the final agreement and if I had, my advice to you would have been, not to sign it”.

 

The Ombudsman refuses to notify the Solicitor General that she made an “error” when she informed him the Titford’s had legal advice when they did not!

 

  1. In the Chief Ombudsman’s letter dated the 16 September 2015, she states, “Neither you, nor for that matter Mr Titford, has been directly and personally affected by the alleged omission of Corrections…..than any member of the general public”. I have known Ulanda Titford since she was a baby and therefore, far more directly and personally affected than any member of the general public. I am sure her father, Allan Titford would have also been far more directly and personally affected than any member of the general public when his 15 year old daughter was allowed to sleep with a 23 year old man and later became pregnant to him. The Chief Ombudsman comment here is unbelievable, no parent would want this to happen to their 15 year old daughter, especially when she was under the care of CYFS and the Police.

 

She then states, “Even if the information you are referring to had been passed onto the Police, there is no way of knowing what action the Police would have taken”. Section 134 of the Crimes Act 1961 states it is an offence for a 23 year old man to sleep with a 15 year old girl, especially if she becomes pregnant, therefore, it was not up to the Police to interpret the law, they are there to uphold the law and the court to decide what action should be taken.

  1. In the Ombudsman’s letter of the 16 September she made her most serious “error” to date, stating Mr Titford was convicted of, “Sexual offences towards his children”. Mr Titford was not charged or convicted of sexual offences against his children. This is a very serious “error” and shows the Chief Ombudsman’s,Inability to perform the functions of the office”.

While Ms Wakem continually states “I could find nothing to support your allegations”, this was not the findings in her reports, her Officers investigations or the documented evidence we have on file and have supplied to her from those involved at the time.

These “errors” prove the Chief Ombudsman, Dame Beverley Wakem’s, “Inability to perform the functions of the office, neglect of duty and misconduct”!

If the truth had been told originally when Ms Wakem first investigated our complaint in 2007, Mr and Mrs Titford would not have gone through the stress that caused them to separate and the Crown to become involved in their matrimonial dispute by giving Mrs Titford immunity to help the Crown lay 58 charges against her husband resulting in Mr Titford being jailed for 24 years without a fair trial because of political interference. No family deserves what the Ombudsman, the Crown and the Police put Mr and Mrs Titford and their young family through to clear the Crown of any wrong doing when it acquire his farm at Maunganui Bluff in 1995. An innocent family that had their freehold titled farm taken in 1995 by the Crown, under duress, without legal advice and the use of corrupt documents by the Crown Law Office to help settle Te Roroa’s “alleged” Treaty of Waitangi claim. Attached please find, “Why Allan Titford was jailed for twenty four years”.

We are extremely disappointed by the Chief Ombudsman’s investigations, findings and reports and are in no doubt the Chief Ombudsman has been supporting the Crown in this matter for many years. This is not what is expected from the Chief Ombudsman, Dame Beverley Waken, DNZM, CBE, she must not support or be seen to support the Crown.

Section 6 of the Ombudsman’s Act states, (1) Any Ombudsman may at any time be removed or suspended from his/her office by the Governor-General, upon an address from the House of Representatives, for the inability to perform the functions of the office, bankruptcy, neglect of duty, or misconduct.

Sir, we believe the Chief Ombudsman, Dame Beverley Wakem must be removed from office as she has shown her, “Inability to perform the functions of the office, neglect of duty and misconduct” by not accurately reporting her Officer’s findings, not correcting false information she gave to the Crown Law Office and her most serious “error” to date, that Allan Titford was convicted and sentenced to sexual offences against his children when he was not!

There is no doubt, these “errors” helped the Crown convict and sentence Mr Allan Titford to 24 years jail to cover up any wrong doing by the Crown. If the Chief Ombudsman had truthfully reported the findings of her Officers investigations and the information we have supplied to her from those involved at the time, it would have been found; the Crown Law Office used corrupt documents to acquire Mr Titford’s freehold titled farm at Maunganui Bluff under duress and without legal advice to help settle Te Roroa’s “alleged” Treaty of Waitangi claim in 1995.

Yours sincerely,

 

Ross Baker.

Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

P.S. The Chief Ombudsman, Dame Beverley Waken has copies of all the letters, emails and documents etc. referred to in this letter.

  1. Members of the One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

Attachments: “Why Allan Titford was jailed for twenty four years”.

 

Crown Law Office Suggests Immunity for Mrs Titford.

Crown Law Office Suggests Immunity for Mrs Titford.

It’s interesting that the Crown Law Office suggested immunity from prosecution for Mrs Titford at her husband’s trial in 2013 where he was jailed for 24 years without a fair trial. This started as a simple matrimonial dispute between Mr and Mrs Titford but the Crown became involved by giving Mrs Titford immunity from prosecution to help the Crown clear itself of any wrong doing when it stole Mr Titford’s 1650 acre freehold titled farm under duress for Te Roroa’s alleged Treaty of Waitangi claim by tampering with the documents and without Mr Titford having legal advice or representation. Copy of letter below, see paragraph 3.

When we asked Mr Michael Smith, Crown Solicitor under the Official Information Act for all correspondence in reference to Mrs Titford being given immunity he refused stating it was confidential. See emails below.

We have since written to the Crown Law Office under the Official Information Act for this information and await their reply, which will be posted when received.

In 2012 the Crown gave Mr Titford’s estranged wife immunity to help the Crown jail Mr Titford for 24 years without a fair trial by refusing him to call witness to defend the alleged conviction against him.

For further information, “Stolen Lands at Maunganui Bluff” and “Why Allan Titford was Jailed for Twenty Four years”, on the ONZF website or obtain a copy from, ONZF, P.O.Box 7113, Pioneer Hwy, Palmerston North. $10-00 incl. P & P.

Please read emails from the bottom up.

From: Ross Baker

Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 10:18 AM

To: Richelle Millar

Subject: Re: Official Information Act Request.

 

Michael Smith,

Crown Solicitor,

Crown Law Office.

 

Re:  Official Information Act Request.

 

Dear Sir,

 

Thank you for your reply below.

 

I will follow this up with the Crown Law Office but I cannot see how it can be refused under Section 6 (c) and (d) of the 1982 Ombudsman’s Act.

 

(c) to prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences, and the right to a fair trial;

 

Mr Allan Tiford did not get a fair trial as his estranged wife was given immunity to help the Crown lay charges against her husband without the right to call witnessed to defend them.

(d) to endanger the safety of any person;

The only life it endangered is Mr Titford’s rotting in jail for 24 years without a fair trial.

 

Could it be confidential because the Crown Law Office was trying everything in the book to clear itself of the corrupt methods it used to stealing Mr Titford’s freehold titled farm for Te Roroa’s alleged Treaty of Waitangi claim.

 

The documents we have on file from those involved at the time (yours included) will not allow this to go away.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ross Baker.

 

Researcher, One New Zealand foundation Inc.

 

From: Richelle Millar

Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 9:34 AM

To: ‘Ross Baker’

Subject: RE: Official Information Act Request.

 

I refer to your email request below. I decline to provide any documentation you seek. My file was sent to the Crown Law Office in Wellington on 14 February 2014. In any event, the material you seek is confidential and even if held by my office I would not provide. I would withhold under Section 6(c) and (d) of the Official Information Act.

 

Your request is more properly directed at the Crown Law Office.

 

Sent on behalf of Michael Smith.

 

From: Ross Baker [mailto:onzf@bigpond.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 19 April 2016 2:23 a.m.
To: Crown <crown@mwis.co.nz>
Subject: Re: Official Information Act Request.

 

Mr M B Smith,

Crown Solicitor,

Crown Law Office.

 

Re:  Official Information Act Request.

 

Under the Official information Act, could you please supply all the correspondence giving Mrs Cochrane (Mrs Titford nee Cochrane) immunity, (see paragraph 3 in the attached letter) “between the Solicitor – General and this office”.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ross Baker.

 

Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

sca1

scan2

Speaker fails in his duty

Speaker of the House Fails in his Duty by Protecting the Crown.

On the 4 November last year the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. made an Official complaint to the Speaker of the House, Hon David Carter, re the Chief Ombudsman, Dame Beverley Wakem’s; “Inability to perform the functions of the office”.

Section 6 of the Ombudsman’s Act states, (1) Any Ombudsman may at any time be removed or suspended from his/her office by the Governor-General, upon an address from the House of Representatives, for the inability to perform the functions of the office, bankruptcy, neglect of duty, or misconduct

While his Private Secretary, Liza Kinloch has replied on numerous occasion, “I can assure you a response will be forthcoming from Mr Speaker as soon as he is ready and able to provide it”, we have not receive a response from the Speaker after 4 months.

 

It is obvious from his Private Secretary the Speaker does not know how to handle our complaint. It seems he has put it in the “Too hard basket” hoping it will go away.

 

From the documents we have on file from those involved at the time it will never go away, the list of people involved in the corruption when Allan Titford had his free hold titled farm taken by the government under duress, without legal representation and the sale documents being tampered with by the Crown Law Office is there for all to see.

 

Allan Titford has been jailed for 24 years because the Crown became involved in laying charges against him with the help of his estranged wife who had been given immunity by the Crown Law Office. Mr Titford was not given the opportunity or allowed to call witnesses in his defence by his Crown paid lawyer. “One of the most crucial aspects of a fair legal trial is the right to call witnesses on both sides”. See article below, “Why Allan Titford was jailed for twenty four years”.

 

Copy of Official letter of Complaint to the Speaker if the House, Hon David Carter.

 

From: Ross Baker

Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 5:28 AM

To: David.Carter@parliament.govt.nz

Subject: RE: Official Complaint from the One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

Hon David Carter,

Speaker of the House,

Parliament Building,

Wellington.

 

Dear Sir,

 

Please find attached an Official  Complaint  from  the  One  New  Zealand  Foundation Inc., re  the Ombudsman’s, “Inability to perform the functions of the office” and a PDF copy of , “Why Allan Titford was jailed for twenty four years” .

 

Please refer all correspondence to: ONZF@bigpond.com.au

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ross Baker.

 

Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

ONE NEW ZEALAND FOUNDATION INC.

Email: ONZF@bigp[ond.com.au

 

4 November 2015.

 

Hon David Carter,

Speaker of the House,

Parliament Building,

Wellington.

Without Prejudice

Dear Sir,

 

Re: Official Complaint from the One New Zealand Foundation Inc., re the

       Ombudsman’s, “Inability to perform the functions of the office”.

 

The One New Zealand Foundation Inc. believes it has a duty to inform Parliament of the Chief Ombudsman, Dame Beverley Wakem’s Inability to perform the functions of the office”.

 

On the 26 March 2007 the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. asked the Chief Ombudsman, Beverley Waken to investigate sale documents that had been tampered with by the Crown Law Office when purchasing Mr Allan Titford’s farm at Maunganui Bluff in 1995. On the 15 May 2007 the Chief Ombudsman agreed to investigate our complaint, “Regarding the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement and deed relating to Mr Allan Titford’s former farm, and the rather confusing number of copies which had appeared”.

 

Since this time, the Chief Ombudsman, Dame Beverley Wakem continues to state, “I could find nothing to support your allegations”. But her reports, her Officer’s investigations and the documents we have on file from those involved at the time tell a completely different story as shown below.

1.     The Chief Ombudsman’s report dated the 27 July 2007, states, “From my Officer’s perusal of a substantial number of files held by the Office of Treaty Settlements and by the Crown Law Office, there is no doubt that Mr Titford had, rightly or wrongly, a sense of grievance about the sale of his farm. He held the view he was pushed into the sale without justification”. From the investigations by the Ombudsman’s officials, there is no denying Mr Titford sold his farm under duress and without justification, but the Chief Ombudsman refuses to acknowledge this fact.

 

2.     The Chief Ombudsman’s report dated the 20 December 2007, states, “The Crown’s officials perhaps did not consider it appropriate for it to be authenticated as part of the agreement in view of the comments at the end of the document. For the documents to have been initialled might have suggested agreement with the views you had stated“. The document removed was Mr Titford’s signed and witnessed Memorandum, “To attach to the liabilities” that was attached to the sale agreement when Notary Public, Mr Sam Samec, returned it to the Crown Law Office on the 12 December 1995. Mr Titford had stated at the end of the document, “I, Allan Titford believe we have been pushed into this list of creditors as a result of the Waitangi Tribunal claim”. The Crown Law Office had no right to remove this Memorandum by tampering with the agreement after Mr Titford had signed it and Notary Public, Mr Sam Samec had witnessed it. But the Chief Ombudsman stated, “I could find nothing to support your allegations”.

 

  1. On the 6 March 2008, we wrote to the Solicitor General, Dr David Collins, QC explaining the discrepancies with the sale documents to acquire Mr Titford’s farm. On the 17 March he replied, “The Ombudsman dealt with this matter in a previous communication with you last year. I understand the Ombudsman found nothing to support your allegations of tampering or corrupt use of the documents. Rather the Ombudsman commended there was a clerical error or errors in the handling of the documents at the time. I consider the Ombudsman’s inquiry disposes of the allegations”. The clerical errors were in fact, the Crown Law Office had deliberately removed the Memorandum from the sale agreement and had substituted page 11 of the sale agreement after Mr Titford had signed it and Mr Samec had witnessed it. Hardly “A clerical error or errors”!

4.     On the 25 February 2013 we wrote to the Solicitor General, Mr Michael Heron, QC asking him if the Titford’s had legal advice when they signed the Sale Agreements on the 12 December 1995. He replied, “Please refer to the letter of 27 June 2007 sent to you by the Ombudsman. That letter set out the findings of the Ombudsman’s investigation into circumstances surrounding the execution of the sale agreement. The Ombudsman found that Mr. Samec provided legal advice to the Titfords and that “there is no substance in the allegations that Mr and Mrs Titford did not receive legal advice at the time of the execution of the 1995 documents”. The Solicitor General had used the Ombudsman’s false information to clear the Crown Law Office of executing the sale agreement without the Titford’s having legal advice. Notary Public, Mr Samec was employed and paid by the Crown to witness the documents.

 

The Ombudsman’s report dated the 27 June 2007, page 6, (30) (1) states, “Mr Sam Samec (who I think is in his 80’s) now has no recall of the transaction. His file has been destroyed””, but we found in June 2009, Mr Samec was in his 60’s and still working for Crisp, Hudson and Mann, Solicitors, Tasmania.

 

How could the Ombudsman have found Mr Samec provided legal advice when she states he had no recall of the transaction and he had destroyed his file? The only conclusion we can come to, the Chief Ombudsman was supporting the Crown Law Office when it used corrupt documents to acquire Mr Titford’s farm under duress and without legal advice

 

In an affidavit from Notary Public, Mr Sam Samec to the Tasmanian Disputes Tribunal dated the 19 June 2009, he stated, “I suspect I was merely acting as a Notary Public, but possibly I was acting as a solicitor for the New Zealand Crown”. He also stated on page 3 (10), “I reject any allegation that I instructed Mr. or Mrs. Titford to sign anything. I was merely a witness. I did not stop Mr Titford from amending the documents”. 

Mr Titford’s New Zealand lawyer Clive Jackson stated in his letter dated the 23 August 2000, “I did not provide you with any legal advice in respect to the final agreement and if I had, my advice to you would have been, not to sign it”.

 

The Ombudsman refuses to notify the Solicitor General that she made an “error” when she informed him the Titford’s had legal advice when they did not!

 

  1. In the Chief Ombudsman’s letter dated the 16 September 2015, she states, “Neither you, nor for that matter Mr Titford, has been directly and personally affected by the alleged omission of Corrections…..than any member of the general public”. I have known Ulanda Titford since she was a baby and therefore, far more directly and personally affected than any member of the general public. I am sure her father, Allan Titford would have also been far more directly and personally affected than any member of the general public when his 15 year old daughter was allowed to sleep with a 23 year old man and later became pregnant to him. The Chief Ombudsman comment here is unbelievable, no parent would want this to happen to their 15 year old daughter, especially when she was under the care of CYFS and the Police.

 

She then states, “Even if the information you are referring to had been passed onto the Police, there is no way of knowing what action the Police would have taken”. Section 134 of the Crimes Act 1961 states it is an offence for a 23 year old man to sleep with a 15 year old girl, especially if she becomes pregnant, therefore, it was not up to the Police to interpret the law, they are there to uphold the law and the court to decide what action should be taken.

  1. In the Ombudsman’s letter of the 16 September she made her most serious “error” to date, stating Mr Titford was convicted of, “Sexual offences towards his children”. Mr Titford was not charged or convicted of sexual offences against his children. This is a very serious “error” and shows the Chief Ombudsman’s,Inability to perform the functions of the office”.

While Ms Wakem continually states “I could find nothing to support your allegations”, this was not the findings in her reports, her Officers investigations or the documented evidence we have on file and have supplied to her from those involved at the time.

These “errors” prove the Chief Ombudsman, Dame Beverley Wakem’s, “Inability to perform the functions of the office, neglect of duty and misconduct”!

If the truth had been told originally when Ms Wakem first investigated our complaint in 2007, Mr and Mrs Titford would not have gone through the stress that caused them to separate and the Crown to become involved in their matrimonial dispute by giving Mrs Titford immunity to help the Crown lay 58 charges against her husband resulting in Mr Titford being jailed for 24 years without a fair trial because of political interference. No family deserves what the Ombudsman, the Crown and the Police put Mr and Mrs Titford and their young family through to clear the Crown of any wrong doing when it acquire his farm at Maunganui Bluff in 1995. An innocent family that had their freehold titled farm taken in 1995 by the Crown, under duress, without legal advice and the use of corrupt documents by the Crown Law Office to help settle Te Roroa’s “alleged” Treaty of Waitangi claim. Attached please find, “Why Allan Titford was jailed for twenty four years”.

We are extremely disappointed by the Chief Ombudsman’s investigations, findings and reports and are in no doubt the Chief Ombudsman has been supporting the Crown in this matter for many years. This is not what is expected from the Chief Ombudsman, Dame Beverley Waken, DNZM, CBE, she must not support or be seen to support the Crown.

Section 6 of the Ombudsman’s Act states, (1) Any Ombudsman may at any time be removed or suspended from his/her office by the Governor-General, upon an address from the House of Representatives, for the inability to perform the functions of the office, bankruptcy, neglect of duty, or misconduct.

Sir, we believe the Chief Ombudsman, Dame Beverley Wakem must be removed from office as she has shown her, “Inability to perform the functions of the office, neglect of duty and misconduct” by not accurately reporting her Officer’s findings, not correcting false information she gave to the Crown Law Office and her most serious “error” to date, that Allan Titford was convicted and sentenced to sexual offences against his children when he was not!

There is no doubt, these “errors” helped the Crown convict and sentence Mr Allan Titford to 24 years jail to cover up any wrong doing by the Crown. If the Chief Ombudsman had truthfully reported the findings of her Officers investigations and the information we have supplied to her from those involved at the time, it would have been found; the Crown Law Office used corrupt documents to acquire Mr Titford’s freehold titled farm at Maunganui Bluff under duress and without legal advice to help settle Te Roroa’s “alleged” Treaty of Waitangi claim in 1995.

Yours sincerely,

 

Ross Baker.

Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

P.S. The Chief Ombudsman, Dame Beverley Waken has copies of all the letters, emails and documents etc. referred to in this letter.

  1. Members of the One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

Attachments: “Why Allan Titford was jailed for twenty four years”.

 

From: Ross Baker [mailto:onzf@bigpond.com]
Sent: Thursday, 7 January 2016 8:16 a.m.
To: Rt. Hon. David Carter <David.Carter@parliament.govt.nz>
Subject: Fw: Official Complaint from the One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

Hon David Carter,

Speaker of the House,

Parliament Building,

Wellington.

 

Dear Sir,

 

Could you please give an update on our complaint; re the Ombudsman’s, “Inability to perform the functions of the office”.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ross Baker.

 

Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

From: Lisa Kinloch

Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 1:27 PM

To: Ross Baker

Subject: RE: Official Complaint from the One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

Good afternoon Mr Baker

 

Mr Speaker has been away from Parliament & these things take time for him to consider.

 

I can assure you that he will be responding to you as soon as he is able to.

 

Kind regards

Lisa

 

Lisa Kinloch

Senior Private Secretary

 

Office of Rt Hon David Carter, Speaker of the House of Representatives

 

From: Ross Baker [mailto:onzf@bigpond.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 2 February 2016 4:26 p.m.
To: Lisa Kinloch <Lisa.Kinloch@parliament.govt.nz>
Subject: Re: Official Complaint from the One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

Lisa Kinloch,

Senior Private Secretary,

Office of Rt. Hon David Carter,

Speaker of the House of Representatives

 

Dear Lisa,

 

It is now nearly a month since you said the Speaker of the House would look into the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. complaint against the Chief Ombudsman, Ms Beverley Waken dated the 4 November 2015.

 

If the Chief Ombudsman had not made her very biased judgements against Mr Allan Titford in the Crown Law Office’s favour when the Crown took his freehold titled farm under duress, without legal advice and the use of corrupt documents, it is quite possible Mr Allan Titford would not be in the position he is in today.

 

Three months seems a long time for the Speaker of the House to give a decision when we have laid all the fact, with documented evidence in front of him.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ross Baker.

 

Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

From: Lisa Kinloch

Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2016 1:27 PM

To: Ross Baker

Subject: RE: Official Complaint from the One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

Good afternoon Mr Baker

 

Mr Speaker has been away from Parliament & these things take time for him to consider.

 

I can assure you that he will be responding to you as soon as he is able to.

 

Kind regards

Lisa

 

Lisa Kinloch

Senior Private Secretary

 

Office of Rt Hon David Carter, Speaker of the House of Representatives

 

 

From: Ross Baker [mailto:onzf@bigpond.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 16 February 2016 11:29 p.m.
To: Lisa Kinloch <Lisa.Kinloch@parliament.govt.nz>
Subject: Re: Official Complaint from the One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

Hi Lisa,

 

Another month has pasted and still no reply. Could the speaker also be protecting the Crown as the Ombudsman?

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ross Baker.

 

Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

 

From: Lisa Kinloch

Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 6:20 AM

To: Ross Baker

Subject: RE: Official Complaint from the One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

Good morning Mr Baker

 

I can assure you a response will be forthcoming from Mr Speaker as soon as he is ready and able to provide it.

 

Regards

Lisa

 

Lisa Kinloch

Senior Private Secretary

 

Office of Rt Hon David Carter, Speaker of the House of Representatives

 

Speaker of the House Fails in his Duty by Protecting the Crown.

We still await a response from the Speaker of the House, Hon David Carter some 4 months later. In the meantime, Dame Beverley Wakem has retired from being Chief Ombudsman but still the Speaker of the House, Hon David Carter will not respond to the One New Zealand Foundation’s Official Complaint.

 

Could the Speaker of the House be protecting the Ombudsman, the Crown and the Crown Law Office of corruption when they stole Mr Allan Titford’s freehold titled farm under duress, without legal representation and tampering with the sale documents, then jailing him for 24 years without a fair trial. See article below, “Why Allan Titford was jailed for twenty four years”.

 

Complied by Ross Baker, Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc. © 2016.

Hot Off the Press!!!!!

New Zealand’s True History the Government or Te Papa will not tell you!

hot off press

Please become a member or donate to the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. so we can continue to bring you the true history of our beautiful country, the country many of our ancestors built with blood, sweat and tears for all of us to enjoy. For further information: www.onenzfoundation.co.nz.

These books are available from: ONZF, PO Box 7113, Pioneer Hwy, Palmerston North. $7-00 each or 10 for $50-00 incl. P&P.

Published Articles