Get Adobe Flash player
image_pdfimage_print

admin

Update on Allan Titford.

Allan Titford remains a model prisoner while held at the South Auckland Corrections Centre since 2013, even although the Ombudsman, the courts and his Case Manager has accused him of sexually assaulting his children to stop visiting rights to his young son Leo.

Allan Titford was not charged or convicted of sexually assaulting his children, one of the worst crimes a man can commit, but the Ombudsman, the courts and his case manager continue to say he sexually assaulted his children! This is a lie!

Allan TitfordMr Titford’s Case Manager, Erica Hiyama in her report dated the 8 August 2015 stated, “Allan currently is serving 24 year sentence for multiple charges of violent and sexual offences against his ex-wife and children”.  Ms Hiyama, Mr Titford was not convicted of sexually assaulting his children!

This shows how little research Ms Hiyama put into Mr Titford’s report. A serious mistake that stopped Mr Titford’s young son Leo from visiting his father and a mistake that has put Mr Titford in great danger while in prison.

In a letter to the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. dated the 16 November 2015,Chief Ombudsman, Dame Beverley Wakem stated, “In November 2013 Mr Titford was convicted of a number of offences including fraud, perjury, arson, assault of family members and sexual offences towards his wife and children”.  Ms Wakem, Mr Titford was not convicted of sexually assaulting his children and puts him in great danger while in prison! Chief Ombudsman, Dame Beverley Wakem resigned from the Ombudsman’s Office soon after making this very serious mistake. This was not the first time Chief Ombudsman, Dame Beverley Wakem has made errors when dealing with Mr Titford and his land confiscation at Maunganui Bluff..

On page 1, (2) of the Department of Corrections Panel Consideration dated the 13 March 2017, it states, “Given the extensive and prolonged nature of Mr Titford’s violent offending, a full psychological risk assessment needs to be undertaken to assess the dynamic risk factors underlying the reactive sexual and general violence that Mr Titford was convicted of. This leaves the inability to prove a clear risk analysis”. Mr Titford was not convicted of sexually assaulting his children and puts him in great danger while in prison as well stopping visiting rights to his son Leo!

The Appeal Judge, Justice Rhys Harrison also stated Mr Titford was convicted of sexually assaulting his children when summing up at Mr Titford’s Appeal on the 14 July 2017. Judge Rhys Harrison, Mr Titford was not convicted of sexually assaulting his children and puts him in great danger while in prison! Why was this not challenged by Mr Titford’s Barrister, Ron Mansfield at the time?

It is surprising Barrister Ron Mansfield, who represented Mr Titford at his Appeal base the Appeal on Mr Titford being unfit to stand trial. Why would he decide to fight Mr Titford’s convictions on these grounds when Mr Titford was not allowed one witness in his defence? Did he want Mr Titford’s Appeal to fail?

One of the most crucial aspects of a fair legal trial is the right to call witnesses on both sides; Mr Titford was never given this opportunity at his trial.

I agree Mr Titford should not have visiting right to his son Leo if he had been convicted of sexually assaulting his children, but no mention of sexually assaulting his children was made by anyone at any time before, during or after the trial, therefore no charges were laid.

Mr Titford is completely innocent of sexually assaulting his children but the Ombudsman, the courts and his Case Manager are determined to say Mr Titford sexually assaulted his children resulting in him being refused visiting rights to his young son Leo and a great danger to him while in prison.

Leo was only five years old when the decision was made to refuse him visiting rights to see his father, he is now 8 and still he is being refused. These are the most formative years of any young boy and for the Ombudsman, the courts and Mr Titford’s Case Manager to deny him visiting rights based on false information is extremely unfair to both father and son.

During his trial, Mr Titford was refuse witnesses in his defence. All the evidence by his wife and children had little, if any cross examination by his lawyer Mr John Moroney and no documented evidence was supplied to support their claims.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence”. Mr Titford was refused witnesses in his defence at his trial.

Allan Titford was not found guilty, he had a guilty verdict handed down by Judge Duncan Harvey who had only heard the Crown’s witnesses before jailing him for 24 years!

On the 2 February 2011 Mr Titford’s daughter Ulanda wrote, “And all the stuff we had to write and say about dad. I did not understand any of it. I tried to ask but was told just to do it. No one would explain nothing to me”. It was stated at the trial that their mother, Susan Titford had promised the children $5000 each if they would testify against their father.

There is no doubt, Allan Titford is a marked man because he stood up for his rights when his freehold titled farm was taken for Te Roroa’s false land claim at Maunganui Bluff in 1995. After a full judicial inquiry by Chief Judge Shepherd in 1939 it was found Te Roroa had no claim to this land and it was rejected by Parliament in 1942, but after twisting the truth and omitted the sale documents etc., the Waitangi Tribunal found in the claimants favour.

While Mr Titford continues to fight for his rights and the rights of every New Zealander who owns free hold titled property, the Government and its departments are hell bent on making Mr Titford’s and his son’s life as miserable as possible.

Under International Law, Mr Titford is innocent until proven guilty, therefore he deserved a new trial where he is allowed witnesses in his defence and the right through his lawyer to cross examine his wife and children!

Ross Baker, Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc. 8/3/2018. (Copyright)

Hot off the Press

Chief Justice Prendergast Ruled the Treaty of Waitangi, “A Simple Nullity”!

The One New Zealand Foundation Inc. has just written and published one of the most controversial books ever written on New Zealand’s history. It tells how,

  1. Britain became involved in New Zealand because of Ngapuhi’s cowardly atrocities forced on their unarmed country men, women and children from the 1820s until Britain put an end to the fighting and cannibalism and brought peace between the tribes of New Zealand. Without British intervention, tangata Maori would be long gone!
  2. The Treaty of Waitangi was ruled a “simple nullity” in 1877. Great Britain had already gained sovereignty over all the islands of New Zealand by the Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 25 August 1839 under the “Law of Nations”, long before the first signature appeared on the Treaty of Waitangi.
  3. The 1839 Royal Charter/Letters Patent placed New Zealand under the laws and dependency of New South Wales from the 30 January 1840 until the 3 May 1841.
  4. The Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840 separated New Zealand from New South Wales on the 3 May 1841 and made New Zealand into an Independent British Colony. New Zealand’s true Founding Document and first Constitution that: “Shaped New Zealand’s political, legal and justice systems”.
  5. The two Royal Charters/Letters Patents were issued by, “Victoria by the Grace of God” under “The Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”, the Treaty of Waitangi was not!
  6. Attorney General, Hon Geoffrey Palmer admitted he made mistakes with his apartheid Treaty of Waitangi reforms in the 1980s; based on his studies into American Civil Rights while at the University of Chicago which had no relationship to New Zealand
  7. Our Minister’s for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations continued to allow many of the claims that had already had “full and final” settlements in the 1930s/40s to be re-heard based on false, fabricated or omitted history costing the taxpayers of New Zealand $3.5 billion to date – 2017. Sir Douglas Graham’s ridiculous relativity clause for Tainui and Ngai Tahu, an ongoing burden on the people New Zealand.
  8. Our two Founding Documents, the 1839 and 1840 Royal Charters/Letters Patent have been removed from the Constitution Room at Archives New Zealand and concealed in Archives Repository where they will be forgotten and lost forever amongst the other 6 million documets and must be ordered by future researchers, that is, if they know the exist. These documents belong to all the people of New Zealand and must be displayed at He Tohu as our true Founding Documents and first Constitution.
  9. It shows how PC (Politically Corrupt) Governments have become since the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act.

All the above concealed from the people of New Zealand by our Governments!

A must read if you want to know the true history of New Zealand and not the history that the people of New Zealand have been brainwashed into believing by our Governments since the “apartheid” 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act that resulted in the “corrupt” Waitangi Tribunal and the “unconstitutional” Five Principles and Partnership between Maori and the Crown. The 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act and its 1985 Amendment were the most corrupt, unconstitutional and apartheid Acts of Parliament ever forced on the people of New Zealand.

Wake up New Zealand, our Governments have been dishonest! 

The lies and false information must stop now, we have a right to know the truth!

Purchase your copy for only $10-00 P & P from the One New Zealand Foundation Inc., P O Box 7113, Palmerston North, New Zealand. Email: ONZF@bigpond.com.au.

Donations gratefully accepted to help distribute the truth.

Some Tips about Te Reo

“Words, words, words”

 – Shakespeare, “Hamlet”, Act 2, Scene 2          

            

While the meaningful glance certainly has its place, for the much greater part of our communication, we use words, spoken and, until modern times much less often, written – in a word: “language”.

 

A communicating group from a tribe to an empire will develop a language understood by all, which will change slowly over the years as the needs for expression and habits of speech change within the group. As one group becomes dominant over others, so will its language.

 

Thus Latin, the language of Rome, came to be spoken over an area from the borders of Scotland to the deserts of the Dead Sea, facilitated by the great system of roads built by the Romans to control their empire.

 

But let the empire break down, communication cease, and the processes of change within a language do their work. Within a few centuries, Latin in the speech of ordinary people had split up into perhaps two dozen distinct languages with varying degrees of intelligibility between them. In France alone at the time of Napoleon, about seven distinct Romanesque languages with numerous dialects were spoken, not counting the Celtic tongue of Brittany. Of these perhaps Occitan and that of the Languedoc, of the ‘oc’ not ‘oui’ for ‘yes’, were the most distinctive, with Catalan over the Pyrenees intermediate between it and imperial Spanish.

 

It was only the establishment of strong central government, of modern communications and the restored Académie Française which created standard modern French based on that of Paris while similar processes in Italy led to the Florentine language becoming the basis of modern Italian.

 

One dramatic example is Melanesia whose people over more than ten thousand years spread over New Guinea and more than 2000 islands to its east, the latest probably Fiji about three thousand years ago. The mountains and jungles of New Guinea, the seas between the islands and the universal practice of cannibalism served to split the people into many isolated groups and language followed its inevitable course.

 

By the time Europeans arrived there were reckoned to be 600 languages in New Guinea, more than a hundred in Vanuatu and seventy-odd in the Solomon islands, mostly mutually unintelligible.

 

The spread of people into Polynesia began somewhat later and the divergence of language consequently has been less though a glance at the instructions in Tongan, Samoan, New Zealand and Cook Islands Maori, Tokelauan and Niuean in “how to vote” pamphlets issued at our elections shows that the differences are quite considerable.

 

Because the best current evidence[i] indicates that our Polynesian immigrants came from the Cook Islands area about seven hundred years ago, that is where the divergence appears to be least. “Ikoraki”, the name of a prominent Rarotongan peak and “Hikurangi” that of an East Coast mountain, show a typical change in the language of New Zealand Maoris.

 

And so, how did things develop in New Zealand? The rugged topography and heavy native bush of New Zealand meant that the settlements of at most somewhat over 120,000[ii] in pre-European times were often widely separated. Given the tribal organization, endemic warfare and cannibalism between the tribes, normal social contact between them will have been even less than geographic barriers dictated though news was said to travel fast. The conditions were tailor-made for language divergence.

 

So what actually happened? In pre-European times language was solely oral and there is simply no way of knowing how it actually sounded. Interested Europeans recorded in writing the speech they heard and it would be a weak argument today to claim that they were wrong. One of the very first was Georg Forster, naturalist on Cook’s first voyage. In the brief encounter with the Katimamoe remnant of Dusky Sound before they were, all but one young woman, killed and eaten by a Kai Tahu war party, Forster recorded a couple of dozen of their words, mostly names for birds.[iii] However, even though something of the language of Queen Charlotte Sound was understood by Cook and others in “Endeavour” more adept at language who had spent some time in Tahiti, that of Dusky Sound was virtually unintelligible to them.

 

Even in less isolated areas of Southland, Europeans who understood northern dialects well enough could not understand the language of resident Kai Tahu.[iv]

 

Now first, be it noted, the sounds in any two languages are never quite the same. Hence we detect a “foreign accent” in the English of a non-native speaker and even within countries. A Yorkshireman, a Scot and a Northern Irishman speaking English sound recognizably different from a BBC announcer. Having grown up in Bluff, I have been identified by my speech as a Southlander.

 

Second, we should note that in New Zealand, missionaries and others writing down what they heard could differ amongst themselves when they heard different speakers and depending on their own language experience. There was no “correct” spelling. Thus when JL Nicholas in 1817 wrote “rungateeda” and missionaries chose “rangatira” one would have been as good as the other.

 

Quite a number of the early missionaries were from the English social class which dropped its “h’s” thus Maoris learning English would naturally imitate them. Hone (or John) Heke was said to be one of them.

 

Third, be it noted, written Maori was a construct of Europeans, not Maoris. So no Maori either then or today has any better authority to proclaim the spelling of any Maori word than anybody else.

 

By the year 1840, northern missionaries had developed a reasonably consistent spelling of the speech of northern Maoris amongst whom they worked.[v] When the highly experienced and competent Henry and Edward Williams[vi] translated Hobson’s final English draft of 4th February that was the spelling they used. It is instructive to look at their text of the actual treaty document which, it appears, remarkably few people who claim to be experts actually do.

 

They even went as far as to transliterate Hobson’s name and rank as “Wiremu Hopihana he Kapitana i te Roiara Nawi” – overdoing it indeed in my view! Their word for “land” which appears several times is “wenua”; not a “whenua” nor a “wh” anywhere in sight![vii]

 

Even more instructive is their transliteration of “February” to “Pepueri”, the month when the treaty was signed and dated of course.

 

Now why should this be?   There is no sensible reason why the Williams should have avoided using an “f” in their text, nor “wh” for any sound approximating that in English “when” and “why” in Ngapuhi speech. The reason must be simply that they did not exist.

 

An “f” does exist in some island languages. Fanaofo is one of the Tokelau Islands. “Fale” or “fare” is the word for a house, rendered “whare” in Maori but sounded as “warre” in the Wanganui heartlands. While “f” may have persisted in some Maori dialects, it was clearly dropping out of use. One reason, as Jean Jackson pointed out,[viii] was that women with tattooed lips could not pronounce it.

 

So “wh”? Well, maybe. In the Taranaki dialect, a “w” could be followed by a glottal stop as in some island languages,[ix] rendered in writing with an apostrophe (e.g. Ma’a Nonu), so the name of the cult boss of Parihaka would be rendered best by “Te W’iti”. Meka Whaitiri is an MP; Jimmy Waitiri was my Bluff classmate. Is one right – the other wrong?

 

As for the Wellington locality: not “Kaiwharawhara” but “Kai-wara-wara, Kaiwara, and Kaiwarra (the most used) all appear in the records.”[x] It was “Wakatu” not “Whakatu” for Nelson[xi], “Wangaree” for “Whangarei” and “Wangaroa” to Hone Heke in a letter to Henry Williams, on 1st December 1847 – the list goes on and on.

 

But a “wh” pronounced “f” as observed so conscientiously by most radio and television announcers today? It becomes increasingly obvious that this is nothing but a latter-day invention of pseudo-scholars.

 

Nothing has stopped the Geographic Board scattering “wh” in all sorts of placenames. Koiterangi, scene of Stanley Graham’s notorious 1941 rampage, they have renamed Kowhitirangi. Rangiaohia, scene of the monstrous lie of an 1864 church-burning, is now Rangiaowhia. Can it be seriously suggested that in writing the names of these places settlers omitted an “f” sound?

 

While there is perhaps a case for standard spelling of the mixture now decreed to be “Te Reo”, there is no valid case for it in placenames but evidently that is paramount in the minds of Geographic Board bureaucrats. In their arrogant decision that Wanganui should become Whanganui, they contemptuously ignored the wishes of 80% of the residents who voted on it that its name should remain unchanged. So it is now “Fonganui” on the airwaves.

 

There are harbours and inlets in the coastline of New Zealand, named simply by Maoris as “long harbour” in the local dialect. Some are Wangaloa, Akaroa, [Little] Akaloa, and Whangaroa, while Lyttelton harbour was Whakaraupo – showing dialectical variants which have not yet fallen victims to Geographic Board diktat. Westhaven Inlet has not been so fortunate, being now decreed to be Whanganui Inlet.

 

So. elsewhere, less interference and more respect for what the settlers actually heard – the dialect of the local Maoris – should, I suggest, override bureaucratic uniformity. While the “ng” sound developed in the north, it only rarely replaced “k” south of the Rakitata River, with weak final syllables often clipped off. The Otago Heads village as I heard it was the “kaik”, not “kainga”; an elderly Karitane woman of Maori descent spoke of “kaio” trees, not “ngaio”.

 

Tree ferns were “bungies”, not “punga”. When we boys carried out mock battles with flax sticks, they were “keladdies” not “korati”, though when I asked a Maori elder at Rapaki in Lyttelton Harbour for his choice he could not understand either!

 

Again, we have more accurately “Wakatip”, not “Wakatipoo” and a dominant peak near Nelson, scene of several murders by the Burgess gang, was “Mokotap” to the locals, brown and white alike, but now decreed to be “Maungatapu”. “Aoraki” mercifully overtook “Aorangi”, being applied in their ignorance by the Geographic Board pundits to Mount Cook but never its Maori name. As A.P. Harper found out and quite specifically reported,[xii] there were no Maori names for the remote peaks where they did not go and “Aoraki” was the name of the fluffy white clouds which frequently cover them.

 

Two more different spoken languages that English and Maori it would be hard to find. English has many more sounds – voiced consonants – “b,d,j,z,zh”; diphthongs – or compound vowels and even triphthongs – “our” as in “flour”. Many words end in consonants and multi-syllable words are accented. Maori has none of these features.[xiii] And so, for people whose first language is English, their pronunciation of Maori words will inevitably depart from any “pure” form. I heard once a Hokitika man with the good Maori name of Maui pronounce it “M-a-u-i” – actually a very pleasant sequence but nothing like most people would say it – another barrier Te Reo has to face. But it works both ways! An elderly Wanganui River women talked to me of “Ranana” – “London” to you and me.

 

The language of a Stone Age people had no words for the many complexities of modern civilization. Indeed this lack was already starkly evident in 1840 when Maoris had no words for “sovereignty” and “possession” – so the missionary-coined words “kawanatanga” and “rangatiratanga” were used in the Treaty of Waitangi – providing endless opportunities for people with devious intentions to twist it. With no word for “library” in a culture which had no books, Christchurch City Council, obliged to put “Maori” labels on everything, chose “kete wananga”, derived, I suppose, from “wisdom basket” – cute, eh? Other libraries – other words.

 

Transliteration is another technique – “tiriti” for a start. With all public buildings required to have “Maori” titles we find artificialities like “kaporeihana”, “kanihera” and “pirihimana”. The nearby supermarket is decorated with signs saying things like “pikitete”, “waina” and “kawhe”[xiv] Accepting, as is decreed, that “wh” must be pronounced “f”, as an exercise try working out what these words are supposed to mean. Does anybody seriously believe that they will be used in normal conversation? Some recent enthusiasts are reported to have added many thousands of words to the Maori vocabulary, presumably using this process – surely an exercise in futility?

 

One Apanui Ngahiwi of the Maori Language Commission wrote: “In fact, it is a taonga protected by article two of the Treaty of Waitangi because that is exactly what the Maori Language Act 2016 (section 8 (g)) says it is. The act creates a partnership between Maori and the Crown for the revitalisation of te reo Maori. It recognises te reo Maori as the foundation of Maori culture and identity and that the lives of iwi and Maori are enhanced by knowledge and use of the language.”[xv]

 

Now, there is no such thing in the Treaty as a “partnership” while in 1840, “taonga” meant simply material property. That Maori speech needs such gross distortions of the truth shows what dire straits it is in.

 

We should be wise enough to learn from the experience of others – the Irish for example. Following independence from Britain, the Irish Government made strenuous efforts with considerable expense to extend the use of Gaelic and it became compulsory in schools but almost nobody uses it and the Gaeltacht, the supposedly Gaelic-speaking region, is shrinking fast. In 1953 I heard people freely speaking Scots Gaelic in Ullapool but in four visits to Ireland, I heard it spoken only once – by schoolgirls rehearsing their homework. Even in the remote Aran Islands, supposedly a Gaelic stronghold, its use is declining. With the young listening to English-speaking radio and TV stations, that becomes their preferred language.

 

We may feel some sadness at the decline of the historic Gaelic language but the hard fact is that the prime purpose of language is communication and people will inevitably use the most useful language for it. We may feel the same about that increasingly artificial language Te Reo, but Gaelic and Te Reo will inevitably become ornamental languages like Latin – OK for a few school mottoes and the like and little else.

 

English is the international language.[xvi] I have taught English to Tibetans, Poles, Czechs and Ni-Vanuatu – all eager to learn it. As I write (17th March 2017), a granddaughter of mine is en route to Colombia to teach English at a Spanish-speaking school.[xvii] North of the Arctic Circle, Norwegian schoolboys come to meet the coastal steamers to practice their English on the tourists aboard.[xviii] Tune in to BBC TV or Aljazeera and you will find people speaking in English – a Mexican, a Pole and a Gambian in one bulletin I noted. The coat of arms of Uganda bears the words “For God and my Country”.[xix] From India to Namibia it is understood almost everywhere and the Chinese, no fools, are becoming very proficient in it. We can be thankful that English is the normal native tongue of the New Zealand-born. Parents who “immerse” their children in Te Reo instead play a cruel trick on them to advance their own agenda. Excellence in English should be a prime objective of our schools and that is the place to spend taxpayers’ money.

 

Bruce Moon

 

Nelson

 

17th March 2017

 

(With minor additions, 20/21 January 2018)

[i]     While there is compelling evidence of earlier settlers in New Zealand, their origin is a matter of debate and their language submerged and forgotten in pre-European times.

[ii]    For a careful estimate of 127,000, see John Robinson, “When two cultures meet”, Tross, 2012, ISBN 1 872970 31 1

[iii]   Forster’s list and much other fascinating detail is given in “Dusky Bay”, A. Charles Begg and Neil C. Begg, Whitcombe and Tombs, 1966

[iv]   Maoris from south of the Waitaki River were generally emphatic in their preference for “Kai Tahu” over ”Ngai Tahu”, the more common form in the north. Note too that “Waitangi” is the northern form of “Waitaki”.

[v]    Missionary Wohlers on Ruapuke Island in Foveaux Strait chose to use the northern written forms of Maori words even though they did not represent accurately the southern speech. Scots’ choice of standard written English even though their own speech was decidedly different is an exact parallel. Earlier, Scots spelling had been highly variant as shown vividly by the 1888 diary of a Scots kinsman of mine.

[vi]   Edward being considered “facile princeps” or “easily best” by Hugh Carleton, Henry’s biographer

[vii]  We may compare “tangata whenua” with Moriori “tchakat henu”

[viii] In a telephone conversation with me

[ix]   “Taranaki War 1860-2012 Our Legacy – Our Challenge”, an exhibition in the Nelson Provincial Museum in 2012-3. (Note the date ‘2012’! What was the Taranaki Provincial Museum which constructed the exhibition alleging with that? One Kelvin Day who was responsible wrote to me on 20th December 2012 saying: “there is no such thing as one true history”. Well, well. Isn’t “true history” is an account of what actually happened!)

[x]    Ian Wards, “The Shadow of the Land”, Department of Internal Affairs, 1968, p. 218 f/n

[xi]   ibid., p.219

[xii]  A.P. Harper, “Pioneer Work in the Alps of New Zealand”, 1896, pp 10ff.

[xiii] A former member of the Maori Battalion with whom I worked on a construction site in 1951 told me that it was easy learning some Italian. The structure of Italian and Maori has similarities.

[xiv] A few of the examples around Nelson

[xv]  Ngahiwi Apanui, Letter, “Dominion Post”, 18th February 2017

[xvi] Many Maoris of the colonial period thus saw the importance of their children becoming fluent in English. See for example the 1876 petition of Wi Te Hakiro and 336 others that “[T]here should not be a word of Maori allowed to be spoken in the [native] school”. Much is made by some today of the corporal punishment of children caught speaking Maori, ignoring the fact that in those unenlightened days it was applied for all breaches of school rules.

[xvii]       With a B.Sc. in mathematics from Melbourne and six months as a school exchange student in Madrid, she is a bright young woman though I do wonder how well her Castilian Spanish will go down in darkest South America. As she lands there in Cartagena, where in 1585 Thomas Moone, Drake’s favourite captain and a remote relation, received a mortal wound, I have warned her to be careful!

[xviii]      Myself amongst them

[xix] The country in which, incidentally, my Father’s brother lies buried.

GOVERMNENT HAS NO RIGHT TO HIDE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DOCUMENTS!

The Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Waitangi had very little, if anything to do with shaping New Zealand. The Declaration being a failed attempt by James Busby to have tangata maori sovereignty recognised over New Zealand and tangata maori to set up their own government but as only 52 chiefs supported this, it was abandoned without one meeting taking place. The Treaty was to satisfy the Clapton Sect by Britain giving tangata maori, “The same rights as the people of England”. In 1877 Chief Justice James Prendergast declared, the Treaty of Waitangi was “a simple nullity“. 

The two documents issued under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland that shaped and made New Zealand into a British Colony were the Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 30 July 1839, which extended the boundaries of New South Wales to include all the islands of New Zealand, and, The Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840 that separated New Zealand from New South Wales and made New Zealand into a British Colony on the 3 May 1841 with its own Governor and Constitution that set up our political, legal and justice systems under one flag and one law, irrespective of race colour or creed.

The Treaty of Waitangi is not mentioned in either of these Royal Charters as it was to satisfy the Clapham Sect by giving tangata maori, “The same rights as the people of England”. The Treaty of Waitangi was drafted in 1838 by Sir James Stephens, the Under Secretary for Colonies and a strong supporter of the Clapham Sect that was set up to, “Protect the natives in countries Britain was colonising”, but legally, “a simple nullity”. See “The Clapham Sect and the Treaty” www.onenzfoundation.co.nz.

The Treaty of Waitangi was never intended to be part of our Constitution, but government, with the help of Sir Geoffrey Palmer, the man who instigated the disastrous “Five Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi” and “Section 9 of the State Owed Enterprise Bill” are writing a new Constitution based on the Treaty of Waitangi. To do so, the Government has dismantled the Constitution Room at Archive New Zealand that held our true Constitutional documents and placed them amongst the 6 million other documents in Archives Repository where they will be forgotten and lost forever. In fact, future researchers will have to order these documents, that is, if they actually know they exist.

one nz foundationTo give the Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Waitangi credibility as Constitutional documents, the government moved them in darkness to the new $7.2 million “He Tohu Exhibit” at the National Library, Wellington calling them, “Iconic constitutional documents that shaped Aotearoa New Zealand”. While Cabinet Minute CAB Min (12) 14/11 dated the 30 April 2012 agreed to move the Constitution Room to the National Library, Wellington, there was no mention that our true Constitutional documents would be hidden by government in the Repository at Archives New Zealand amongst the other 6 million documents where they must be ordered by future researchers if the actually know they exist .

To hide our countries true Constitutional documents is corrupt, no government has the right to touch Constitutional documents! Our true Constitutional documents must be placed in the “He Tohu Exhibit” at the National Library immediately for all to see and those responsible, charged with tampering with our Constitution”.

Prepared by the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. 24/8/2017. Copyright.

For further information: www.onenzfoundations.co.nz or ONZF@bigpond.com.au.

Corrupt Government Destroys New Zealand!

How New Zealand’s history has been stolen from right under our noses!

On the 17 April 2017 the National Government dismantled the Constitution Room at Archives New Zealand and separated our true Constitutional Documents from the Declaration of Independence, the Treaty of Waitangi and the Women’s Suffrage Petition.

The Declaration, Treaty and Women’s Suffrage Petition being place in the $7.2 million He Tohu exhibit at the National Library, Wellington, while the Royal Charters and Proclamations that made New Zealand into a British Colony under one flag and one law being placed in Archives New Zealand’s Repository where they will be forgotten and lost forever amongst the other 6 million documents. These Constitutional Documents must now be ordered to research them if future researchers know they exist.

This corrupt act is to allow the National Government to write a new Constitution based on the Treaty of Waitangi that played absolutely no part in shaping New Zealand or New Zealand becoming a British Colony with a political, legal or justice systems under one flag and one law, irrespective of race, colour or creed.

Below are the Eight Steps that Made New Zealand into a British Colony.

 

  • Ngapuhi’s atrocities that started in 1820 led to Ngapuhi writing to King George IV in 1831 asking him to be their guardian and protector, stating, “We are a people without possessions”. Ngapuhi realised that once the southern tribes gained muskets, the wars for utu, revenge would completely annihilate the tangata maori race.
  • In 1833 Britain sent James Busby to try and bring peace between the people of New Zealand.
  • James Busby’s 1835 Declaration of Independence could only attracted 52 chiefs to sign it before it was abandoned without one meeting taking place. Tangata maori were not interested in sovereignty or setting up their own united government.
  • The 1839 Charter/Letters Patent dated the 15 June 1839 extended the boundaries of New South Wales to include all the islands of New Zealand. The two Proclamation were read by Lt. Governor Hobson at Waitangi on the 30 January 1840.
  • The Treaty of Waitangi, signed in 1840 was to satisfy the Clapham Sect “to protect the natives”. The Charter/Letters Patent of 1839 had already extended the boundaries of New South Wales to include all the islands of New Zealand under the “Law of Nations”.
  • The Treaty of Waitangi was signed by over 540 tangata maori chiefs who gave up their territories to Britain and in return became British Subjects, “With the same rights as the people of England”. Tangata maori wanted British sovereignty over New Zealand.
  • Governor Hobson declared sovereignty over “all the islands of New Zealand” on the 21 May 1840 by Treaty in the North Island and by Discovery in the South Island. Sovereignty over all the islands of New Zealand was gazetted in the London Gazette on the 2 October 1840.
  • Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840 separated New Zealand from New South Wales on the 3 May 1841 and made New Zealand into a British Colony with its own Governor and Constitution to 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. Our true “Founding Document” and first “Constitution” and the day we must all celebrate as, “Our Independence Day”.

The One New Zealand Foundation Inc. has located the Constitutional Documents that made New Zealand into a British Colony under one flag and one law, irrespective of race, colour or creed. The latest posts on our website, www.onenzfoundation.co.nz  fully explains the above with documented evidence.

The Treaty of Waitangi was signed at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840 with a handshake and the words, “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people” with Lt. Governor Hobson stating to those gathering further signatures, “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”.  No English version was authorised by Lt. Governor Hobson or signed at Waitangi on the 6 February 1840.

While the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. has located all the documents to prove the above but we cannot force government or the people of New Zealand to take note or act on this information. We have done our best and can only hope that one day it will be used to make our country into how our ancestors hoped it would be with blood, sweat and tears, but with a new Constitution in the pipeline based on the Treaty of Waitangi, it may already be too late.

The Charters of 1839 and 1840 that made New Zealand into a British Colony

Below left is the ‘Charter/Letters Patent’ of 1839 that extending the boundaries of New South Wales to include all the islands of New Zealand and appointing William Hobson as Lieutenant Governor of New Zealand. Sir George Gipps, Governor of New South Wales was in fact, New Zealand’s the first Governor until Lt Governor Hobson became Governor of the Colony of New Zealand on the 3 May 1841.

Queen victoria

Above right is Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840 that made New Zealand into a British Colony on the 3 May 1841 with its own Governor and Constitution that set up our political, legal and justice systems under one flag and one law irrespective of race, colour or creed. Our true Founding Document and first Constitution.

Prepared by the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. (C).  18/8/2017.

For further information; www.one.nzfoundation.co.nz  or ONZF@bigpond.com.au

Because of Ngapuhi’s Atrocities, New Zealand Became a British Colony!

While Ngapuhi are stating they did not give up their sovereignty in 1840, they initiated Britain becoming involve in New Zealand when their 13 chiefs wrote to King George IV asking him to be their guardian and protector. When James Busby offered tangata maori sovereignty over all the islands of New Zealand in 1835 he could only attract 52 chiefs to sign the Declaration of Independence with over 500 agreeing to British Sovereignty by the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. While the Treaty of Waitangi confirmed British sovereignty over all the islands of New Zealand on the 21 May 1840, it was of little interest to Britain with no mention of the Treaty of Waitangi in the Royal Charters/Letters Patents of 1839 and 1840 or Lt. Governor Hobson’s two Proclamations read at Waitangi on the 30 January 1840. Our true Founding Documents and first Constitution. 

Why have governments and our academics overlooked these vital documents that made New Zealand into a British Colony under one flag and one law on the 3 May 1840 and have now hidden them amongst the 6 million other documents at Archives New Zealand?     

There were many wars between the tangata whenua, the original inhabitants of New Zealand and the tangata maori tribes who arrived in the 14th century and after the tangata whenua were driven into the hills and disappeared, the tangata maori tribes continued to fight for territories but no more so than when Hongi Hika returned from England after helping Dr Samuel Lees with his Maori to English dictionary.  Hongi Hika had an ulterior motive when travelling to England in 1819 with his friend Waikato and that was to purchase as many muskets as possible. While he was in England he informing King George IV he was, “The King of New Zealand” or hoped to be after he returned to New Zealand with hundreds of muskets. See, “The Musket Wars” by R D Crosby.

While Hongi Hika was not allowed to purchase muskets while in England he did a secret deal with Frenchman, Baron Charles de Thierry by trading 40,000 acres of land in Northland for 500 muskets. He then had de Thierry ship these muskets to Australia under de Thierry’s name to be pick up later on his way back to New Zealand in 1820.

 

Mainly on the instructions of his blind wife, Hongi Hika and his Ngapuhi followers went on a very cowardly rampage south slaughtering thousands of unarmed men, women and children just for the fun of it and the feasts that followed. Only moving on to the next village to repeat this cowardly act when the stench of rotting bodies became unbearable. While Hongi Hika was doing this in the North Island, Te Rauparaha was doing the same in the South Island where many of the South Island chiefs that had been defeated travelled to New South Wales to sell their defeated lands. Virtually the whole of the South Island and large areas of the North Island, about 2/3 of New Zealand had been sold before the Treaty of Waitangi  was signed on the 6 February 1840.  At the time the Treaty was signed, tangata maori only “occupied” about 1/3 of New Zealand although most of this land was returned to tangata maori by the government after the Treaty had been signed without compensation to the purchasers.

 

By 1831 the Southern tribes were arming themselves for utu/revenge against Hongi Hika’s cowardly attacks before they had muskets. With Ngapuhi fearing these attacks, 13 Ngapuhi chiefs wrote to King William asking him to be their guardian and protector. See letter below.

Britain responded by sending James Busby as Resident to bring peace between the tribes and protect the people of England and their investments that were beginning to settle in New Zealand.  He also organised New Zealand first flag for New Zealand ships to sail under. Twenty five chiefs voted with 12 agreeing to a flag on the 20 March 1834, which had already been used by the Church Mission Society. See: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/taming-the-frontier/first-flag

 

James Busby also drafted the Declaration of Independence in 1835 but was a complete failure as he could only attract 52 chiefs to sign it after three years of trying. The Declaration was to recognised tangata maori sovereignty over New Zealand and for the chiefs that signed it to meet annually to make laws, bring peace and to encourage trade, but the chiefs were more interested in continuing their fighting, as always and it was abandoned without one meeting taking place. Fifty two chiefs could hardly speak for the 100,000 tangata maori living in New Zealand at the time. The Declaration of Independence was a complete failure!

As tangata maori were not interested in forming their own government, Britain had to take a more active role in bringing peace between the tribes that were rapidly declining in numbers and to protect her people and their investments in New Zealand. After 3 years of debate, Britain reluctantly extended the boundaries of New South Wales to include all the island of New Zealand on the 15 June 1840 by the 1839 Charter/Letters Patent. Lt. Governor Hobson reading the two Proclamations in New Zealand on the 30 January 1840. While no mention of a Treaty was mentioned in any of these documents it did state, “Which is or maybe acquired in Sovereignty by Us Our Heirs or Successors within that group of Islands in the Pacific Ocean commonly called New Zealand”. This could also have been achieved by the Law of Nations (1).  

 

Governor George Gipps had told Hobson, tangata maori had sold large areas of New Zealand to people from other lands with many of the Deeds of Sale still held in the New South Wales Supreme Court. It is estimated over 2/3 of New Zealand had been sold by the tangata maori chiefs before the Treaty of Waitangi was signed on the 6 February 1840. This is the reason for “all the people of New Zealand” being represented in Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi.

 

Britain could have taken control of New Zealand by the Law of Nations (1) as she had most other countries but the Clapham Sect (2), a very strong group of people had forced the British Parliament to ask tangata maori consent to give up the territories they still “occupied” by treaty. The instructions for the treaty being drafted by Sir James Stephens, the Undersecretary for the Colonies and a very strong supporter of the Clapham Sect (2).

 

If tangata maori wanted protection and “The same rights as the people of England” as British Subjects, then they must sign the Treaty of Waitangi and place their territories they still “occupied” under British Sovereignty. Over 500 chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi on behalf of their people and Britian declared sovereignty over New Zealand on the 21 May 1840.

 

The Charter/Letters Patent of 1839 was a temporary measure until Britain found out how many chiefs would agree to give up the territories they “occupied”.  Over 500 chiefs agreed on behalf of their tribes to give up their territories in favour of British sovereignty and became British Subjects, “With the same rights as the people of England”. Article 2, Treaty of Waitangi.

 

The Treaty of Waitangi was an agreement between Queen Victoria and tangata maori with instructions drafted by Sir James Stephens, Undersecretary for the Colony’s and a strong supporter of the Clapham Sect (2) in 1838 and before Britain had decided if or how to become further involved in New Zealand. It was decided tangata maori that gave up their territories to the Queen by treaty, would become British Subjects, “With the same rights as the people of England”. It is interesting to note that the notice that Britain had gained sovereignty over all the island of New Zealand was published in the London Gazette on the 2 October 1840 and one month later produced the beautifully prepared, written and presented Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840, our true Founding Document and first Constitution. This document must have been “sitting in the wings” until Britain received notification the Treaty was successful. It could not have gone through the British Parliament, been legally discussed and written within one month. See Royal Charter page 7.

 

Once Britain found out that the majority of chiefs had given up the territories they still “occupied” to Britain, Britain separated New Zealand from New South Wales by Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840 with New Zealand becoming an independent British Colony with its own Governor and Constitution to make laws with courts and judges to enforce those law, under one flag and one law, irrespective of race colour or creed. See:  http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUJlLawSoc/1985/10.pdf

The National Government hides our true Constitutional Documents

 

On the 17 April 2017 the National Government hid our Constitutional documents in favour of the failed Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Waitangi that had nothing to do with New Zealand coming under the laws and dependency of New South Wales on the 25 June 1839 or a British Colony on the 3 May 1841.

 

While previous Governments have ignored the Royal Charter/Letters Patents of 1839 and 1840, our true Founding Documents and first Constitution that made New Zealand into British Colony, the National Government dismantled the Constitution Room on the 17 April 2017 that held our Constitutional Documents and has placed them in New Zealand Archives Repository among the 6 million other documents where they will soon be forgotten and lost for ever. All this to appease the Maori Party at the expense of all the people of New Zealand. How corrupt is that!

 

The government has built the $7.2 million He Tohu exhibit at the National Library, Wellington with taxpayer’s money to house the Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Waitangi which they call, “Our iconic Constitutional Documents”. This is a deliberate lie to elevate the Declaration of Independence and Treaty of Waitangi to something they were never intended to be. New Zealand was founded on four Constitutional Documents,

  1. The Royal Charter/Letters Patent of 1839.
  2. Governor Hobson’s two Proclamations on the 30 January 1840.
  3. The Royal Charter of 1840.  

 

Now that you know how New Zealand became a British Colony under one flag and one law that governments and our academics have continued to hide from you, it’s time to put pressure on the National Government to stop this corruption and display our true Founding Documents and first Constitution at the He Tohu exhibit at the National Library Wellington.

 

If the National Government will not agree to this, then we have no other option than to vote for a Political Party that will, therefore this question must be asked at the lead up to the upcoming elections, “Will you support placing our Constitutional Documents in the He Tohu exhibit at the National Library, Wellington and at Te Papa our National Museum?”

Below is documented evidence to support this article.

 

  1. The Law of Nations recognized no other mode of assuming dominion/sovereignty in a country of which the inhabitants were ignorant of the meaning of sovereignty, and therefore incapable of ceding sovereignty rights. This was the case with the people inhabiting New Zealand, for whom it would have be impossible for Captain Cook or Lt. Governor Hobson to have obtained British sovereignty by cession. Tangata maori consisted of hundreds of small individual tribes without any form of united government continually at war with each other for territories.

 

  1. The Clapham Sect was a group of aristocratic evangelical Anglicans, prominent in England from about 1790 to 1845, who campaigned for the abolition of slavery, to protect indigenous peoples from colonial exploitation and to promote missionary work at home and abroad. The group centered on the church of John Venn, rector of Clapham in south London. While little, if anything is published about the Clapham Sect in New Zealand’s history, it had a great influence on the instructions given to Captain William Hobson on the drafting of the Treaty of Waitangi by Sir James Stephens, the Undersecretary for the Colonies and a very strong supporter and member of the Clapham Sect. Sir James Stephens had also drafted the “Slavery Abolition Act of 1833”.

Letter from 13 Ngapuhi chiefs asking King William for protection in 1831 New Zealand.
(Enclosure 2 in No.1.)                                                                                                                         From William Yate, Esq, Waimate, New Zealand,  to the Colonial Secretary, New South Wales, November 16, 1831.
Sir, I have the honour to forward to you, by His Majesties Ship, “Zebra” the enclosed New Zealand document, with its translation, and to request that you will lay it before the Governor for his information. I have further to request that it be transmitted through His Excellency to the Secretary of State, in order to it being laid before His Majesty.
I have, &c,
(Signed) William Yate.
___________________________________________________________________________ (Enclosure 3 in NO.1)
To King William, The Gracious Chief of England.
King William
To King William, the gracious Chief of England. King William, we, the chiefs of New Zealand assembled at this place, called the Kerikeri, write to thee, for we hear that thou art the great chief of the other side of the water, since the many ships which come to our land are from thee. We are a people without possessions. We have nothing but timber, flax, pork and potatoes. We sell these things however to your people; then we see property of the Europeans. It is only thy land, which is liberal towards us. From thee also come the missionaries who teach us to believe on Jehovah God and on Jesus Christ His Son. We have heard that the tribe of Marian [the French] is at hand, coming to take away our land. Therefore we pray thee to become our friend and the guardian of these islands, lest the teasing of other tribes should come near us, and lest strangers should come and take away our land. And if any of thy people should be troublesome and vicious towards us we pray thee to be angry with them that they may be obedient, lest the anger of the people of this land fall upon them. This letter is from us, the chiefs of the natives of New Zealand.
(Signed) William Yate, Secretary to the Church Mission Society, New Zealand.

Wererahi Chief of Paroa.
Rewa Chief of Waimate
Patuone & Nene Two brothers, Chiefs of Hokianga
Kekeao Chief of Ahuahu
Titore Chief of Kororarika
Tamoranaga Chief of Taiamai
Ripe Chief of Mapere
Hara Chief of Ohaiawa
Atuahaere Chief of Kaikohe
Moetara Chief of Pakanai
Matangi Chief of Waima
Taunai Chief of Hutakuta

 

Below is the ‘Charter/Letters Patent’ appointing William Hobson as Lieutenant Governor of New Zealand and extending the boundaries of New South Wales to include all the islands of New Zealand in 1839. Sir George Gipps, Governor of New South Wales was in fact the first governor of New Zealand, but later delegated his powers to Lt Governor Hobson.

1839 Charter

The document reads:

Victoria R

Victoria by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith – To Our Trusty and Well beloved William Hobson Esquire, Captain of the Royal Navy Greeting. Whereas We did by certain Letters Patent under the Great Seal of Our United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland bearing date at Westminster the 5th day of October 1837 in the First year of Our Reign constitute and appoint Our Trusty and Well beloved Sir George Gipps, Knight, to be Our Captain General and Governor in Chief in and over Our Territory of New South Wales, comprised within the limits therein mentioned. And Whereas We did by certain other Letters Patent under the Great Seal of Our said United Kingdom, bearing date at Westminster the 15th day of June 1839 in the Third Year of Our Reign revoke so much of the said first recited Letters Patent as describes the limits of Our said Territory of New South Wales, and did further extend the limits of Our said Territory of New South Wales (subject to such exception as is therein particularly made of certain Territories now forming the Province of South Australia) from the Northern Cape or extremity of the Coast called Cape York in the latitude of 10 Degrees 37 Minutes South to the Southern extremity of the said Territory of New South Wales or Wilson’s promontory in the latitude of 39 Degrees 12 Minutes South and of all of the Country inland to the Westward as far as the 129th Degree of East longitude reckoning for the Meridian of Greenwich including all the Islands adjacent in the Pacific Ocean within the latitude aforesaid of 10 Degrees 37 Minutes South and 39 Degrees 12 Minutes South, and also including Norfolk Island lying in or about the latitude of 29 Degrees 3 Minutes South and 168 Degrees of East Longitude from the said Meridian of Greenwich, and also including any Territory which is or maybe acquired in Sovereignty by Us Our Heirs or Successors within that group of Islands in the Pacific Ocean commonly called New Zealand, and lying in or about the latitude of 34 Degrees Minutes and 47 Degrees 10 Minutes South, and 166 Degrees 5 Minutes and 179 Degrees East longitude from the said Meridian of Greenwich. Now Know you that We reposing especial Trust and Confidence in the Prudence Courage and Loyalty of you the said William Hobson do by these Present constitute and appoint you to be Our Lieutenant Governor in and over that part of Our Territory so described as foresaid in Our said last recited Letters Patent which is or maybe acquired in Sovereignty by Us Our Heirs or Successors within that group of Islands in the Pacific Ocean commonly called New Zealand, lying in or about the latitude of 34 Degrees Minutes and 47 Degrees 10 Minutes South, and 166 Degrees 5 Minutes and 179 Degrees East longitude reckoning from the Meridian of Greenwich. To have hold exercise and enjoy the said Office of Lieutenant Governor during Our Pleasure: And We do hereby command that in the execution of such your Office you do obey all such lawful Instructions as may be from time to time addressed to you by Our Trusty and Well beloved Sir George Gipps, Our Captain General and Governor in Chief in and over Our Territory of New South Wales and its Dependencies or in the event of his death or absence from the limits of his Government and command by the Officer for the time being administering the Government of Our said Territory and its Dependencies. And Whereas it is necessary that provision be made for the execution of the Office of Our Lieutenant Governor of Our said Territories in New Zealand in the event of your Death or absence therefrom, We do therefore by these Presents authorise and empower the said Sir George Gipps or the Officer Administering the Government of Our said Territory of New South Wales and its Dependencies for the time being to nominate and appoint by an Instrument under the Public Seal of Our said Territory of New South Wales, such person as he may think fit to act provisionally as Our Lieutenant Governor of Our said Territories in New Zealand in the contingency of such your Death or absence therefrom, or until other or further provision shall be made by Us in that behalf. And We do hereby give and grant to the Officer so to be provisionally appointed as aforesaid, during the continuance of such his authority full power to hold exercise and enjoy the said Office of Our Lieutenant Governor of Our said Territories in New Zealand as fully and in every respect as effectually as the same as is hereby vested in you, or may be by virtue hereof be held, exercised or enjoyed by you – Given at Our Court at Buckingham Palace the 30th day of July 1839, in the Third Year of Our Reign.   By Her Majesty’s Command, Lord Normandy.

There is no mention in any of these 4 Constitutional documents of a Treaty between Queen Victoria and tangata maori. Britain had extended the boundaries of New South Wales on the 15 June 1839, which is or maybe acquired in Sovereignty by Us Our Heirs or Successors within that group of Islands in the Pacific Ocean commonly called New Zealand”, while the Treaty had little, if any part in New Zealand becoming a British Colony on 3 May 1841.

 

Below is Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840.  The Constitution of the Colony of New Zealand into a separate colony on the 3 May 1841. Archives New Zealand Ref. No. ACGO 8341 1A1 9.

Royal Charter of 1840. Constitution of the Colony of New Zealand into a separate Colony 3 May 1841.

Royal Charter of 1840

This is New Zealand true Founding Document and first Constitution.

 

The Constitution Reads:

constitution 1

constitution 2

constitution 3

constitution 4

proclamation1

proclamation2

The Question that must be asked; “Why have our academics not researched and published this vital documentation that established the Colony of New Zealand”?

 

Have they been paid by Government to ignore it or have they been too lazy to do their own researched and just followed those before them? Whichever way, they have a lot of explaining to do, they have destroyed New Zealand society as intended by our ancestors both tangata maori and Pakeha when they signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840 with a hand shake and the words,

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

Prepared by the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. 29 July 2017. Copyright.

For further information: www.onenzfoundation.co.nz  or email: ONZF@bigpond.com.au.

He Tohu – The Lie!

He Tohu

“He Tohu is a new permanent exhibition of 3 iconic constitutional documents that shaped Aotearoa New Zealand”, Archives New Zealand. This is a lie!

On the 17 April 2017 the Constitution Room at Archives New Zealand was dismantled and our historic documents separated with the Declaration of Independence, the Tiriti o Waitangi and the Women’s Suffrage Petition being moved under darkness to the new taxpayer funded $7.2 million He Tohu exhibit at the National Library, Wellington, while all our true Constitutional documents being filed away with over 6 million documents in Archive’s repository where the government hopes they will soon be forgotten and lost for ever.

The three documents moved to the He Tohu exhibit had nothing to do with, “Our constitutional documents that shape New Zealand”.  Absolutely nothing!

The Declaration of Independence was a failed attempt by James Busby to have  tangata maori sovereignty recognised over New Zealand and the Tiriti o Waitangi to cede to Britain the remaining territories “still occupied” by tangata maori. Documents held in the NSW Supreme Court show tangata maori had sold 2/3 of New Zealand before the Treaty was signed.

The Women’s Suffrage Petition was a milestone in women gaining the right to vote and deserves recognition, but it still had nothing to do with our Constitution or New Zealand becoming a British Colony under one flag and one law, irrespective of race, colour or creed. This was achieved by the Charters of 1839 and 1840 below.

Our true Founding Documents and first Constitution.

Constitution

 

Below are three letters, one from the Chief Archivist, Marilyn Little and the second from the Chief Archivist (Acting), Richard Foy and the reply from the One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

Archives 2 Archives 1

ONE NEW ZEALAND FOUNDATION INC.

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

 

15 June 2017.

 

Mr Richard Foy,

Chief Activist (Acting),

Archives New Zealand.

 

Att. Marilyn Little, Chief Activist, Archive New Zealand.

 

Dear Sir,

 

RE: Official Information Act Request.

 

Thank you for your letter attached dated the 15 June 2017.

 

Your reference to the attached letter I received from Marilyn Little, Chief Archivist dated the 2 June 2017 stated, “The closure of the Constitution Room, and subsequent removal of the documents within it, is authorised by Cabinet Minute CAB Min (12) 14/11 dated the 30 April 2012. It agrees to the proposal to move the Constitution Room from the Archives New Zealand building to the refurnished National Library building”. 

 

While the Constitution Room was to be dismantled, there is no mention in the Cabinet Minute that the documents it held would be separated and the refurnished library building renamed, He Tohu. The documents moved to this new He Tohu exhibit have nothing to do with our Constitution, the first of which was issued by Queen Victoria on the 16 November 1840 that set up our political, legal and justice systems under one flag and one law, irrespective of race colour or creed. Therefore, Marilyn Little’s letter of the 2 June 2017 does not answer the ONZF’s Official Information Act request. See attached disc title supplied by the Chief Archivist, Archives New Zealand.

 

The information below on the Declaration of Independence, the Treaty of Waitangi, the Charter of 1839 and the Charter of 1840 are all taken from the documents held at Archives New Zealand, which I am sure you as Chief Activist (Acting) and Marilyn Little as Chief Activist will be fully aware of our true history and the role each document played in New Zealand becoming a British Colony; a Nation in its own right under one flag and one law, irrespective of race, colour or creed.

 

Why was the Declaration of Independence moved to the He Tohu exhibit when it was only an unauthorised document written by James Busby that was a complete failure as he could only gather 52 signatures over 4 years?  This document was to recognise tangata maori sovereignty over New Zealand and the signatures to this document pledged to assemble annually to form laws for the promotion of peace, justice and trade, but the ever present inter-tribal tension and fighting took precedence over political co-operation, as always and it was abandoned without one meeting taking place. This document had nothing to do with our Constitution or New Zealand becoming a British Colony; a Nation under one flag and one law, irrespective of race, colour or creed.

 

While the Treaty of Waitangi ceded sovereignty over the territories of the tribes/chiefs that signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, it had nothing to do with our Constitution or New Zealand being placed under the laws and dependency of New South Wales as this was achieved by the Charter of 1839 on the 14 January 1840, 4 months before Britain declared sovereignty over all the islands of New Zealand. Tangata maori had sold over 2/3 of New Zealand before the treaty was signed with many Deeds of Sale still held in the New South Wales Supreme Court.  Most of this land was returned to the tangata maori after the treaty was signed, but at the time the treaty was signed, these were acknowledged as “legal” sales by the Governor of New Zealand at the time, Sir George Gipps, the reason that, “all the people of New Zealand” were referred to in Article 2 of the Tiriti o Waitangi.

 

Some say the Treaty of Waitangi was a, “Partnership between Maori and the Crown” but there is no documentation to say tangata maori would be in partnership with the Crown and Britain. The most powerful Nation at the time, would never have formed a partnership with a scattered group of primitive people without out any form of unity, constantly at war with each and still practicing cannibalism.  Britain did give tangata maori the same rights as the people of England and were treated as British Subjects under one flag and one law.

 

It must also be remembered neither of these documents were issued by, “Victoria by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Defender of the Faith”, underThe Great Seal of the United Kingdom and Ireland. The Declaration of Independence was an unauthorised document drafted by James Busby and the Treaty of Waitangi instructions were drafted by the Under Secretary for the Colonies, Sir James Stevens who was a very strong support of the Clapham Sect.

 

The Clapham Sect was a group of aristocratic evangelical Anglicans, prominent in England from about 1790 to 1845, who campaigned for the abolition of slavery, to protect indigenous peoples from colonial exploitation and to promote missionary work at home and abroad. The group centered on the church of John Venn, rector of Clapham in south London.

 

The 1839 Charter declared British sovereignty over New Zealand by the Proclamation read by Lt. Governor Hobson in New Zealand on the 14 January 1840.  The Treaty was only to cede the territories still “occupied/owned” by the tangata maori to Britain, although no instruction were given under “The Great Seal of the United Kingdom or Ireland on how this would be achieved in the 1839 Charter. These instructions drafted by Sir James Stephens were given to Captain Hobson by Lord Normanby, Secretary of State for the Colonies before Captain Hobson sailed for Australia and New Zealand on the 25 August 1839.

 

Lt. Governor Hobson drafted the Treaty of Waitangi on the 4 February 1840, read the final English draft and its translation, the Tiriti o Waitangi to the gathering at Waitangi for the first time on the 5 February 1840 and signing of the Tiriti o Waitangi began on the 6 February 1840. Even before the Tiriti was signed on the 6 February, Britain had extended the boundaries of New South Wales on the 14 January 1840 to include all the islands of New Zealand. If tangata maori had not ceded their territories to Britain, Britain could still have claimed sovereignty under, The Law of Nations to protect her people and their property now living in New Zealand.

 

At the time, The Law of Nations recognized no other mode of assuming dominion/sovereignty in a country of which the inhabitants were ignorant of the meaning of sovereignty, and therefore incapable of ceding sovereignty rights. This was the case with the people inhabiting New Zealand, for whom it would have be impossible for Captain Cook or Captain Hobson to have obtained British sovereignty by cession. Tangata maori consisted of hundreds of small individual tribes without any form of united government continually at war with each other for territories and by James Busby’s failed Declaration of Independence, not interested in claiming sovereignty for themselves.

 

While the Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Waitangi are part of our history, they had nothing to do with our Constitution or New Zealand coming under the laws and dependency of New South Wales on the 14 January 1840 or an Independent British Colony, a Nation on the 3 May 1841 with its own Governor and Constitution to form a government to make laws with courts and judges to enforce those laws under one flag and one law, irrespective of race, colour or creed.

 

The documents that place New Zealand under the laws and dependency of New South Wales on the 14 January 1840 and made New Zealand into an Independent British Colony; a Nation on the 3 May 1841 with its own Governor and Constitution to form a government were the Charters of 1839 and 1840 issued by, “Victoria by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Defender of the Faith” under “The Great Seal of the United Kingdom and Ireland”, but then I am sure holding the positions you and Marilyn Little hold at Archives New Zealand, you would both know this only too well.

 

Richard, the Charters of 1839 and 1840 made New Zealand into an independent British Colony; a Nation in its own right and both these documents that were held in trust by Archives New Zealand in the Constitution Room at Archives New Zealand on behalf of the people of New Zealand must also be moved to the refurnished building at the National Library as instructed by Cabinet Minute, CAB Min (12) 14/11 dated the 30 April 2012.

 

Under the Official Information Act,

 

  1. Why are the Charters of 1839 and 1840 not in a refurnished building at the National Library, Wellington as instructed by Cabinet Minute CAB Min (12) 14/11 dated the 30 April 2012?

 

  1. On whose authority was the He Tohuexhibit build and only the Declaration of Independence, Treaty of Waitangi and the Women’s Suffrage Petition placed in this exhibit when no mention of this was made in the Cabinet Minute CAB Min (12) 14/11 dated the 30 April 2012

 

Who gave the authority to place our Constitutional documents, previously held in trust in the Constitution Room at Archives New Zealand with the other 6 million documents in Archive New Zealand’s repository where they will soon be lost and forgotten for ever when no mention of this was made in the Cabinet Minute CAB Min (12) 14/11 dated the 30 April 2012

DVDYours sincerely,

 

 

Ross Baker.

 

Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

 

  1. Other interested Parties.

 

Email: ONZF@bigpond.com.au

 

For further information: www.onenzfoundation.co.nz

The Clapham Sect and the Treaty

Part 3 of 3 of “Creating the Colony of New Zealand” by the ONZF.

This is another vital part of our history that governments have completely ignored. The people of New Zealand have a right to know why the Treaty of Waitangi was drafted, by whom and whether it deserves the recognition it is given as our “Founding Document”. 

WILLIAM_WILBERFORCE_AND_THE_CLAPHAM_SECT_WORSHIPPED_IN_THIS_CHURCH._THEIR_CAMPAIGNING_RESULTED_IN_THE_ABOLITION_OF_SLAVERY_IN_BRITISH_DOMINIONS_18331The Clapham Sect was a group of aristocratic evangelical Anglicans, prominent in England from about 1790 to 1845, who campaigned for the abolition of slavery, to protect indigenous peoples from colonial exploitation and to promote missionary work at home and abroad. The group centered on the church of John Venn, rector of Clapham in south London.

While little, if anything is published about the Clapham Sect in New Zealand’s history, it had a great influence on the instructions given to Captain William Hobson on the drafting of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The instructions given to Captain Hobson by Lord Normanby before he left New Zealand on the 25 August 1839 was drafted by Sir James Stephens, the Undersecretary for the Colonies and a very strong supporter and member of the Clapham Sect. Stephens had also drafted the “Slavery Abolition Act of 1833”.

From the time the 13 Ngapuhi chiefs asked King William IV to be their guardian and protector in 1831, the British Parliament had discussed ways to became involved in New Zealand but as Britain had other problems in its own country at the time, they were reluctant to become involved. In 1833 they sent a Resident, James Busby to stop the intertribal fighting that had destroyed half their population since 1820, but without forces it was soon found that Britain would have to take a more active role if the tangata maori were to survive. It was decided in 1837, the best way to take a more active role would be to extend the boundaries of New South Wales to include all the islands of New Zealand.

contentAt the time, The Law of Nations recognized no other mode of assuming dominion/sovereignty in a country of which the inhabitants were ignorant of the meaning of sovereignty, and therefore incapable of ceding sovereignty rights. This was the case with the people inhabiting New Zealand, for whom it would have be impossible for Captain Cook to have obtained British sovereignty by cession. Tangata maori consisted of hundreds of small individual tribes without any form of united government continually at war with each other for territories. It was not realized at the time the people inhabiting New Zealand were not the indigenous people of New Zealand but a race/group of people that had arrived in New Zealand in the 14 century to find it already inhabited by another race/group of people called, tangata whenua or the indigenous people of New Zealand who were mostly driven in to the hills where they disappeared for good.

When Sir James Stephens learnt that Parliament was planning to extend the boundaries of New South Wales to include New Zealand, he drafted instructions for a treaty between the inhabitants of New Zealand and Queen Victoria in 1838, which was accepted by Lord Normanby, the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

This was the first time Britain had a treaty between the people of a country it was about to become involved, but the 1839 Charter included a clause stating, “All the territories acquired in Sovereignty by Treaty within that group of Islands in the Pacific Ocean commonly called New Zealand”,  to satisfy the Clapham Sect.

While letters patent were issued under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom on the 15th June 1839 to extend the boundaries of New South Wales to include New Zealand there were no instructions issued by the British Parliament for the Treaty of Waitangi. By the Law of Nations, Britain had already gained sovereignty over all the islands of New Zealand when Captain Cook set foot in New Zealand in 1769, plus many New South Wales Acts that included New Zealand before the Treaty was signed. Over 2/3 of New Zealand had also been sold by the chiefs, some even travelling to New South Wales to sell their land with many of these pre-Treaty Deeds of Sale still sitting in the New South Wales Supreme Court. By 1840, many farms, townships and settlements had been established by the New Zealand Company in the lower North Island by British immigrants, colonisation was well underway by 1840. There was talk of forming republics if Britain did not become involved.

The Treaty was not a Charter issued by “Victoria by the Grace of God” or letters patent issued under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, it was a very simple document that had been drafted to satisfy the Clapham Sect. Lt. Governor Hobson had been given instructions by Lord Normanby drafted by Sir James Stephens, a member of the Clapham Sect on drafting a treaty to obtain as many territories from the chiefs as possible, “but without force”, and that is exactly what Lt. Governor Hobson achieved, sovereignty over all the Islands of New Zealand on the 21 May 1840 for the boundaries of New South Wales to be extended to include all the islands of New Zealand, which was accepted by all other Nations.

Another reason a treaty was entered into, the instructions given to Hobson stated,, “I have already stated that we acknowledge New Zealand as a sovereign and independent state so far as at least possible to make that acknowledgement in favour of a people composed of numerous dispersed petty tribes, who possess few political relations as to each other, and are incompetent to act or even deliberate in concert”. The Law of Nations recognized no other mode of assuming dominion in a country, of which the inhabitants are ignorant of the meaning of sovereignty.

Stephen also wrote, “Sovereignty of New Zealand had been recognized by the British Government”. The British Government believed sovereignty had been claimed by the tangata maori by James Busby’s Declaration of Independence but it had been a complete failure. The signatures to this Declaration pledged to assemble annually to form laws for the promotion of peace, justice and trade, but the ever present intertribal tension and fighting took precedence over political co-operation, as always, and it was abandoned within 12 months without one meeting taking place. As only 52 northern chiefs had signed the Declaration, there is no way they could have claimed sovereignty over all the islands of New Zealand, the Declaration was a complete failure in recognizing tangata maori sovereignty.

By 1840, 2/3 of New Zealand had been  sold to people from other lands and  tangata maori were only minor land owners, therefore could hardly claim sovereignty over all the islands of New Zealand.

Without the Clapham Sect taking an interest in New Zealand, it is unlikely there would have been a treaty between tangata maori and Queen Victoria. No other country Britain had declared sovereignty had the inhabitants been given, “the same rights as the people of England” or after the treaty had been signed, had the land they wanted to sell given titles then purchased by the Crown, in some cases, many times over. Even the 2/3 of land that had been sold by the chiefs before the treaty was signed, in most was returned without compensation and repurchased by the Crown at a later date once the true owners were known and titles issued.

So the question must be asked, Was the Treaty of Waitangi, “a legal necessity” or just a document without any real authority to satisfy the Clapham Sect”?  If the Clapham Sect had not become involved in a treaty between the tangata maori and Queen Victoria, Britain could have “legally” ceded New Zealand under the Law of Nations as it had with all the other countries it had declared sovereignty.

There is no mention of the Treaty of Waitangi in Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent of 1840. After the treaty had served its purpose on the 21 May 1840 and Britain had declared sovereignty over all the islands of New Zealand, the treaty was filed away by the British Government; tangata maori had become British Subjects, therefore, “Given the same rights as the people of England”. There was no mention of a, “Partnership between tangata maori and the Crown” in the Treaty of Waitangi or Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 1840 because,British Subjects cannot be in Partnership with the Monarchy”!

Did Britain need to claim sovereignty by treaty? There is no doubt Britain had gained sovereignty over all the islands of New Zealand by the Laws of Nations long before the Declaration of Independence, the Clapham Sect became involved or the Treaty of Waitangi was drafted and signed. The Treaty of Waitangi was a document drafted by Sir James Stephens to satisfy his members of the Clapham Sect and while it was not required to claim sovereignty over all the islands of New Zealand, it certainly did as confirmed by Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 1840 that made New Zealand into British Colony on the 3 May 1841.

There are only two Letters Patent issued by the Great Seal of the United Kingdom that made New Zealand into a British Colony.

  1. The Charter of 1839 that extended the boundaries of New South Wales to include all the islands of New Zealand.
  2. Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent that separated New Zealand from New South Wales and made New Zealand into an independent British Colony.

Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/ Letters Patent dated the 16 February 1840 being the document that founded New Zealand as a British Colony on the 3 May 1841 under one flag and law, irrespective of race colour or creed, our true Founding Document and first Constitution and the day we all must celebrate as our Independence Day!

This document is Part 3 of; “Creating the Colony of New Zealand” by the ONZF. 25/5/17 (C).

Email: ONZF@bigpond.com.au. Website: www.onenzfoundation.co.nz

The Tiriti o Waitangi played a very small role in New Zealand becoming a British Colony.

This document is Part 2 of; “Charter of 1839” by the One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

After researching the Charter of 1839 and the Royal Charter of 1840, both documents completely ignored by Government and our National Museum Te Papa, I found the Treaty of Waitangi only played a very small role in New Zealand becoming a British Colony. The discussions by the British Government to become involved in New Zealand had continued since 1831 when 13 Ngapuhi chiefs had asked the King to be their Guardian and Protector.

Both the Charter of 1839 and the Royal Charter of 1840 were beautifully prepared, presented and written documents in pristine condition, whereas the Tiriti o Waitangi was badly prepared, badly presented and very badly written for a document issued by Great Britain, but then it only played a small part to satisfy the “Clapton Sect”, a group of people that sought to protect “indigenous people from colonial exploitation”.

See, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZGWS18390906.2.7

Charter of 1839.  

The 1839 Charter was a beautifully presented document issued by “Victoria by the Grace of God” that extended the boundaries of New South Wales to include “All the territories acquired in Sovereignty by Treaty within that group of Islands in the Pacific Ocean commonly called New Zealand”, under the laws and dependency of New South Wales.

Charter of 1839

The beautifully prepared, presented and written Charter of 1839 that extended the boundaries of New South Wales to include New Zealand.

 

Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent

Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840 was also a beautifully prepared, presented and written document issued by “Victoria by the Grace of God” that separated New Zealand from New South Wales on the 3 May 1841 and made New Zealand into a British Colony in its own right with political, legal and justice systems under one flag and one law, irrespective of race, colour or creed.

Charter of 1839 2

The beautifully prepared, presented and written Royal Charter of 1840.

Our true Founding Document and first Constitution ignored by government!

 

The Tiriti o Waitangi played a very small role in New Zealand becoming a British Colony.

320px-TreatyofwaitangiThe Treaty of Waitangi was not issued by “Victoria by the Grace of God”. In fact, the Treaty of Waitangi was a very badly prepared, presented and written document on 2 pieces of dog-skin sewn together. A very primitive document when compared with the 1839 Charter and the 1840 Royal Charter. Once it had achieved it purpose of gaining sovereignty over all the islands of New Zealand on the 21 May 1840, it was filed away in a storage shed where it was later damaged by fire and rats.

The Treaty’s main purpose was to satisfy the Clapton Sect who were a group of people that sought to protect indigenous people from colonial exploitation and were becoming a very strong group in England at the time. Amongst other British politicians, Sir James Stephens, Undersecretary to the Colonies was a member of the Clapton Sect. Sir James Stephens had drafted the, “Slavery Abolition Act of 1833”.

Instructions for a Treaty with the tangata maori was also drafted by Sir James Stephens, Undersecretary for the Colonies and was given to Captain William Hobson by Lord Normanby, Secretary of State for the Colonies, before Hobson sailed for New Zealand in 1839.

As the boundaries of New South Wales had been extended to, “All the territories acquired in Sovereignty by Treaty within that group of Islands in the Pacific Ocean commonly called New Zealand”, Captain Hobson was dispatched to New Zealand with Sir James Stephen’s instructions to acquire as many territories as possible from the tangata maori, “without force”.

The people that signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840 were not tangata whenua or the indigenous people of New Zealand, they signed their names as “tangata maori”!

When Captain Hobson reached New South Wales he was sworn in as Lt. Governor to New Zealand under the command of Governor Gipps of New South Wales. Hobson then sailed to New Zealand and issued a Proclamation to the settlers on the 30 January 1840 that, “The boundaries of New South Wales had be extended to include, all the territories acquired in Sovereignty by Treaty”.

With the help of the British Resident to New Zealand, James Busby, Hobson drafted the Treaty of Waitangi. The treaty was based on the instructions drafted by Sir James Stephens, “To acquire as many territories without force and in return, tangata maori would be given the same rights as the people of England”, Tiriti o Waitangi, Article 3.

While Hobson’s final draft dated the 4th February 1840 was translated into the tangata maori language by Rev Henry Williams and his son Edward, then transcribed onto dog-skin by Rev Richard Taylor, it seems to have been a very low key document only to satisfy the Clapton Sect, a group of people who sought to protect indigenous people from colonial exploitation. It was the only document of its type ever issued by Britain that gave the inhabitants of a country, in this case the tangata maori, “The same rights as the people of England”. See Tiriti o Waitangi, Article 3.

After each chief had signed the Tiriti o Waitangi at Waitangi on the 6 February, Lt. William Hobson shook their hand and repeated, “He iwi tahi taou – We are now one people”. At the end of the Tiriti o Waitangi signing at Waitangi on the 6 February 1840, the whole gathering gave 3 hearty cheers.

When Lt. Governor Hobson became ill with a stroke and delegated the signing of the Tiriti o Waitangi to others, he gave these 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”.

Lt. Governor Hobson never made or authorized an English versions and no English version was signed on the 6 February 1840 at Waitangi. Although Hobson did have 200 copies of the Tiriti o Waitangi printed by the Church Mission Society of which one was read, discussed and signed at Waikato, although an unauthorized English version compiled by Hobson’s secretary, James Freeman from James Busby’s rough notes was used, but never read or discussed to hold further signatures when the CMS printed copy of the Tiriti o Waitangi could hold no more. Both copies were attached to each other when signed by Lt. Governor Hobson.

Conclusion.

Britain took little interest after Captain James Cook set foot on New Zealand shores in 1769 until the Rev Samuel Marsden in 1814 and other missionaries that joined him later, starting teaching Christianity to the tangata maori living in New Zealand. Again little happened until Rev Thomas Kendall invited Hongi Hika to England to help Professor Samuel Lees complete the tangata maori to English dictionary in 1818. Hongi Hika agreed to go with the ulterior motive of purchasing muskets while in England. While he was not allowed to take muskets out of England, he did a secret deal with Barron de Thierry and purchased over 500 muskets for 40,000 acres of land in New Zealand. He had de Thierry ship the muskets to Australia where Hongi Hika picked them up on the way back to New Zealand in 1820.

Hongi Hika with his Ngapuhi followers then went on a rampage south slaughtering thousands of his unarmed country men, women and children for utu/revenge or the fun of the fight and the feasts that followed. By 1831 Ngapuhi were afraid the southern tribes were now gathering musket and would in turn travel north for utu so 13 Ngapuhi chiefs wrote to the King of England asking him for protection and to be their guardian.

At the time Britain was having enough problems around the world and did not want to get involved in another country half a world away, but did decide to send a Resident, James Busby to New Zealand in 1833 to sort out the intertribal fighting and bring peace amongst the settlers and the tangata maori. As Busby had no forces at his deposal he was soon named the, “Man of war without guns”.

As the intertribal fighting increase with Waikato annihilating Taranaki in 1835 and the Taranaki that fled south traveling to the Chatham Islands, slaughtering and farming the unarmed Moriori men women and children like swine into virtual extinction and the settlers being threaten, killed and their farms ransacked by the “rebel tangata maori”, Britain had to take a more active role in protection its people, their farms and the law abiding tangata maori Britain had promised.

From 1937 Britain reluctantly discussed how it would become more involved in New Zealand and it was decided in 1839 to extend the boundaries of New South Wales to include all the islands of New Zealand. With the Clapton Sect becoming powerful in England at the time and the Undersecretary for the Colonies, Sir James Stephens being a member, it was decided in 1839 to, “To extend the boundaries of New South Wales and acquire as many territories in Sovereignty by Treaty within that group of Islands in the Pacific Ocean commonly called New Zealand”.

It was decided in 1839 by the Secretary of State, Lord Normanby to send Captain William Hobson to New Zealand with quickly drafted instructions for a treaty with the tangata maori by Sir James Stephens. Lt. Governor Hobson gained sovereignty over all the islands of New Zealand on the 21 May 1840, which was posted in the London Gazette on the 2 October 1840.

Once Britain had gained sovereignty over all the Island of New Zealand on the 21st May 1840 under the laws and dependency of New South Wales, it was decided some 4 months later by Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter dated the 16 November 1840 to separated New Zealand from New South Wales into an independent British Colony on the 3rd May 1840 with its own political, legal and justice systems under one flag and one law, irrespective of race, colour or creed.

While it took Britain years to decide on the best way to intervene in New Zealand, the Tiriti o Waitangi only took 3 days to draft and 4 months to gain sovereignty over all the islands of New Zealand, therefore, played a very small role in New Zealand becoming a British Colony, which would have happened eventually, with or without the Tiriti o Waitangi.

It may be the Tiriti o Waitangi was only a “courtesy or goodwill” agreement between Queen Victoria and tangata maori to satisfy the Clapton Sect as Britain had never had a treaty with any other country it had taken over but the Tiriti o Waitangi did give Britain sovereignty over all the islands of New Zealand which has never been disputed by any other country to this day!

In 1975 the New Zealand Government passed the 1975 Waitangi Tribunal Act that set up the Waitangi Tribunal by misleading the people that an unauthorized English version of the Treaty of Waitangi was our Founding Document and from this, wrote the “Five Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi”. This would be the most corrupt Act ever passed by a New Zealand government by deliberately ignoring the 1839 Charter and Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent in our legislation. The Treaty of Waitangi is not our Founding Document!

All New Zealand’s important historical documents were held in the Constitution Room at Archive New Zealand, Wellington, but when the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. brought the 1840 Royal Charter to the attention of the public in 2015 the government spent $7.2 million setting up the He Tohu Exhibit  at the National Library, Wellington in April 2017 to hold the Tiriti o Waitangi and dismantled the Constitution Room to separate our historical documents by filing Lt Governor Hobson’s final draft of the Treaty of Waitangi, the 1839 Charter and Queen Victoria’s 1840 Royal Charter with the other 6 million documents at Archive’s repository were they will soon be forgotten forever.

The Declaration of Independence was also moved to the National Library Wellington with the Tiriti o Waitangi. The Declaration of Independence was a failed attempt by Resident, James Busby to form a united government in New Zealand. The signatures to this declaration were to assemble annually to form laws for the promotion of peace, justice and trade, but the ever present inter-tribal tension and fighting took precedence over political co-operation, as always and it was abandon without one meeting taking place. Why would this failed attempt to get the chiefs to form a united government be put on display in the $7.2 million National Library He Tohu Exhibit when Busby could only get 52 chiefs to sign it? The only document that was also moved to the National Library that fits this new location was the “1893 Women’s Suffrage Petition”.

There is only one true Foundation Document and first Constitution and that is the beautifully prepared, presented and written Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840 that was issued under, “Victoria by the Grace of God”, and we must all be extremely proud of this document by displaying it in all government building, schools and our National museums.

We must also celebrate the day it was enacted, the 3rd of May and honour the sacrifices our ancestors, both tangata maori and the settlers made to bring peace to a country completely out of control!

While all this information can be found in Archives around the world, the government, Te Papa and our historians have completely ignore it, until the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. brought the Charter of 1840 and the Royal Charter of 1840 to the  public’s attention. These vital documents had never been included as part of our history or legislation. This must end now, they are a vital part of our true history and legislation and must no longer be ignored to satisfy one small group of New Zealand citizens that can claim a minute trace of tangata maori ancestry.

These documents completely change the true history of New Zealand and honour the true meaning of the agreement Lt. Governor Hobson made with the tangata maori chiefs at Waitangi on the 6 February 1840 with a handshake and the words;

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

This document is Part 2 of; “Charter of 1839” by the One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

By Ross Baker, Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc. Email: ONZF@bigpond.com.au (C). 20/5/2017.

Judge and Jury convict Allan Titford without defense!

Judge and Jury convict Allan Titford without defense!

Allan titfordIt is hard to understand how the Jury found Allan Titford guilty when they had only heard from the Crown’s witnesses, but after reading, The Summing Up of Judge Duncan G Harvey which included a 91 page Issues Tree, we believe they had no other option?

The 91 page Issues Tree Judge Duncan Harvey gave the Jury during his Summing Up and the instructions on how to use it with a yes/no questionnaire gave little chance of the jury deliberating with each other over each of Mr. Titford’s 58 charges. Especially when Allan Titford was not allowed one witness in his defense. The Judge also mentions beyond reasonable doubt” numerous times in his Summing Up but without witnesses in Mr. Titford’s defense, medical records, documented evidence and Susan being given immunity to help the Crown lay charges, we cannot see how the Jury could find Mr. Titford, “guilty beyond reasonable doubt”. Mr. Titford pleaded, “Not guilty to all charges”!

Under the Official Information Act and with Allan Titford’s authority, we requested a copy of Judge Duncan Harvey’s 91 page “Issues Tree”, but we were refused this request by a Judge of the Whangarei District Court. What are they hiding; “A miscarriage of Justice”?

In June 2009 Susan Titford decided to leave her husband because she had had enough of fighting the Crown for compensation when it took their freehold titled farm under duress, without legal advice then tampered with the documents in 1995 to help settle Te Roroa’s “alleged” Treaty of Waitangi claim and the constant harassment before, during and after by the claimants, the Police, the Crown and the Rural/National Bank. On the 7 July 2009 Susan emailed Barrister, Mr. Greg Denholm asking, “For instance, if he was jailed would I be able to get control of the Trust back or would he still hold the title of Trustee”.

Then on the 13 October 2009 Susan wrote to the Minister of Justice, Hon Simon Upton asking him how to escape from being charged with Perjury. The Minister replied, “I note Section 24 of the Crimes Act provides that where a person commits an offence under “compulsion” they will be protected from criminal responsibility. Compulsion means that the person commits the offence only because someone else, who is present when the crime is committed, has threatened them with immediate death or grievous bodily harm”. Was this the basis of Susan’s charges against her estranged husband? Susan now knew if she could make out Allan had raped her and physically abuse her and the children, then the Police would give her immunity.

Once the Crown found Susan was divorcing her husband, Allan Titford, the Crown gave her immunity to help it lay as many charges as possible against Allan. In total 58 charges! Susan stating in an email to Ross Baker, Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc. on the 3 July 2010, “And I think when they (The Crown) go to get him, they are going to get him for as much as they can”, then on the 15 March 2011, “The hold up now is the Crown have taken over so they will look into it, change charges, either throw some out, add new ones and whatever they think is right”. And the Crown certainly did with 58 charges in total that resulted in Allan Titford being jailed for 24 years without a fair trial.

As Susan had been given immunity she could now virtually say whatever she wanted without fear of prosecution. Even helping her children write statements to testify against their father with a promise of $5000 each as mentioned during the trial. Young Ulanda Titford writing on the 2 February 2011, “And all the stuff we had to write and say about dad. I didn’t understand any of it. I tried to ask, but was told just to do it”. Then on the 3 February 2011, “I want to see my dad more than anything. It hurts me not to be able to spend time with him. I want my dad back, I miss him and love him”.

The whole trial revolved around evidence from Susan Titford, who had been given immunity by the Crown and wanted “control of the Trust”, her children and her brother Richard Cochrane. Allan Titford, on the other hand, was not allowed one witness in his defence by his Crown paid lawyer Mr John Moroney, of Thode Utting Lawyers, Whangarei. Mr. Titford had given his lawyer a list of witnesses he wanted to call but his lawyer failed to call one in his defence! Mr Moroney charged the taxpayers/Mr Titford $130,000 to “represent” him.

How did the Jury hand down a guilty verdict when they had only heard evidence from the Crown’s witnesses? Did the jury base its guilty verdict on, Judge Duncan Harvey’s Summing Up and his 91 page Issues Tree? Judge Duncan Harvey had also only heard evidence from the Crown’s witnesses, so how could he sum up the case and issue his 91 page Issues Tree without hearing from Mr Titford’s witnesses?  

A fundamental principles of our legal system states, “One of the most crucial aspects of a fair legal trial is the right to call witnesses on both sides”. Mr Titford was never given this right by his lawyer at his trial, which was accepted by Judge Duncan Harvey.

One main witness that was denied to appear was Allan’s sister-in-law, Sheryll Titford who had no time for Allan but was a good friend of Susan’s but could not allow Allan to be convicted of burning down his house and wrote a statement for the Police that Susan had told her, Susan’s father, Graham Cochrane, had confessed on his deathbed to burning down the house to get Susan and the children away from the never ending threats by the claimants. This vital piece of evidence was withheld from the Court by the Police, Graham Cochrane being a retired Police Officer. How many other witnesses were denied giving evidence in Allan Titford’s defence who may have cleared him of any wrong doing?

The Supreme Court has held that a trial court cannot deny an accused the right to summon witnesses he/she has cited for examination at any stage of a trial. “A fair trial entails the interests of the accused, the victim and of society, and therefore, includes the granting of fair and proper opportunities to the person concerned, and the same must be ensured as this is a constitutional as well as a human right. Denial of such right would amount to denial of a fair trial. It is a “cardinal rule of the law of evidence that the best available evidence must be brought before the court to prove a fact”. Why didn’t Judge Harvey ask Mr. Titford if he had any witnesses, he was in control of the court and it was Mr. Titford’s constitutional as well as human right, but the Judge failed to do so resulting in Mr. Titford being jailed for 24 years without a fair trial?

So the question that must be asked, “How did the jury come to a guilty verdict when they had only heard from the Crown’s witnesses? Was it based on Judge Duncan G Harvey’s Summing Up and his 91 page Issues Tree who had also only heard from the Crown’s witnesses that had contradicted each other many times? There was no evidence of physical abuse that must surely have required hospital treatment, especially when it was “alleged” young James had his back and neck jumped on by his 90 kilogram father, Alyssa when it was “alleged” Allan had punched her in the mouth or when it is “alleged” Allan punched and kicked Susan. But no forensic evidence was given with hospital records, school records of abuse of his children, photos or documented evidence by the Crown’s witnesses or the Crown. It was all based on verbal evidence by the Crown’s witnesses without one document of evidence!

The One New Zealand Foundation’s Researcher, Ross Baker, who has stayed with the Titford’s on many occasions in New Zealand and Tasmania while researching the “alleged” Te Roroa claim and the methods used by the Crown to acquire the Titford’s farm, stated, “I have never seen any physical abuse or signs of physical abuse on Susan or the children whenever I have stayed with them”. Susan and the children never showed any fear of Allan and while they gave each other verbal abuse, this seemed normal in the Titford household and never escalated into physical abuse in any way while I was there”. At the time, Susan was just as keen as Allan to fight the Crown for compensation when it took their freehold titled farm under duress and without legal advice, even writing to the Prime Minister and the Queen for help. They were a young innocent family just starting out in life, but this was all taken away from them when Te Roroa place an “alleged” Treaty of Waitangi claim on their farm.

How could the Judge and the Jury convict Allan Titford to 24 years jail based on the verbal evidence from his estranged wife who had been given immunity and hoped, “to get control of the Trust if Allan was in jail, the children that did not understand what they were told to say or write and Susan’s brother Richard who disliked Allan. Off course not, it seems they just went along with the Judge’s Summing Up and his 91 page Issues Tree!

Allan Titford has waited over three and a half years for an Appeal, but the Crown has him where they want him and there they want him to remain; “A Political Prisoner”!

Conclusion.

We believe Mr Titford’s trial must be declared null and void and an inquiry held into the way the charges were laid by the Crown and the trial was conducted by Judge Duncan Harvey not hearing any witnesses in Mr Titford’s defence. What started as a matrimonial dispute turned into a “witch hunt” by the Crown to clear it of any wrong doing when it took an innocent farmer’s freehold titled farm under duress and without legal advice then tampered with the documents to help settle Te Roroa’s “alleged” Treaty of Waitangi claim. A claim that had been rejected by Parliament in 1942 after a full judicial inquiry by Chief Judge Shepherd.

In a letter to the Minister of Treaty Negotiations at the time, the late and respected Ngapuhi chief, Mr Graham Rankin, who knew the history of this land and its people far better than anyone else was completely ignored when he stated, “No living person should suffer the pain he (Allan Titford) and his wife and children, at the hands of Government, its associates and Ministers in particular. Te Roroa people are only squatters, living on the edge of Waipoua Forest. They don’t even know what they are! Ngatiwhatua or Ngapuhi. The work of the claim was shoddy, unclean and destructive in the eyes of our New Zealand Society. My question Minister, the land can never be given to Maori, sitting as a “crown jewel” when it should be returned to Allan Titford, now”! But the Government, its associates and the Ministers failed to listen! An innocent family destroyed, “at the hands of Government, its associates and Ministers in particular”!

A malicious prosecution of a political nature to pervert the course of justice”!

Prepared by the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. 24/4/2017. www.onenzfoundation.co.nz

Copies of; The Summing Up of Judge Duncan G Harvey can be obtained from, ONZF@bigpond.com.au

This article, with others are posted on our website, www.onenzfoundation.co.nz. (c)  24/4/2017

Published Articles