Get Adobe Flash player

Customary Rights to Indigenous People But Maori are not Indigenous to New Zealand

The Ministry of Justice book entitled, “Recognising Customary Rights” is based on Maori being the Indigenous people or tangata whenua of New Zealand but there is no explanation or definition of these people in the Glossary.

 

The Glossary on page 24 states, “Customary marine title (CMT). Comes from a common law concept that recognises property rights of indigenous people that have continued since or before the acquisition of Crown sovereignty to the present day. It is inalienable – the land cannot be sold – and cannot be converted to freehold titled Recognises the relationship that exists, and will continue to exist, between iwi, hapu and whanu and common marine and coastal areas”.  

 

After many years of research by the One New Zealand Foundation Inc and many others, we can find no information to support Maori are the indigenous people or tangata whenua of New Zealand. In fact all the information and evidence we have on file confirms Maori were not the indigenous people of New Zealand.

 

The evidence we have on file that Maori are not the indigenous people of New Zealand or tangata whenua.

 

  1. When Rev Henry Williams and his son Edward translated Lt. Governor Hobson’s final English draft of the Treaty into the Maori language, they use the term, “tangata Maori” to define the people that sign the Tiriti o Waitangi. Both Rev Henry Williams and his son must have known after living in New Zealand for 23 years, that Maori were not the indigenous or tangata whenua. All500 plus chiefs that signed the Tiriti o Waitangi as tangata Maori as they knew they were not tangata whenua! This is only a modern concept by part-Maori to claim Customary Rights!
  1. In the,”1986 New Zealand Year Book” on page 18, Professor Ranginui Walker, past head of Maori Studies at Auckland University had this to say about the canoe people that arrived in the 14 century, “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).  While Professor Walker make a clear distinction between the canoe people of the 14 century and the tanagat whenua, he makes no mention of who the tangata whenua were for the simple reason, we are not allowed to know!
  2. After the Minister of Maori Affairs, the Hon Pita Sharples had signed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People on behalf of the people of New Zealand, the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. wrote under the Official Information Act to the following Ministers asking them for the official document defining, “Who are the indigenous people of New Zealand.

 

  1. I have attached the replies from the Prime Minister, Hon John Key; the Attorney General, Hon Christopher Finlayson; the Minister of Maori Affairs, Hon Pita Sharples; the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Hon Murray McCully and a letter from the Attorney General in response to our OIA request to the Minister of Justice, Hon Simon Power.

 

  1. When the Hon Pita Sharples signed the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People in New York, he stated to the United Nations, “Maori hold a distinct and special status as the indigenous people, or tangata whenua, of New Zealand”, but when asked, he could not supply a definition of who these people where.

 

  1. We are extremely concerned that the Ministry of Justice has taken for granted that Maori are the Indigenous People of New Zealand or the tangata whenua when all the evidence we have on file, including the Tiriti o Waitangi and the attached Minister’s letters say the Government does not have a definition of the Indigenous People of New Zealand or tangata whenua.

 

If Maori were the Indigenous People of New Zealand, which there is no evidence to prove they were, how can they honestly claim to be today when they have continued to intermarry with other race of their own free will until most now only have a minute trace of Maori ancestry and no longer live by their Maori culture?

 

Before the Customary Rights debate proceeds, the people of New Zealand must have an “official” definition of the Indigenous People of New Zealand, supported up with forensic evidence.

 

Compiled by Ross Baker, One New Zealand Foundation Inc. www.onenzfoundation.co.nz (12/8/2015)

onenz 2

onenz 3 onenz 4 onenz 6 onenz 5

 

NEW ZEALAND’S FIRST POLITICAL PRISONER

Why Allan Titford was jailed for twenty four years without a fair trial

NEW ZEALAND’S FIRST POLITICAL PRISONER

Why Allan Titford was jailed for twenty four years without a fair trial

 

ONE NEW ZEALAND FOUNDATION INC.

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

 

Detective Senior Sergeant Rhys Johnston,

Kerikeri Police Station,

Kerikeri.

 

 

Dear Rhys,

 

Open letter.

 

Re: Why Allan Titford was jailed for 24 years without a fair trial.

 

Allan Titford was a completely innocent man when he had an “alleged” Treaty of Waitangi claim place on his freehold titled farm at Maunganui Bluff by Te Roroa in 1987. This claim had previously been fully investigated by Chief Judge Shepherd in 1939 and it was found there was no evidence to support the claim and it was rejected by Parliament in 1942. No new evidence was presented to the Waitangi Tribunal but they recommended in 1992 this land be returned to Te Roroa, “At whatever the cost”!

 

Since this claim was placed on his farm, the Police, the Crown, the Rural Bank and the claimants colluded to harass, intimidate and threaten Allan and Susan Titford and baby Alyssa until they had to flee to Tasmania for safety. Under duress, without legal advice and corrupt documents drafted and executed by the Crown Law Office he was forced to sell his farm to the Crown in 1995 to help settle Te Roroa’s “alleged” Treaty of Waitangi claim or declare bankrupt with his father losing his farm as it was held as collateral by the Rural Bank. We also have a statement from Allan’s father where the Crown had offered Allan’s father and brother half a million dollars to declare Allan insane and become Power of Attorney to sell Allan’s farm. They both refused.

 

For 25 years, Allan, Susan, the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. and many others have continued to research this claim and the corrupt methods used by the Crown to acquire his free hold titled farm at well below it true value until Susan had had enough, the stress became too much and she and the children decided to leave Allan in 2009 hoping to stay on the farm and take control of his Trust if he was jailed.

 

In July 2009 Susan submitted a list “Strictly Confidential” to Barrister Greg Denholm alleging Allan had abused her and the children. Greg Denholm said that from this list Allan would possibly get 6 month’s jail. While she alleges Allan abused her and the children, she blamed this abuse on the Crown and Police for their continued harassment putting Allan under extreme stress and in ill health.

 

Once the Crown found Susan was having matrimonial problems in 2009 they became involved giving her immunity and “Took over changing charges, throwing some out, adding new ones or whatever they think right”, which included rape, arson and sabotaging farm machinery to testify against her estranged husband to clear the Crown of any wrong doing when it “stole” his farm at Maunganui Bluff. These new charges made no mention of the blame Susan had placed on the Crown and the Police in her original list of charges. Susan stating in an email, “And when they get him they are going to get him for as much as they can”!

 

Allan was then charged and acquitted on false charges over the next two years as he was at Maunganui Bluff, his bail conditions stopping him from travelling north of Hamilton to farm his properties in Northland. This resulted in his properties being vandalised, equipment and stock stolen and the value reduced considerably. The Crown were once again stressing him out and trying to bankrupt him but he remained in control, only breaking his bail to help find his children when they ran away from Susan’ care.

 

While the Crown were putting together alleged charges of abusing his children, raping his wife and arson etc. against Allan, Susan was allowing her 14 year old daughter Ulanda to sleep in the same room as her 23 year old boyfriend for nine months before she ran away from home with him. When the Police found her they decided with CYFS to let her stay with the 23 year old boyfriend at his mother’s house and she became pregnant. While this was a crime under Section 134 of the Crimes Act, the Police closed a blind eye. Could this be because the Police would look stupid if they laid charges against their main witnesses while they were putting together alleged charges of rape and child abuse against Allan? This sexual violation of a minor far outweighed any of the alleged charges against Allan Titford, so why was it overlooked Rhys? Ulanda has since laid a complaint against the Police for failing to following up on a Protection Order she had against her boyfriend!

 

At Allan Titford’s trial starting on the 2 September 2013 two fundamental principles of our legal system were breached.

 

  1. The criminal justice system must be, and must be seen to be, free from political interference.
  2. One of the most crucial aspects of a fair legal trial is the right to call witnesses on both sides.

 

From the research Allan, Susan, the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. and many others have undertaken over the 25 years since Te Roroa’s “alleged” Treaty of Waitangi claim was placed on his property at Maunganui Bluff, we can only find Allan Titford standing up for his rights under the laws of New Zealand. The Crown and the Police failed to protect his free hold titled farm, instead using corrupt documents to forcibly take it under duress and without legal advice at well below its true value to help settle Te Roroa’s “alleged” Treaty of Waitangi claim.

 

Rhys, the disgraceful acts by the Crown and the Police to acquire Allan Titford’s property would be the worst corruption ever seen in New Zealand’s history. The Crown and the Police failed to protect an innocent young family and their free hold titled farm, then continued to harass them for another 20 years until they destroyed the family and jailed Allan for 24 years to clear the Crown and Police of any wrong doing.

The Crown and the Police have given the media false information on many occasions to discredit Allan Titford, especially after his recent “kangaroo court trial” but the documents from those involved at the time will never let the truth go away and the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. certainly will not until he gets a fair trial without political interference and he is allowed witnesses in his defence.

 

The only evidence that Allan Titford had abused his family came from his estranged wife and brother hoping to get control of his Trust and her children that were forced, “to write stuff about their father they did not understand”, therefore until he has a fair trial without political interference and he is allowed witnesses in his defence, we will never know the truth.

 

When Susan’s sister-in-law and friend Sheryll Titford found out Allan had been charged for burning down the family home, she phoned Detective Eddie Evans and gave a statement that when she had gone to pay her respects to Susan after her father died, Susan and Alyssa told her Susan’s father Graham Cochrane had burnt the house down to get Susan and his granddaughter Alyssa away from the hostilities at Maunganui Bluff. Detective Evans immediately rang Susan to confirm this and when she denied ever saying it, he failed to follow it up or inform Allan’s lawyer. Rhys, how many other people could have cleared Allan of any wrong doing if he had been allowed witnesses at his trial?

 

Rhys, please send this letter to your superiors because no family should go through what the Government and Police put Mr and Mrs Titford and their young family through. A young innocent family destroyed by a Government more interested in settling an “alleged” Treaty of Waitangi claim than protecting its citizens. A Government that was prepared to harass the Titford’s until they forced Allan to sell his freehold titled farm at Maunganui Bluff at well below valuation, under duress, without legal advice and corrupt documents drafted and executed by the Crown Law Office, then continued to harass them, finally jailing Allan for 24 years to clear the Crown of any wrong doing. We believe the public of New Zealand has a right to know, Why Allan Titford was jailed for 24 years without a fair trial!

 

While we have already sent you many of the documents to support this letter, please do not hesitate to ask for further copies if required.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ross Baker.

 

Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

  1. To all the people of New Zealand interested in the truth!

 

P.S. The One New Zealand Foundation Inc. has produced two books, “Stolen lands at Maunganui Bluff” and “Why Allan Titford was jailed for twenty four years”. Both books can be  purchased from the ONZF, P.O.Box 7113, Pioneer Hwy, Palmerston North. $10-00 ea. including p&p.

HOW CAN YOU HELP?

You can help restore our justice system by writing an Official Information Act Request to your Member of Parliament or the Minister of Justice,

Below is a sample letter and remember, you do not have to put a stamp on letters to Members of Parliament or Ministers.

 

The Hon. ???????

Minister of ????????

Parliament Building,

Wellington.

Dear Sir,

Re: Official Information Act Request.

I have just read the attached “open” letter to Detective Senior Sergeant Rhys Johnston from Ross Baker, Researcher of the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. I have followed Mr Baker’s research for many years and have found he is very thorough and always supplies documented evidence to support his research.

Under the Official Information Act,

If Mr Baker’s allegations against the government and Police are correct, what action will the government be taking to investigate these very serious allegations supported with documents from those involved at the time?

Yours sincerely,

????????????

 

Published Articles