Get Adobe Flash player

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.

Who Owes Whom an Apology?

Who Owes Whom an Apology?

 

Please bear in mind when reading the following that this is not a slight against Maoris as a whole; through experience I have personally found the majority are not in favour of separate, racial laws (apartheid) or Maori sovereignty. Only Governments (plural) can change or create laws that enable an apartheid State.

Please pass the following on to your contacts, knowledge is power.

“He who does not know his history is but a baby in the arms of a politician!”

Early next month we will again be bombarded by news media relating to The Treaty of Waitangi as being our founding document. How much of your history do you know?

The Treaty was ratified by extending the boundaries of New South Wales (NSW) to cover “all of the islands of New Zealand” in the same manner as Van Diemen’s Land (now known as Tasmania) and by this act the Treaty saw us ruled by the Government of NSW and monitored by Her Majesties Courts of NSW both exercising English law only. By no stretch of the imagination can this be construed as forming a legal New Zealand body solely within the boundaries of New Zealand, all legal proceedings could only be conducted within the boundaries of New South Wales. In plain simple language, to make enquiry regarding the Treaty of Waitangi enquire to the Government of New South Wales because the Treaty had nothing to do with forming a Government in New Zealand.

 

At this point in time we could have remained with New South Wales and become another State of Australia, as Tasmania did.

The Government in New Zealand was authorised by Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter on 03-05-1841, the date the Royal Charter was ratified..

Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840 was ratified on 03-05-1841, New Zealand’s true founding date, and is solely responsible for forming a Government in New Zealand based on the British, Westminster style to grant us English law only; our own Courts to administer English law only; authorised Hobson’s promotion and transference to be our own Governor and eventually our own flag which is older than Australia’s. That’s right, their flag is like ours, not the reverse!

 

Important point. “There cannot be a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi, there can  only be a breach of the laws of New Zealand established by Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840 that should be Heard by Her Majesties Court.

Hobson in response to an enquiry by French Baron Charles de Tierry had this to say, “Your next observation respecting the Sovereignty is one which I must repudiate. The only Sovereign chief that can be acknowledged as such from the date of the Treaty is Her Majesty Queen Victoria”. END. Clearly no Partnership!

 

Question. “Why are actions of Governments of the 1800s blamed for breaching the Treaty of Waitangi with Hearings held by an apartheid Waitangi Tribunal which holds some Hearings on Maraes using Maori protocol that has found “Guilty” verdicts to “Treaty breaches” of which some have already failed in Her Majesties Courts?”

 

Answer by Waitangi Tribunal Chief Judge, Eddie Durie.

These comments were in a paper, Ethics and Values, released on the Indigenous People and Law website with regards to the Waitangi Tribunal.

 

“Justice Durie, Chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal and Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court said, ‘some groups had required commissioned researchers to remove material unhelpful to the claimant’s cases or amend their conclusions. Sometimes this was a condition of the researchers being paid. Some also presented biased claims, omitting evidence against their argument that should be presented. ‘There are also complaints from researchers of instructions not to consult with certain persons, or only those approved by the claimant groups’, said Justice Durie.” END

 

A recently published book by Dr John Robinson, “The Corruption of New Zealand

Democracy – A Treaty Industry Overview’ puts right his astonishing revelation that as a Waitangi Tribunal researcher he had to falsify evidence to get paid.

Hired to study Maori depopulation from 1850-1900, he found the main cause was a chronic shortage of potential parents. The inter-tribal holocaust of the 1820s and 1830s had extinguished up to forty percent of the race, and it was customary practice to kill newborn girls. END

Because you may not be aware of other aspects of our history, those who are unaware might appreciate the following.

Within www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz (note dot “net” if you transmit this by telephone) you will find hard evidence which has been gathered from around the world that has found there are no exclusive rights for Maoris within te Tiriti o Waitangi, the only Tiriti authorised by Hobson was in the Maori language. The simple truth is Queen Victoria was a figurehead in the same manner as Queen Elizabeth 2nd is at present and she did not have the power nor authority to grant Maoris any exclusive right which would be unavailable to her own British subjects.

The Treaty which does include exclusive right to Maoris is the false, English, supposed, “version”. So, why is it false?

 

  1. After the signing at Waitangi on 06-02-1840 Governor Hobson’s gave the following instruction to those 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”. Only one Treaty was signed on this day, Maori.
  1. Hobson ordered his secretary, James Stuart Freeman, to send an English “copy” to London and he was so inept his errors consist of the following.
  1. He disobeyed orders, copied from earlier rejected draft notes and was even stupid enough to add content out of his own head; rendering his copy to London useless for its intended purpose, scrap!
  1. The “official English version” is a separate and differing copy from that sent to London but was still copied from the same, earlier discarded draft notes as that sent to London. This also rendered it useless coupled to the fact Freeman was never authorised to write a Treaty. Freeman was so inept he actually made 7 copies, they were all copied from the earlier drafts, contained content out of his own head and all were different. In simple term, “trash”.
  1. The above “official English version” states; “Done at Waitangi on 06-02-1840”, wasn’t written until March 1840 (“TREATY OF WAITANGI Questions and Answers”, by Network Waitangi) causing it to be mythical, was used as a piece of paper in Waikato during April of 1840 on which to catch the overspill of signatures to the Maori Treaty and not “itself” leaving “itself” an unsigned document. To be termed as “legal” all documents must exist on their stated date (this one didn’t), carry a true place and date of signing (it did not) and be signed by all participants (Maori signatures pertain to the Maori text and not itself). The claimed but false “official English version” has none of the above.

 

Question. “So what?”

 

This is the document flaunted to give Taxpayer forests and fisheries to Maoris.

The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 was solely founded upon the mythical, false English version alone and the Waitangi Tribunal was founded by this Act. I’m no lawyer so my opinion may not be worth much but my opinion is that if the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 was founded upon something which was copied from the wrong document, did not exist on its stated date, carried a false place and date of signing and “in itself” was unsigned. I fail to see how this Act can be legal and if it could be proven to be illegal in Her Majesties Court would this not jeopardise all Maori settlements found by the Waitangi Tribunal?

 

The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1985 contains both the mythical, false English version and the genuine Maori text with direction that both documents be given equal consideration, meaning the false English version must be given full weight before Maori claims are ruled upon. As before, for the same reason/s, I believe this 1985 Act should also be put before Her Majesties Court in order to determine its legality and that of all Maori claims settled by it or anything derived from it, such as “The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”.

 

There cannot be a breach of te Tiriti o Waitangi there can only be a breach of the laws of New Zealand established by our true founding document, Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840, which was ratified on 03-05-1841, our true founding date, and should be heard in Her Majesties Courts.

 

Land Wars?

What about the “Land Wars” that are claimed to have started in Taranaki in 1860 and the Waikato in 1863 when British troops are supposed to have fired the first shot?

There is no record in any history book or newspaper of the term “Land Wars” during this era, the name is a creation.

 

Taranaki

The following historical record was found in “The Realms of King Tawhiao”, by Dick Craig.

South Taranaki Ngati Ruanui were the instigators of the “Maori Wars” in Taranaki during 1853, 7 years before British troops came to the rescue of New Plymouth Settlers. Ngati Ruanui were later joined by Te Whiti of Atiawa in 1854 after Te Whiti had been summoned to a war conference in 1853 by Te Whero Wero of Waikato.

Hon. C. Finlayson quoted the Taranaki “Land Wars” started in Waitara in 1860 when British troops fired the first shot. Why did he not say Taranaki Maoris started the Maori Wars for Tribal Rule in 1853 when Taranaki Ngati Ruanui fired the first shot?

South Taranaki Ngati Ruanui were first to attack the settlers in 1853 aiming for Tribal Rule (sovereignty?), 7 years before Gvt troops went in to defend the area. Also in 1853 Te Whiti, of Atiawa, was summoned & escorted by Waikato warriors to a war conference with King Te Whero Whero in Waikato where it was decided “Taranaki was the best place to fight the Pakeha” because of its isolation. On return in 1854 he was invited to a similar meeting by Ngati Ruanui at Manawapou Pa, Hawera, where they pledged “Tribal Rule, end to European overlordship” and joined forces to wage war on the peaceful settlers, pages 25, 27, 30, 31, 133 the Puketapu feud and other wars and unrest to end European influence 1853 to 1881.

From 1853 Taranaki settlers were slaughtered, driven off their land, livestock stolen and buildings destroyed while Governor Fitzroy supported the Taranakis by declaring to the settlers, “You are squatters on Maori land I will not protect you, retreat to New Plymouth” . Excuse me, squatters on what? He was promptly removed from his post by the British Government afterwards but his confiscation of Taranaki settler lands that had been paid for 5 times remained and they had to pay 8 to 10 times more in cash than they paid initially to return to what they had previous legal title to only to find it reverted to the original wilderness it was beforehand. Rev. Ironside wrote, “No excuse for injustice by settlers, their tolerance should be praised (page 32).”

Taranakis have had a number of “Full and Final Settlements” starting as long ago as the first in

Wi Kingi Witi (also known as Te Witi, Te Whiti, Wirimu Kingi, Hawk Eye, William King Te Rangitake) found Taranaki was not only being settled by British but also returned slaves and now considered it safe because the missionaries had Christianised the 1st Maori King, Te Whero Whero, who was releasing his slaves, so he approached authorities for permission to return to Taranaki. This was granted subject to 2 conditions,

1:- He settle north of the Waitara river where most of his lands lay (remember he took money for all of Taranaki) and

2:- He settle in peace (page 23).

Breaking both promises Te Witi settled south of the river and went to war to claim land settled by despised (Maori custom) Taranaki slaves who were gifted land confiscated earlier from Wakefield’s NZ Co.

Would breaking both conditions nullify any claim Te Witi and his Atiawa tribe might have to Taranaki that has been granted by Governments or Waitangi Tribunal if by breaking his conditions of return he had no right to be there!

 

Waikato.

British troops are also blamed for starting the “Land Wars” in Waikato by being the first to cross the Maungatawhiri Stream in 1863. This is also false.

The important thing is what do you think after authenticated history is disclosed by Dick Craig’s, “The Realms of King Tawhiao”?

”It is said Waikatos did not sign the Treaty but Dick Craig stated it was signed by 7 elderly Waikato chiefs (page 45). King Te Whero Whero had also accepted the Queen’s pension, signifying his wilful subordination to Queen Victoria and relinquishment of any aspiration of a Maori royal line.

After Te Wero Whero became Christianised he noticed how wealthy northern tribes were becoming through integration with British settlers, deciding he would like some of this privilege he willingly sold land in his Waikato.

During the reign of Tawhiao, son of Te Whero Whero, and after he laid his hat on the centre of the North Island to declare war on the Government, Waikato Kingite warriors crossed the Mangatawhiri Stream in 1860 (three years before Government troops), advanced as far northwards as 40 miles from Auckland and at this stage believing they were stronger than British as resistance was light asked Auckland to surrender or they would kill every White man, woman and child.

Extermination or slavery being normal Maori culture, would surrender have made any difference? Where are the White pre-Maori people! Te Wero Whero reneged on land sold in Taranaki and Tawhiao to land sold in Taranaki and Waikato.

Kohimarama Resolution:-

Also during 1860 Government called the largest gathering to date of Maori chiefs to the Kohimarama Conference and after several days of debate this ended with the following resolution.

“That this Conference takes cognizance of the fact that the several Chiefs, members thereof, are pledged to each other to do nothing inconsistent with their declared recognition of the Queen’s sovereignty, and of the union of the two races; also to discountenance all proceedings tending to a breach of the covenant here solemnly entered into by them.”

 

For full report google, http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-BIM504Kohi-t1-g1-t1-body1-d2.html. The resolution can be found at the end.

Missionaries taught agriculture, a skill which gave Kingites their main food basket for their war (page 52) yet we are told Maoris were prior skilled farmers; the printing press was later stolen by Rewi (page 57); a school had been built and a hospital for Maori people lay on European land in the Waikato which was sold by Te Whero Whero to the Anglican mission who then passed over to Govt which intended to finance the hospital (page 52). Couple the foregoing with the “sugar and flour policy” of Gvnr Grey (page 46 & 54). Governor John Gorst had also given 2,000 pounds ($4,000, an enormous sum in these days) each to 3 main Waikato chiefs in the hope of promoting peace, some of which went on securing the mail run. Would one expect all of this to go a long way in demonstrating Government’s sincerity of peaceful co-existence? Page 50.

 

Waikatos removed their children from schools (page 44). Adults were being taught the valuable skills of carpentry, blacksmithing, the art of wheel wright, tailoring, shoemaking and printing and the missionaries were teaching them how to crop farm but many of the runanga in the Te Awamutu vicinity passed laws forbidding any young man becoming a pupil. Page 53.

Prior to handing over Governorship to Sir George Grey in September 1861 Governor Gore-Brown wrote to Kingites who had levied war against the Queen, a Maori war party had advanced to within 40 miles of Auckland and the Queen’s mail had been interrupted, preventing it from passing over Maori land. Quote. “The protective mantle for the Maori lands of the Treaty of Waitangi will be withdrawn and be forfeited if some of the Maori people thus continue to set aside the authority of Queen Victoria.” (Page 45) Unquote. This letter was written 2 years before Government troops crossed the Maungatawhiri.

With the Maungatawhiri Stream crossed by Kingites in 1860 and all legal settlers purged out of Waikato in March 1863, why are we told today it was Government troops who first crossed the Maungatawhiri stream to confiscate land in July 1863, what happened 10 years prior in Taranaki and 3 years earlier in Waikato? Who owes whom an apology?

On the 25th of March, 1863, page 62/63, King Tawhiao’s forces ousted magistrate John Gorst, his followers and settlers from Waikato, taking back (confiscating) their land. This was land legitimately sold to approximately 200 to 300 settlers, but, as bad, these settlers had their wives and children taken by the Maori rebels. The Kingites have given neither apology nor compensation for this confiscated land, or for the taking of wives and children and these same settlers were the ones who had been encouraged by the first king, Potatou Te Whero Whero, in the expectation they would bring trade to his people.

After the 1860 Kingite advance to Auckland (Page 45) unrest amounting to virtual anarchy reigned in south Auckland until three years later British troops were called in from overseas at a time Kingites were arming, in the end it was “All Waikato” (page 133).” Maniapoto engaged Government forces prior to Government troops crossing the Maungatawhiri at Cameron Town, just south of Pukekohe, where ambushed British troops suffered heavily (page 73).

So far as Rewi was concerned he wrote on April the 8th, 1863, months before the crossing of the Maungatawhiri stream by Government troops, “I will attack Pakeha villages at Te Ia, Mauku, Drury, Papakura then Auckland. Page 58. On page 81 Tamehana wrote on July 18th 1863, after Gvnr Grey issued his ultimatum, “I shall spare neither unarmed people nor property.” Separate attacks were also being made on bush settlers just south of Auckland by Maniapoto (well out of their tribal area of Kihikihi) and other warriors, page 102.

Reacting to Maori actions on legitimate settlers south of the Mangatawhiri stream boundary and 3 years after King Tawhiao declared war by laying his hat down on the centre of the North Island, Governor Sir George Grey issued a second written ultimatum to King Tawhiao and his followers on 9th of July, 1863, page 65 to 79, quote:-

“Europeans living quietly in their own lands have been driven away, their property has been plundered and their wives and children taken from them. You are now assembled in armed bands and threatening to ravage Auckland.

Those who wage war against Her Majesty or remain in arms must take the consequences of their acts and must understand they will forfeit the right to possession of their lands guaranteed to them by the Treaty of Waitangi. These lands will be occupied by a population capable of protecting the future the quiet and unoffending from the violence with which they have been threatened.

Governor Sir George Grey.”

End quote.

 

This was the Kingite’s second warning, both were ignored.

After Grey issue his second ultimatum (page 65, 66 &79) it was 3 days later he made his advance and had a major skirmish on the 17th July 1863 at Kohera, which is north of the Maungatawhiri stream.

Was it Gvnr Grey’s decision to confiscate Kingite lands, or was it Kingites themselves who made the decision by ignoring the Queen’s laws, two Governors warnings, refused to back down and remained north of the Maungatawhiri stream threatening to exterminate Auckland settlers?

First Maori politician, Sir Apirana Ngata, wrote the following:-

“Some have said these confiscations were wrong and that they contravened the Treaty of Waitangi, but the chief’s placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the Sovereignty and authority to make laws.

Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority, war arose and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This in itself is Maori custom – revenge – plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty”. Sir Apirana Ngata, M.A., Ll.B.D. M.P., Minister of Native Affairs, 1922.

Peace came with Maori Kingite rebels surrender. Tamehana wrote on the back of an envelope, quote, “I and my tribes will fight no more. The fighting is at an end in Waikato, so far as my influence is concerned. I have made peace, the laws of Queen Victoria shall be the laws of King Tawhiao.” Unquote, (my emphasis), page 139. Why are claims being heard by the Waitangi Tribunal which flaunt the Treaties of Waitangi instead of flaunting the laws of the Queen, as Tamehana stated above, which were established by Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840!

Could Government have written these words to Tamehana if Tamehana had won and expect the same pardon and respect as Government gave the Kingites? Tamehana wrote on July, 1863, to his friend Rev A.N. Brown, “I shall spare neither unarmed people nor property (page 81).

King Tawhiao yielded by laying down his arms and those of his 500 followers at Alexandra on July 1881, in person, to Major William Mair (page 112); he was pardoned and accepted the Queen’s pension, signifying total surrender and acceptance of the terms of the Queen’s laws established initially by Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840. Why is there still a Maori King?

How gracious to be treated in such a Christian manner as above instead of being exterminated as Kingites vowed to the Government and settlers.

Tawhiao responsible once more for land loss.

 

At this point King Tawhiao was virtually landless over his abstinence towards land being offered to him. At a meeting in Whatiwhitihoe John Bryce laid a plan before the king which was so liberal as to surprise the Pakeha, the tract of land to be offered him on the west bank of the Waipa river was large and in addition was ready to treat with the Maniapoto to secure further territory from that tribe. The amount to be offered amounted to thousands of acres but falling short of what he wanted, a Maori Kingdom, he turned it down (Page 113). Whose fault is it regarding Waikato shortage of land? Why are his descendants grumbling to Government if their king was responsible for the Maori Wars for Tribal Rule, threatening Auckland resident’s with extermination, and for cutting their inheritance short by refusing this vast wealth of free land as a gift? Why claim against the Government (taxpayer) instead of Maori royalty?

At the First Maori Parliament commencing on 25th Feb 1879 300 natives attended a conference at Kohimarama, Auckland, where for the third time (Treaty and twice at Kohimarama) they swore allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and, in this case, mainly blamed themselves for the previous Maori uprising. Please note, “Maoris mainly blamed themselves for the Maori uprising”.

 

Who owes whom an apology and redress?

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. 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

This article was prepared and written by G. Graham for the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. © 2016.

For further information or to become a member of the ONZF you can log onto

www.onenzfoundation.co.nz

to help us to help you.

Why?

 

Together we are stronger.

Without prejudice,

  1. Graham

Facts you should know about Waitangi Day That the Government will not tell you!

Facts you should know about Waitangi Day

That the Government will not tell you!

Signing the Tiriti o Waitangi on the 6th February 1840.

Screen Shot 2016-02-08 at 9.09.50 AM

Over 500 tangata Maori chiefs signed the Tiriti o Waitangi. This document was the only Treaty signed at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840, “All signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original document”. Lt. Governor Hobson.

 

“He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people”

Screen Shot 2016-02-08 at 9.09.56 AM

After each tangata Maori chief signed at Waitangi, Lt.Governor Hobson shook their hand with the words,                     “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people”.

 

“Honour the Treaty but embrace Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent”

 

Prepared by the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. www.onenzfoundation.co.nz.

Facts you should know about Waitangi Day

That the Government will not tell you!

The treaty provided nothing more than to save a race of primitive people from extinction. 

When did the Canoe People arrive?

Professor Ranginui Walker, past Head of Maori Studies at Auckland University sums up the arrival of the Canoe People on page 18 in the, “1986 New Zealand Year Book”, stating, “The traditions are quite clear on one point, whenever crew disembarked there were already tangata whenua (prior inhabitants). The canoe ancestors of the 14-century merged with these tangata whenua tribes. From this time on the traditions abound with accounts of tribal wars over land and its resources. Warfare was the means by which tribal boundaries were defined and political relations between tribes established. Out of this period emerged 42 tribal groups whose territories became fixed after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi and the establishment of Pax Britannica”. (Pax Britanica – British Peace).

The Canoe People killed or intermarried with the tangata whenua (prior inhabitants) and continued fighting with each other on a fairly even platform with their primitive hand held weapons until the Europeans arrived with the musket in the 18th Century.

Hongi Hika gains muskets.

When Hongi Hika, Ngapuhi saw the power of the musket, he decided he had to get as many muskets as possible to wage war on his unarmed fellow countrymen. The opportunity arrived for Hongi in 1820 when Rev Thomas Kendall was going to England to help Professor Samuel Lee finish his Maori to English dictionary and needed someone that could speak fluent Maori. Hongi Hika jumped at the opportunity with the ulterior motive of gaining muskets. While the missionaries would not allow him to purchase muskets in England, he did a secret deal with Baron Charles De Thierry for 500 muskets in exchange for 40,000 acres of land in New Zealand. As Hongi was not allowed to buy muskets in England, he had De Thierry ship them to Australia where he picked them up on his way home to New Zealand as well as purchasing more muskets with the gifts the King had given him.

Hongi Hika goes on the rampage south.

When Hongi arrived back in New Zealand with his 500 plus muskets he gathered up 1000 of his tribesmen and went on the rampage south killing, taking as slaves or eating thousands of his unarmed countrymen. It is estimated between 1820 when he arrived back from England and 1830 over a third of the estimated tangata Maori population of 100,000 to 120,000 were killed.

Ngapuhi fear utu.

In 1831, with the Southern tribes now arming themselves with muskets, Ngapuhi could see they were preparing for utu – revenge against Hongi Hika and his people and 13 paramount Ngapuhi chiefs decided to write to the King of England asking him to be their guardian and protector, not only from the French, but also from the Southern tribes.

A British Resident was sent.    

As Britain did not want to get involve in New Zealand, James Busby was sent to New Zealand in 1833 to be British Resident to bring peace amongst the people of New Zealand, but without troops, he could do little to relieve the tension. Busby was called, “A man of war without guns”.

Declaration of Independence.

James Busby did write the “Declaration of Independence” in 1835 to recognize the native’s sovereignty over New Zealand and to get the chiefs that signed the declaration to meet annually to make laws for peace between the tribes and to encourage trade with the many ships that were calling into New Zealand to refit and stock up on provisions, but intertribal fighting took precedence over political co-operation, as always and the Declaration was abandoned without one meeting taking place.

The Natives continue to fight.

The natives continued to fight after Busby arrived with Waikato slaughtering one third of Taranaki, one third taken as slaves and the rest fleeing south to Wellington where over 900 commandeered the Rodney and made two voyages to the Chatham Island where they slaughtered the Moriori or “farmed them like swine” into virtual extinction. Te Rauparaha also travelled to the South Island and virtually wiped out the South Island tribes. By 1840 over half the tangata Maori population had been killed by their fellow countrymen, either for utu, the fun of it or the love of human flesh.

Two thirds of New Zealand sold before the Treaty was signed.

By 1840 large areas of land had been sold by the chiefs to people from other lands. After Te Rauparaha had attacked and virtually depopulated the South Island, many of the South Island chiefs travelled to New South Wales where they sold large areas of the South Island. By 1840, over two thirds of New Zealand had either been sold to people from other lands or had contracts to purchase. Over 1000 Deeds of Sale are still held in the New South Wales Supreme Court, although most of these were never challenged when New Zealand became British soil, in most cases it was returned to the chiefs and repurchased by the government many time over.

Why a Treaty?

With over two thirds of New Zealand being sold, the native population heading for extinction and the large number of British Subjects that had arrived in New Zealand and set up farms and businesses with the help of the New Zealand Company, Britain had to take more interest in New Zealand’s affairs. After three years of debate, the British Parliament reluctantly decided the best way to achieve this was by treaty with the natives of New Zealand. Captain William Hobson was sent to New Zealand with a 4000 word document from Lord Normanby instructing him on drafting a Treaty to gain sovereignty over all the Islands of New Zealand, but without force. Captain Hobson was made Lt. Governor of New Zealand under Governor Gipps when he reached Australia on his way to New Zealand.

Drafting the Treaty of Waitangi.

Lt. Governor Hobson arrived in New Zealand on the 29 January 1840 and immediately began drafting the Treaty. A couple of days later he became ill and handed over his draft notes to James Busby to complete. Busby drafted a very formal treaty draft that would not be understood by the chiefs. On the 4th February, Hobson had recovered and with Busby, went ashore to James Clendon, the American Consulate’s house to simplify and finalise the “final English draft”. From Hobson’s and Busby’s notes, they drafted the “final English draft” of the Treaty of Waitangi on paper with a, “1833, W Tucker watermark”, supplied by James Clendon.

Translating the Treaty of Waitangi.

At 4-00 pm on the 4th February, Lt. Governor Hobson went to the Rev Henry William’s house for Rev Williams and his son Edward to translate the “final English draft” into the Tiriti o Waitangi. Rev Williams admitted he and his son, who had been in New Zealand since 1823 made minor changes from the final draft to the Tiriti o Waitangi but it did not change the meaning of the treaty in any way. The changes he made were to clarify which group of people Lt. Governor Hobson was referring to in the Treaty. In the Preamble he changed “all the people of New Zealand” to “chiefs and hapus of New Zealand” and in Article 3 he changed “all the people of New Zealand” to “tangata Maori”. Williams left “all the people of New Zealand” in Article 2 as it related to, “all the people of New Zealand”, irrespective of race, colour or creed, possession of their lands, their settlements and their property.

 

Tangata Maori.

When Rev Henry Williams and his son translated the Treaty into the native language, they used the term “tangata Maori” as it was known in 1840 through the native’s legends and that some natives were pale skinned with red or fair hair that the natives of New Zealand were not the “tangata whenua” as explained by Professor Ranginui Walking in the opening paragraph above. There is still ongoing debate who the tangata whenua were, but native legend and recent research shows the “original people” were “pale skinned with fair or red hair and blue or green eyes”. See, “Skeletons in the Cupboard”,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uosWPzmMhJc &feature=youtu.be

Reading and discussing the Tiriti o Waitangi.

On the 5th of February 1840, Rev Henry Williams read each clause of the Tiriti o Waitangi while Lt. Governor Hobson read the “final English draft” to about 1000 chiefs, their tribes and many Europeans gathered at Waitangi. After the Treaty was read in both languages, there followed a 5 hour discussion on its meaning with some chiefs rejected it while others supported it. At the end of the meeting Hobson told the chiefs he would meet again on the 7 February with those that wanted to sign. All the chiefs then retired to the Te Tii Marae with the missionaries to discuss it well into the night, eventually coming to the decision, it was in their best interest to sign it. As Rev Henry Williams recalls, “We gave them but one version, explaining clause by clause, showing the advantages to them of being taken under the fostering care of the British Crown, by which act they would become one people with the British, in suppression of wars, and every lawless act; under one sovereignty and one law, human and divine.” See certified copy of treaty by George Clarke, Chief Protector of Aborigines, page 11. George Clarke had lived in New Zealand since 1824 and was fluent in the Maori language.

The Tiriti o Waitangi is signed.

As the chiefs had come to the decision to sign the Tiriti o Waitangi on the night of the 5th February, they could not wait until the 7th and summonsed Hobson to sign the Treaty that day, the 6th February 1840. While Hobson was surprised, he came ashore in his casual clothes, except for his “official” hat and proceeded to sign the Tiriti o Waitangi with the chiefs who had gathered with no further discussion or debate. No English version was read, discussed or signed on this day, the 6th February 1840. In 1923, Sir Apirana Ngata, Minister of Native Affairs made this statement 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”.

He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people.

After each chief signed the Tiriti o Waitangi at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840, Lt. Governor Hobson shook their hand and repeated, “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people”, to which the whole gathering gave three hearty cheers. The Tiriti o Waitangi gave Great Britain sovereignty over all the Islands of New Zealand and tangata Maori, “the same rights as the people of England”, no more, no less.

Further signatures.    

Lt. Governor Hobson then travelled south to gather further signatures but became ill again and had to return to the Bay of Islands. He asked other officials, including the missionaries to continue to gather signatures giving the following instructions. “The treaty which forms the base of all my proceedings was signed at Waitangi on the 6 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”. Over 500 signatures were collected over a 5 month period and Lt. Governor Hobson declared British Sovereignty over all the Island of New Zealand on the 21 May 1840 under the dependency of New South Wales.

The final English draft goes missing.

Soon after Lt. Governor Hobson had read the “final English draft” of the Treaty at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840 it went missing. Therefore, James Freeman, Hobson’s secretary had no English copy to send to Hobson’s superior in New South Wales. Freeman compiled 7 varying “Royal Style” English versions from James Busby’s draft notes to place in his overseas dispatches. Lt. Governor Hobson never authorised or made an English version of the Treaty, stating, “The treaty which forms the base of all my proceedings was signed at Waitangi on the 6 February 1840”. No English version was signed at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840!

There was no “official” English version of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Lt Governor Hobson only made a “final English draft” of the Treaty. He never made or authorized an “official” English version. He had the Church Mission Society print 200 copies of the Tiriti o Waitangi but not one in English. While the Tiriti o Waitangi was “Done” signed on the 6th February 1840 at Waitangi, no English version was “Done” on the 6th February 1840 at Waitangi.

The signed English version.

When Rev Robert Maunsel arrived at Waikato Heads to gather further signatures he was met by over 1500 people. Unfortunately, his “official” copy of the Tiriti o Waitangi had not arrived. Luckily he had one of the CMS printed versions of the Tiriti o Waitangi so he could address the meeting using an “official” printed copy of the Tiriti o Waitangi. This he read to the gathering and discussion followed. When it came time to gather signatures, he used the CMS printed copy but space was limited and only 5 chiefs could sign this copy. He somehow had one of James Freeman’s compiled English versions and used this solely to gather another 39 signatures. When he handed in these two documents for Hobson signature, he had joined the two together with wax. It was also noted he had gathered 44 signatures, 5 on the CMS printed version and 39 on Freeman’s compiled version.

While there is an English version with 39 signatures, including Hobson’s, it was never read or discussed before being signed. It was just a piece of paper that only a few, if any of the chiefs would have understood, attached to the “official” CMS printed version to hold the overflow of signatures when the CMS printed version could hold no more. Hobson did sign this English version, but from the signature, he was a very sick man at the time and it is likely he did not even know what he was signing. He would have seen the attached CMS printed version and thought this was an “official” copy of the Tiriti o Waitangi. It must be remembered it was the only English version with Hobson’s signature on it and from the signature it may not have been his signature!

Queen Victoria or Lt. Governor Hobson did not have the authority to give tangata Maori any special rights or privileges in the Tiriti o Waitangi not enjoyed by all the people of England.

New Zealand Declared British soil and the Treaty is filed away.

Lt. Governor Hobson declared New Zealand British sovereignty under the dependency of New South Wales on the 21 May 1840. The Treaty had served its purpose and was filed away where it should have remained.

New Zealand becomes an Independent British Colony.

Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent with its Royal Seal dated the 16 November 1840 separated New Zealand from New South Wales and New Zealand became an Independent British Colony with its own Governor (Governor Hobson) and Constitution to form a legal government to make laws with courts and judges to enforce those laws under one flag and one law, irrespective of race, colour or creed, but under the watchful eye of the British Parliament. The first government was held on the 3 May 1841. Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent is located in the Constitution Room at Archive New Zealand Wellington. Copy of Queen Victoria’s Royal/Letters Patent Charter page 12.

Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent completely ignored.

Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent has been completely ignored by our governments, legislators and historians in favor of the Treaty of Waitangi that only 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.

Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840 was, “Every New Zealanders true Founding Document and first Constitution, irrespective of race, colour or creed”! It set up our Justice and Political system of one flag and one law for all the people of New Zealand.

186O Kohimarama Conference.

One of the largest gathering of Maori chiefs since the signing of the Tiriti o Waitangi was held at Kohimarama in 1860 where the chief’s swore their allegiance to the Queen’s Rule, with a unanimous vote, “Do not consent that the Treaty should be for the Europeans alone, but let us take it for ourselves. Let this meeting be joined to the Treaty of Waitangi, let us urge upon the Government not to withhold it from us. That this conference takes cognisance of the fact that several chiefs, members thereof, are pledged to each other to do nothing inconsistent with their declared recognition of the Queen’s sovereignty, and of the unions of the two races”.

The First Maori Parliament.

The first Maori Parliament was held in 1879, where once again those gathered swore their allegiance to the Queen’s Rule. While Maori were going to set up their own Parliament, it failed as the Declaration of Independence had failed in 1835. It was obvious the chiefs could not work as a united body for the good of their people.

The Minister of Native Affairs explains the Treaty of Waitangi.

In 1923 Sir Apirana Ngata, Minister of Native Affairs wrote a book explaining the Treaty of Waitangi and the land confiscations entitled, “The Treaty of Waitangi – An Explanation”. This is what he said, “Some have said these confiscations were wrong and that they contravened the Treaty of Waitangi, but the chief’s placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the Sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority, war arose and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This in itself is Maori custom – revenge – plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty”.

Full and final Settlements.

Between 1930 and 1940 many of the alleged claims that have been reheard by the Waitangi Tribunal were heard by the Courts and either had “full and final” settlements or were rejected. Many of these settlements were either, full and final payments, paid in perpetuity or paid annually for a specified time.

Statute of Westminster

On the 25 November 1947, New Zealand adopted the Statute of Westminster, passed by the British Government in 1931. The Statute granted complete autonomy to New Zealand in foreign as well as domestic affairs. After 1947, all the people of New Zealand became New Zealand Citizens under one flag and one law, irrespective of race, colour or creed, but since this time, part-Maori, through the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act have gained advantages and privileges over their fellow New Zealand Citizens never intended by those that signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840.

1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act.         

In 1975 the Government enacted the Treaty of Waitangi Act, which created the Waitangi Tribunal to hear claims by Maori against the Crown after 1975. The Waitangi Tribunal was set up using James Freeman’s compiled English version of the Treaty of Waitangi. While this document has “Done (signed) at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840”, it was never authorized, read, discussed or signed on the 6th February 1840. The English version completely ignored, “All the people of New Zealand” as stated in Article 2 of the Tiriti o Waitangi, therefore giving Maori advantage and privilege over non-Maori never intended by those that signed the Tiriti o Waitangi at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840 with a handshake and the words, “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people” or those that signed later.    

1985 Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act.

With many of the 1930/40 “full and final” settlements coming to an end, many tribes tried renegotiating their claims. The Government decided to allow the Tribunal to hear claims dating back to 1840, with many already having “full and final” settlements or rejected as the Te Roroa claim. The Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act in 1985 now included the Tiriti o Waitangi but the Tribunal had been set up on Freeman’s compiled version, so the “official” Tiriti made little difference to the hearings that are usually held on a Marae under Maori protocol. Maori were still given advantage and preference over all other New Zealanders. Non-Maori are not allowed to lodge claims, participate or appeal the findings or recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal. While public submissions are called, these are heard by the Maori Affairs Select Committee, therefore most submissions are ignored if not in support of the claim. The 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act, which set up the Waitangi Tribunal was based solely on one race of people, therefore breached the Tiriti o Waitangi, Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent, English Law, the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights Act.

The Tiriti o Waitangi and Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent gave one law under one flag, irrespective of race, colour or creed.

Five Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi.

Attorney General, Sir Geoffrey Palmer introduced the “Five Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi” in 1986 to make it easier for the Waitangi Tribunal to settle claims. While it appeared in our law, they were not made public until 3 years later. The Principles were based on Freeman’s compiled English version and the Tiriti o Waitangi but the Tiriti had only one Principle, “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people”. The Five Principles were to help settle claims between the Crown and Maori without any consideration to non-Maori, except to pay the settlements or give up valuable public assets. The Principles are now part of our law and must be considered by all Government Departments in its legislation. In his book, “New Zealand’s Constitution in Crisis”, Palmer admits, “I thought this a rather elegant legal solution myself”, but he later admitted, “I was wrong”, with his final comment, “It is true the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and all the other statutes, which give explicit recognition to the Treaty are not entrenched. They can be swept away by a simple majority in Parliament,” but he and his fellow politicians have done nothing to correct what Palmer admits, “Was wrong”!

International Law Association, the Hague Conference (2010), Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but Maori are not indigenous!

 

This conference discussed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. While it refers to Maori as the indigenous people of New Zealand, it did not say, “Maori are the indigenous people of New Zealand”. It is up to Maori to prove they are the indigenous people of New Zealand and to date, they have been unable to do so.

 

This also explains why the Hon Pita Sharples twisted Prime Minister John Key’s arm to allow him to go to the United Nations to sign the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People in 2010, he wanted to make sure Maori jumped on the “band wagon” for more free “handouts” when there is no evidence they are indigenous”.

 

The Conference went on to say, the Privy Council has ruled that the Treaty of Waitangi is a valid treaty of cession of sovereignty. This recognises that Maori were legally considered capable of holding sovereignty and ceding it to another power. However, under the constitutional system of parliamentary sovereignty adopted in New Zealand, and pursuant to the dualist approach to international law, the Treaty is unable to be enforced directly in New Zealand courts. The only way to enforce any rights accorded under the Treaty are where those rights are enshrined in domestic legislation. Despite the Treaty being unable to be directly enforced without legislative reference, the domestic courts have upheld the Treaty as having an important status as a founding constitutional document.

 

But the New Zealand Courts have failed to recognise Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent as our true Founding Document and first Constitution!

 

The Treaty of Waitangi Act can be swept away by a majority in Parliament

 

It is also interesting to note, the Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer, a past Attorney General and Prime Minister and the man that instigated the reforms, stated in his book, “New Zealand’s Constitution in Crisis, It is true the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and all the other statutes, which give explicit recognition to the Treaty are not entrenched. They can be swept away by a simple majority in Parliament”. While Palmer had the opportunity to sweep away 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act and all the other statutes, he took the easy way out by resigning from Parliament.

 

The Hague Conference went on to say, in 1975 the Treaty of Waitangi Act was enacted, establishing the Waitangi Tribunal. The Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to interpret the Treaty and to determine whether the Crown behaviour complained of is or is not in breach of “the principles of the Treaty”. The Waitangi Tribunal has determined the principles of the Treaty by first looking at the words used in the texts and “the evidence of the surrounding sentiments, including the parties purposes and goals” at the time. It took the approach that: “A Maori approach to the Treaty would imply that its spirit is something more than a literal construction of the actual words used can provide. The spirit of the treaty transcends the sum total of its component written words and puts literal or narrow interpretations out of place”. The Tribunal has accordingly taken a broad approach to both, focusing on the spirit of the Treaty to be derived from the texts and their surrounding circumstances.

 

The Hague’s main functions is to settle legal disputes submitted to it by sovereign states and to provide advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by duly authorized international branches, agencies, and the UN General Assembly but its members agreed with the Waitangi Tribunal taking a broad approach, focusing on the spirit of the Treaty to be derived from the texts and their surrounding circumstances. It seems The Hague is also in fantasy land when it comes to the Treaty of Waitangi!

 

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.

In 2010 Prime Minister the Hon John Key sent the Hon Pita Sharples to the United Nations to sign the, “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People” without the authority of Parliament or the people of New Zealand. Sharples telling the UN, “Maori hold a distinct and special status as the indigenous people or tangata whenua of New Zealand”, but Professor Ranginui Walker and Maori legion tells a completely different story. The canoe people of the 14 century found tangata whenua (original inhabitants) already living in New Zealand. There is absolutely no forensic evidence that tangata Maori were the Indigenous People of New Zealand but Sharples lied to the UN to “jump on the band wagon – again”!

 

Maori are no longer a distinct race of people.

Maori today are a people as one sees in legislation”, Mr. John Clark, past Race Relations Conciliator of Maori descent. Maori are no longer the distinct race of people that signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840. There is too much foreign blood in all Maori today for the Waitangi Tribunal or Government to attempt to compensate one group of New Zealand Citizen at the expense of the others. The degree of intermarriage alone makes it imperative for the Government to come to its senses and call an end to this nonsense. The Government must act in a manner that is consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi, to honour its obligations to “all the people of New Zealand”. Maori have intermarried with people of other races of their own free will until today; they have become a people of many mixed races, far removed from their tangata Maori ancestors. This is confirmed by the need to continually change the legal definition of Maori since the 1865 Native Land Act as their ancestry became further and further diluted with other races.

 

The Changing Definitions of Maori

 

With the intermarriage between the races, the Native Land Act of 1865 defined a Maori as, “An aboriginal Native and shall include all half-castes and their descendants by a Native”. As Maori have continued to intermarry with other races of their own free will and their Maori ancestry has become further and further diluted, so has the legal definition of Maori until today they are defined as, “A person of the Maori race of New Zealand and includes any descendant of such a person”. There is too much foreign blood in all Maori today for the Waitangi Tribunal or Government to attempt to compensate this group of New Zealand Citizen at the expense of others. Maori are no longer the distinct race of people that signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840.

 

The “final English draft” is found.

In 1989, six months after “The Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi” appeared, John and Beryl Littlewood (Needham) were going through their deceased Mother’s estate when they found a document entitled, “The Treaty of Waitangi”. This document, which was named the “Littlewood Treaty” by the Government’s historians, created great excitement amongst the amateur and professional historians, Thefinal English draft” of the Tiriti o Waitangi had been found”!

After two years of working on the authenticity of the Littlewood treaty, it was found to be the “final English draft” of the Tiriti o Waitangi, but in 1992 government paid historian, Dr Claudia Orange announced, “It was just another translation of the Maori version by an unknown author“.  From its pedigree this could not be so, the fact is, the government did not want the people of New Zealand to know they had made a terrible mistake by using Freeman’s compiled version as the “final English draft” that Rev Williams and his son had translated into the Tiriti o Waitangi or the “official” English version attached to the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act. The government therefore, instructed its paid historians and government funded websites to misinform the public that the Littlewood Treaty, “Was just another translation of the Maori version by an unknown author”. The government had used false information to divide the people of New Zealand by stating the Treaty was a “Partnership between Maori and the Crown”. It had also created the Waitangi Tribunal and the “Five Principles” that allowed those that could claim a minute trace of Maori ancestry to receive compensation and valuable assets from their fellow New Zealanders who could not participate or appeal the Tribunal’s recommendations.

On close inspection the document was dated the 4th of February 1840, the day the “final English draft” was written. It was written on paper predating 1840 with an “1833 W Tucker” watermark and it had the word “sovreignty” missing an “e”. Busby had also spelt “sovriegnty” missing an “e” in his draft notes. James Clendon had asked Hobson for a copy of the Tiriti in English to send to his superiors in America and as Henry Littlewood had been Clendon’s solicitor in New Zealand shortly after the Tiriti o Waitangi was signed, therefore it could have quite easily come into his possession and been passed down through the Littlewood family. From its pedigree, this document could only be the “final English draft” Hobson had given to the Rev Henry Williams and his son to translate into the Tiriti o Waitangi at 4-00 pm on the 4th of February 1840 and read to the gathering at Waitangi on the 5th February 1840.

The “final English draft” is virtually word for word to the translation Rev Henry Williams had made, except for the Preamble and Article 3 of the translation having the phase, “people of New Zealand” substituted for “chiefs and hapus” in the Preamble and “tangata Maoris” in Article 3. “All the people of New Zealand” was unchanged in Article 2 as it referred to “all the people of New Zealand”, irrespective of race, colour or creed.  No back translation has “people of New Zealand” in the Preamble or Article 3 and all are dated the 6th of February 1840, so it could not be a back translation from the Maori text. “Forests and fisheries” were not mentioned in the “final English draft” or in the Tiriti o Waitangi. It was also confirmed in 2000 by a Government paid historian, it was written by James Busby under Hobson’s instructions.

From extensive research in 1990 and published in the ONZF book, “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people” and our continuing research in 2004 and documented by historian Martin Doutré his book, “The Littlewood Treaty – The true English text of the Treaty found”, this could only be the “final English draft”. The English text that the Government has been using was not the document used to translate the Treaty into Maori. Governor Hobson never made or authorised an English version of the Treaty of Waitangi and it would have been impossible to translate the English version attached to the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act into the Tiriti o Waitangi. The document found in 1989 by John and Beryl Littlewood (Needham) was the “final English draft” that was given to the Rev Henry Williams and his son Edward at 4-00 pm on the 4th of February 1840 to translate into the Tiriti o Waitangi. It was also the document Governor Hobson had read in conjunction with the Tiriti o Waitangi on the 5 February 1840 and the document he had given to James Clendon to make a copy and sent to his superiors in America and the document that had fallen into the hands of James Clendon’s lawyer, Henry Littlewood that was eventually found in John and Beryl Littlewood’s deceased Mother’s estate in 1989.

Government and the Academics say, “It is not a Treaty”.

After thousands of dollars and many hours of research, the only reason the government and the academics say the “Littlewood Treaty” is not the “final English draft” is because, “it is not signed”, but a draft is never signed! All the evidence confirms the document found by John and Beryl Littlewood in their deceased Mother’s estate in 1989, was the “final English draft” that was translated by the Rev Henry Williams and his son Edward into the Tiriti o Waitangi, which was signed by both parties on the 6th February 1840 at Waitangi with a handshake and the words, “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people”, then by over 500 tangata Maori chiefs around the country.

The English version of the Treaty signed at Waikato was never meant to be an “official” English version of the Treaty of Waitangi, it was only used to hold the overflow of signatures at Waikato. Lt. Governor Hobson never made or authorised an “English version” of the Treaty of Waitangi!

The English version of the Treaty of Waitangi was a compiled version by James Freeman, Lt. Governor Hobson’s secretary from James Busby’s early draft notes. It was never read, discussed or signed on the 6th February 1840 as is stated at the bottom of this document. It is a document that has been used by governments over the years in error that has destroyed the honourable intension of those that signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840 to save a race of people determined to become extinct by their own hand. A mixed race of people today that show absolutely no gratitude towards their ancestors, both tangata Maori and European that fought so hard to save them from total extinction!

SUMMARY.

The Tiriti o Waitangi was solely to allow Britain to take control of all the Islands of New Zealand under the dependency of New South Wales by obtaining sovereignty from the tangata Maori chiefs and to give the tangata Maori, “The same rights as the people of England”, Article 3. Article 2 related to “The chiefs, the hapus and all the people of New Zealand possession to their lands, their dwellings and all their property”. Property/taonga has now been distorted to read, “Maori only treasured possessions”!

There was only one “official” Treaty and that was the Tiriti o Waitangi in the Maori language, which was the only Treaty signed on the 6th February 1840. James Freeman’s compiled version was never read, discussed or signed on that day, it was only used to hold the overflow of signatures from the “official” CMS printed Tiriti o Waitangi at Waikato and only had 39 signatures compared with over 500 on the Tiriti o Waitangi. While the Tiriti o Waitangi gave sovereignty to Britain and tangata Maori the same rights as the people of England, it was not New Zealand’s Founding Document!

On the 16th November 1840, Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent separated New Zealand from New South Wales and New Zealand became a British Colony, with its own Governor and Constitution to form a legal government to make laws with courts and judged to enforce those laws. This document, one of the most important documents in New Zealand’s history is held in the Constitution Room at Archives New Zealand in Wellington. Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent set up our political and justice system as we know it today, but has been completely ignored by governments in favor of Freeman’s compiled version of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The 3rd of May is the day all New Zealanders must celebrate as their Independence Day, the day New Zealand became an independent British Colony. While the Treaty of Waitangi is important to Maori, it only gave sovereignty to Britain and tangata Maori, “The same rights as the people of England”. Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16th November 1840 made New Zealand into an independent British Colony, which gave, “all the people of New Zealand” one law and one flag, irrespective of race, colour or creed.

While the Treaty of Waitangi (Waitangi Day) is important to Maori as it gave their tangata Maori ancestors, “The same rights as the people of England”, all New Zealander’s must commemorate Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent as our true Founding Document and first Constitution and May the 3rd as “New Zealand’s Independence Day as the people did in 1841”. Copy of invitation to commemorate New Zealand’s Independence from New South Wales, page 13.

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. 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

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

article

Treaty of Waitangi, [New Zealand], 6 February 1840: sheet of the text of the treaty, in Maori, with the names of the signatories. Certified as a true copy by George Clarke, Chief Protector of Aborigines, New Zealand. Copyright:  © British National Archives.

George Clarke had lived in New Zealand since 1824 and was fluent in the Maori language. Clarke was also very active in government helping to bring peace between the two races.

Supplied by the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. www.onenzfoundation.co.nz.

 

archives 

 

Disk supplied by the Authority of the Chief Archivist, Archives New Zealand.

 

Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 1840.

 

Constitution of the Colony of New Zealand into a separate colony, 16 November 1840.

 victoria

Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840. New Zealand’s true Founding Document and first Constitution that is completely ignored by government in favour of the Treaty of Waitangi. This document separated New Zealand from New South Wales giving New Zealand a Governor and Constitution to form a government to make laws with courts and judges to enforce those laws under one flag and one law, irrespective of race, colour or creed. A far more prestigious document than the Tiriti o Waitangi, which was file away after Lt. Governor Hobson declared sovereignty over all the Islands of New Zealand.

 

Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16th November 1840.

“Our true Founding Document and first Constitution”.

public dinner              

This is a copy of the public invitation to a dinner to celebrate all the Islands of New Zealand being declared Independent of New South Wales on the 3rd May 1841. This is the day ALL New Zealanders must celebrate as OUR Independence Day. The day all the people living in New Zealand became one people under one flag and one law, irrespective of race, colour or creed.

 

                         “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people”.

This article was prepared and written by Ross Baker, Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc. 2016. (C)

For further information or to become a member of the ONZF by logging onto, www.onenzfoundation.co.nz .

 

NO TO TAXPAYER FUNDED “SELF RULE” TO TUHOE

 

NO TO TAXPAYER FUNDED “SELF RULE” TO TUHOE 

Tuhoe Confiscations Inevitable and Justified

 

Part One.

 

Due to the isolation of Tuhoe, the “1896 Urewera District Native Act” established some 650,000 acres of their land as a reserve – but never gave them full autonomy. It was no more than a “Maori local government” under the control of the Crown. The Government gained Tuhoe’s recognition of the Queen. All tribal powers had to be within the Law, devolved and approved by the Crown. The Crown intended that in due course it would impose “all the responsibilities, liabilities and privileges” of the other iwi that had signed the Treaty on the Tuhoe people. The Colonial Government would not have had the authority to give Tuhoe full autonomy. Britain would definitely not have given uncivilized natives autonomy to part of a British Colony!   This “Maori local government” was revoked a few years later.  

 

image                   The media has published many articles to support the alleged Tuhoe claim with much of it based on selective research by the Waitangi Tribunal, Dr Paul Moon, Bruce Stirling and others. However, most importantly, as with many of these claims, there is another side to this story that must also be told. While Tuhoe did suffer at the hands of the government troops and their Maori supporters, they brought it upon themselves by protecting the “rebels” that had violated both Maori and European. Below is a brief account of why the confiscated lands were “inevitable and justified”, as fully documented in New Zealand’s archives.

 

Tuhoe did not sign the Treaty largely because they were too isolated for it to be taken to them, read, discussed and given the opportunity to sign. Unlike Ngapuhi and other northern tribes, Tuhoe had very little contact with the Europeans, the missionaries or the British Crown and remained this way for many years after the Treaty was signed, when New Zealand was ceded to Britain, which was recognized and accepted by all the major nations of the world.

 

             Kereopa Rau                                           Te Kooti

 

In December 1864, Kereopa brought the Pai Marire religion to the East Coast but was told not to interfere with the Europeans. On the 2 March 1865, missionary Rev C S Volkner was hanged from a willow tree near his church. His body was then decapitated and the head paraded around the village before Kereopa swallowed his eyes, calling one Parliament and the other the Queen and British Law. Kereopa and Mokomoko (whose rope was used to hang Volkner), instigated the killing, as they believed he had been spying for the Government, which caused the death of two members of Kereopa’s family. Although this act outraged the Europeans, such an indignity to the head of an enemy conferred mana amongst Tuhoe. If the government was to honour the commitment Britain had made to all the people of New Zealand in1840, then it was time a stand had to be taken to bring law and order to the people of the East Coast. Although Mokomoko helped instigated the hanging of Rev Volkner and it was his rope that was put around his neck, he claimed he had not taken part in the actual hanging. After he and three other’s trial in Auckland, they were all hanged for Volkner’s killing on the 17 May 1866.

 

After the killing of Völkner, Kereopa fled to the Urerewas under the protection of Tuhoe. In May 1865, he and a party of Tuhoe attempted to travel to Waikato, but were prevented from reaching the Kaingaroa plains by a force of Te Arawa – but not before killing two Te Arawa chiefs with Kereopa again eating their eyes. They were forced to turn back when a party of Te Arawa, led by W. G. Mair, arrived. Kereopa, under the protection of Tuhoe from the Government troops, returned to hiding in the Ureweras.

 

Kereopa had much mana in the minds of Tuhoe and thus obtained their continuing protection. The dense bush of the Urewera Mountains offered him protection from the Government troops, as it later would for Te Kooti and the Hauhau. Martial Law had been declared in the Opotiki and Whakatane districts after the killing of Völkner, and a reward was offered for the capture of those responsible.

 

Over the next three years, the people of the Urewera were weakened, and their land devastated by the government’s relentless pursuit of Kereopa for his involvement with Volkner’s killing; Te Kooti for his massacres up and down the country and the Hauhau who were attacking and killing innocent settlers and their families and destroying their crops and buildings. However, Tuhoe continued to protect these “rebels”. The government troops included Ngati Porou, Ngati Kahungunu and Te Arawa embarked on several campaigns to capture the “rebels”. During these campaigns Tuhoe’s pa were plundered, crops destroyed, people killed and land confiscated. This in itself is Maori custom, – revenge – plunder to avenge a wrong. There is no denying Tuhoe land was devastated, but they brought it upon themselves by protecting the “rebels” from being brought to justice.

 

By late 1870 several Tuhoe leaders had made their peace with the government, but they would not violate the sanctuary of the Urewera by giving up Kereopa, Te Kooti or the Hauhau. Eventually, however, seeing that their survival was now threatened, they withdrew this protection.

 

It was agreed amongst Tuhoe that neither European soldiers nor Ngati Porou forces should be allowed to capture the “rebels”: as their protectors, they would deliver Kereopa themselves to the government. Kereopa agreed to give himself up as payment for the Tuhoe blood that had been shed for him.

 

It must be remembered that it was not only the government that wanted law and order established on the East Coast. Ngati Porou, Ngati Kahungunu and Te Arawa also fought with the Government troops, as did many other tribes around New Zealand to enforce the Queens Law. These three iwi were instrumental in the 1870 and 1871 pursuit of the “rebels” that Tuhoe allowed to take refuge in Urewera Mountains after massacres in Poverty Bay.

 

There is no denying that Tūhoe, Te Whakatōhea and Ngāti Awa were out of step with the majority of New Zealand, both Maori and European at the time, which they eventually realised, releasing the “rebels” they had been protecting. By this time, the majority of Maori had realised that for the Maori race to survive, there had to be one government, one law for all the people of New Zealand and had put this law in the hands of the Britain Crown.

 

Due to the isolation of Tuhoe, the “1896 Urewera District Native Act” established some 650,000 acres of their land as a reserve – but never gave them full autonomy. It was no more than a “Maori local government” under the control of the Crown. The Government gained Tuhoe’s recognition of the Queen. All tribal powers had to be within the Law, devolved and approved by the Crown. The Crown intended that in due course it would impose “all the responsibilities, liabilities and privileges” of the other iwi that had signed the Treaty, on the Tuhoe people. The Colonial Government would not have had the authority to give Tuhoe full autonomy. Britain would definitely not have given uncivilized natives autonomy to part of a British Colony!   This “Maori local government” was revoked a few years later.

 

Over the next 60 years, Tuhoe sold large tracts of their underdeveloped wasteland to the Government. Later the Crown vested most of this land into the Urewera National Park for all the people of New Zealand to enjoy, including the people of the Eastern tribes.

 

The Waitangi Tribunal stated that Tuhoe had 24,147 ha of land confiscated, but Government figures show, in 1866, 448,000 acres (181,000 hectares) of land belonging to the tribes of the Bay of Plenty, Tūhoe, Te Whakatōhea and Ngāti Awa were confiscated by the government. Government documents show, this area was subsequently reduced to 211,000 acres (85,387 hectares), of which Tūhoe lost 14,000 acres (5,700 hectares).

 

The Waitangi Tribunal also claims Tuhoe were never compensated, but in Richard Hill’s Justice Department report for the Lange Government in 1989, page 11 clause 31, shows Tuhoe received $200,000 compensation in 1958. Tuhoe is also a party to the Waikaremoana Trust Board that receives $124,000 per year in rental for Lake Waikaremoana.

 

The alliance of the Tuhoe with Kereopa, Te Kooti and the Hauhau and their resistance of the Crown to apprehend these “rebels” after killing many innocent Maori and European – meant military action was inevitable and justified – a fact admitted by the Waitangi Tribunal stating, “The alliance of the Tuhoe people with Te Kooti and the attacks on the Crown’s subjects, Maori and Pakeha that followed, meant military action was inevitable and justified” – as was the confiscations. If New Zealand was to be civilised as the majority of the chiefs had asked for in 1840, then the action taken by the government of the day was inevitable and justified, especially when the compensated land was reduced to only 5,700 ha and Tuhoe received $200,000 compensation in 1958 and the ongoing rental of Lake Waikaremoana– a fact not mentioned by the Waitangi Tribunal.

 

This “Kangaroo Court” method of determining our countries future by the Waitangi Tribunal and Government must stop. There must be a full public inquire were all the documented evidence is presented and scrutinised before more land and assets belonging to the people of New Zealand are given away without their, knowledge, authority or consent. This is our sovereign right Prime Minister and the people also deserve balanced reporting from our media!

 

Compiled by the One New Zealand Foundation Inc from files held in New Zealand’s Archives.

 

© Ross Baker.

 

 

 

 

Tuhoe – the untold facts.

Part Two.

 

The Waitangi Tribunal stated that Tuhoe had 24,147 ha of land confiscated, but no mention is made that this was reduced to 5,700 ha with a later compensation payment of $200,000 in 1958.

Government figures show, in 1866, 448,000 acres (181,000 hectares) of land belonging to the rebel tribes of the Bay of Plenty, Tūhoe, Te Whakatōhea and Ngāti Awa were confiscated by the government. Government documents show, this area was subsequently reduced to 211,000 acres (85,387 hectares), of which Tūhoe lost 14,000 acres (5,700 hectares).

 

The Waitangi Tribunal also claims this land was never compensated for, but in Richard Hill’s, Justice Department report for the Lange Government in 1989, page 11 clause 31, shows Tuhoe received $200,000 compensation in 1958.

 

From this article by Steven Oliver published in the “Dictionary of New Zealand Biography” there is no doubt the Government of the day had every right to confiscate land from Tuhoe.

 

Te Rau, Kereopa   ? – 1872

Ngati Rangiwewehi warrior, Pai Marire leader

Kereopa Te Rau was one of the five original disciples of Te Ua Haumene, the founder of the Pai Marire faith. He was a member of Ngati Rangiwewehi of Te Arawa. The date and place of his birth are not known, nor the names of his parents. Some time in the 1840s he was baptised by the Catholic missionary Father Euloge Reignier, and took the name Kereopa (Cleophas). He is believed to have served as a policeman in Auckland in the 1850s. In the early 1860s he fought in the King’s forces in Waikato. His wife and two daughters are thought to have been killed at Rangiaowhia, near Te Awamutu, when it was attacked by government forces on 21 February 1864, and the following day he was at Hairini, a defensive position just west of Rangiaowhia, where he saw his sister killed.

 

After the defeat of the King movement forces in mid 1864, Kereopa joined the new religion of Te Ua Haumene. In December 1864 Te Ua instructed Kereopa and Patara Raukatauri to go as emissaries to the tribes of the East Coast. They were told to preach the Pai Marire faith in the districts they passed through, to go in peace and not to interfere with Pakeha. Kereopa, however, demanded that a European be given up to him at Otipa, a settlement on the lower Rangitaiki River, and that a Catholic priest be handed over at Whakatane. These requests were refused, but at Opotiki the missionary C. S. Völkner was seized and ritually killed on 2 March 1865. Völkner was hanged from a willow tree near his church by members of his own congregation, Te Whakatohea. His body was then decapitated and Kereopa swallowed the eyes, calling one Parliament and the other the Queen and British law. Although this act outraged Europeans, such an indignity to the head of an enemy conferred mana on Kereopa.

 

Kereopa was widely believed to have instigated the killing of Völkner. Although he had agreed to it, in fact he did not take part in the actual hanging, and cannot be held responsible. The arrival of the Pai Marire party at Opotiki precipitated the tragedy, but there were complex reasons for Völkner’s death. Principal among these was Te Whakatohea’s anger at the missionary for his actions in spying for the government; in returning to Opotiki at that time Völkner had disregarded the explicit warnings of Te Whakatohea. Kereopa himself may also have sought to avenge the deaths of members of his family at Hairini and at Rangiaowhia, a plan of which Völkner had sent to Governor George Grey.

 

After the killing of Völkner, Kereopa, with his party of Pai Marire followers, went on to Gisborne, and to the Urewera where he preached the Pai Marire faith among Tuhoe. In May 1865 he attempted to travel to Waikato to preach to the Kingite tribes, but was prevented from reaching the Kaingaroa plains by a force of Ngati Manawa and Ngati Rangitihi. According to one account, in the course of this battle, in which Kereopa’s party was supported by Tuhoe, Kereopa swallowed the eyes of three Ngati Manawa warriors who had been killed and decapitated; it was this repetition of his symbolic act at Opotiki which earned him the name Kaiwhatu (the Eye-eater). After a long siege Ngati Manawa and Ngati Rangitihi abandoned their defences at Te Tapiri and Okupu, in the western Urewera, but Kereopa was forced to turn back when a relief party of Te Arawa, led by W. G. Mair, arrived. He then returned to Opotiki but was driven from there by government troops, and fled into the Urewera.

 

Kereopa had much mana in the eyes of Tuhoe, as the bearer of the Pai Marire faith to that tribe, and thus obtained their protection. The dense bush of the Urewera Mountains also offered him protection from his pursuers, as it later would for Te Kooti. Martial law had been declared in the Opotiki and Whakatane districts after the killing of Völkner, and a reward was offered for the capture of those responsible. Kereopa concealed himself at Te Roau, on a densely wooded hillside, Te Miromiro, at Ohaua-te-rangi, a Ngati Rongo settlement north of Ruatahuna. Te Roau had never been occupied, and commanded an excellent view of anyone approaching. There Kereopa was able to elude his pursuers for the next five years.

 

From mid 1868 the Ringatu faith of Te Kooti gained popularity amongst Tuhoe, and the influence of Pai Marire correspondingly faded. The reverence in which Tuhoe held Kereopa also diminished, but Tuhoe did not disclose his whereabouts. Over the next three years, however, the people of the Urewera were weakened, and their land devastated, by the government’s relentless pursuit of Te Kooti and the remaining Hauhau leaders. Government troops, including a Ngati Porou contingent led by Rapata Wahawaha, embarked on several campaigns between May 1869 and early 1872, in which Tuhoe pa were plundered, crops destroyed and many people killed.

 

By late 1870 several Tuhoe leaders had made their peace with the government. But they would not violate the sanctuary of the Urewera by giving up Kereopa. Eventually, however, realising that their survival was threatened by Kereopa, they decided to withdraw their protection.

 

Tuhoe tradition gives the following account of the capture of Kereopa. It was agreed among Tuhoe that neither European soldiers nor Ngati Porou forces should be allowed to capture the Hauhau leader; as his protectors, they would deliver him themselves to the government, to ensure that their own mana was retained. Thus a Tuhoe party went to Te Roau, in September 1871, and laid their plans before him. Kereopa agreed to give himself as payment for the Tuhoe blood that had been shed for him. When he went to gather his possessions from his sleeping house, however, he attempted to flee. He was chased and captured by a warrior named Te Whiu Maraki, and taken to Ruatahuna. Because he had broken his word, he was handed over as a prisoner to Rapata and Captain Thomas Porter.

 

On 21 December 1871 Kereopa stood trial at the Supreme Court at Napier for the murder of Völkner. There was no direct proof of his responsibility for the killing, but a European witness, Samuel Levy, testified that he had seen Kereopa among those who escorted Völkner to the willow tree. On the basis of this evidence Kereopa was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. William Colenso appealed unsuccessfully for clemency on the grounds that the crime had already been punished by executions and land confiscation. Mother Mary Aubert, of Father Reignier’s mission at Napier, stayed with Kereopa during his last night. He was hanged on 5 January 1872 at Napier.

 

STEVEN OLIVER

Clark, P. ‘Hauhau’. Auckland, 1975

 

Cowan, J. The New Zealand wars. Vol. 2, The Hauhau wars, 1864–72. Wellington, 1923

 

‘Rev. C. S. Volkner and the Tai Rawhiti expedition, 1864′. Historical Review 7, No 2 (June 1959): 24–36

 

‘Trial of Kereopa’. Daily Southern Cross. 2 Jan. 1872

 

‘The trial of Kereopa: horrible disclosures’. Daily Southern Cross. 29 Dec. 1871

HOW TO CITE THIS BIOGRAPHY:

Oliver, Steven. ‘Te Rau, Kereopa ? – 1872′. Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, updated 22 June 2007 URL: http://www.dnzb.govt.nz/

 

The original version of this biography was published in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography Volume One (1769-1869), 1990 © Crown Copyright 1990-2009. Published by the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, Wellington, New Zealand. All rights reserved

 

The alliance of the Te Urewera people with Kereopa, Te Kooti and the attacks on the Crown’s subjects, Maori and Pakeha that followed, meant military action was inevitable and justified – as was the confiscations. If New Zealand was to be civilised as the majority of the chiefs had asked for in 1840, then the action taken by the Government of the day were “inevitable and justified”, especially when the compensated land was reduced to only 5,700 ha and Tuhoe received $200,000 compensation in 1958 – a fact not mentioned by the Waitangi Tribunal.

Compiled by the One New Zealand Foundation Inc from files held in New Zealand’s Archives.

 

© Ross Baker.

Allan Titford Political Prisoner

ALLAN TITFORD

 

allan titford

Innocent Political Prisoner.

1987. Alleged Treaty of Waitangi land claim place on his freehold title farm

1987/92. No Police or Crown protection from Maori claimants

1987/89. Many false charges by Police but acquitted on all.

1987. No Police protection from Maori claimants, squatters

1992. Family fled to Tasmania for protection and safety.

1995. Land stolen by the Crown for “alleged” claim

1995. Land sold under duress and without legal advice.

2009. Sale Agreement tampered with after being signed and witnessed.

2009. Susan Titford leaves her husband.

2010. Crown becomes involve in their matrimonial dispute

2010, Susan Titford is given immunity by the Crown.

2011. Crown gets involved in laying charges against Allan.

2013. Allan’s Lawyer does not call one witness in his defence.

2013. Allan is jailed for 24 years without a fair trial.

 

    “A malicious prosecution of a political nature” to “Pervert the course of justice”.

 

               No man deserves how he has been treated by the Crown!

 

Prepared and supported by the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. Website: www.onenzfoundation.co.nz. Email: ONZF@bigpond.com.au

Published Articles