|
From the letters below, the Chief Ombudsman will not or cannot justify her opinion, ”....and have found no evidence to support your allegations that the documents were tampered with or were in any way corrupt".
The One New Zealand Foundation believes the Government has put the Chief Ombudsman, Beverley Wakem under “extreme political pressure” to contradict her Officer’s investigation to clear the Crown Law Office of “tampering with” the documents to acquire Mr Allan Titford’s property at Maunganui Bluff. There is no denying the Ombudsman’s investigation found the documents were corrupt. An Ombudsman's opinion must be completely independent of the Government/Crown, without this the Chief Ombudsman has failed in her duty to the people of New Zealand.
P.O.Box 1, Awanui, Northland, New Zealand. www.onenzfoundation.co.nz.
5 August 2009.
Ms Beverley Wakem,
Chief Ombudsman.
Dear Ms Wakem,
Thank you for your letter dated the 5 August 2009, re Your Ref: W59887.
In your letter you once again state,"....and have found no evidence to support your allegations that the documents were tampered with or were in any way corrupt". How can you justify this statement when your own investigation under the Ombudsman's Act found the following?
1. "The Crown's officials perhaps did not consider it appropriate for it to be authenticated as part of the agreement in view of the comments at the end of the document. For the documents to have been initialled might have suggested agreement with the views you had stated". Mr Samec returned the signed documents and this was part of the Agreement. The Crown Law Office was only acting for the Crown; therefore the Crown's officials had no right to make this decision and remove the memorandum.
2. "Mr Samec did not transmit the memorandum to the Crown Law Office". This was your conclusion after investigating the evidence supplied by Mr and Mrs Titford.
3. "From my Officer's perusal of a substantial number of files held by the Office of Treaty Settlements and by the Crown Law Office, there is no doubt that Mr Titford had, rightly or wrongly, a sense of grievance about the sale of his farm. He held the view he was pushed into the sale without justification". This was the reason the Crown Law Office removed the memorandum (1 above) from the Sale Agreement. They knew it was unlawful to have documents signed "under duress".
4. While the Ombudsman’s office has never investigated the Memorandum of Transfer, the document used to transfer Mr Titford farm to the Crown is not the "original" document referred to in all the instruction give to Mr Samec by Helen Aikman, Crown Law Office. The Crown Law Office has admitted they tampered with the date on this document after it was returned from Tasmania. Mr Graham Scott who witnessed the “original” Transfer has confirmed it was not the Transfer he signed.
5. There is no denying the first Deed supplied by Mr Paul James, Office of Treaty Settlement under the Official Information Act, was tampered with. This was a compiled document that had deliberately had the amended page showing this was only an "alleged" claim replaced. Pages cannot jump in and out of a document on their own; they need someone to do it for a specific reason. The Crown did not want the people of New Zealand to know this was only and “alleged” claim
6. Many of the Sundry Creditors to allow the Crown to put pressure on Mr Titford and force him into bankruptcy were either not owing, no proof that they were owing or were from a previous arrangement that had no relevance to this transaction.
7. On the 12 December 1995, the Minister of Lands, Denis Marshall approved the purchase of Allan Titford’s farm with an “ex-gratia payment of $1 million dollars” (Parliament’s 1994 re-extended Agreement). On the same day at approximately 7.30am, Mr Samec had Mr Titford sign a “new Agreement” drafted by the Crown Law Office that completely changed the format (“a monetary consideration”) and added numerous new clauses to the Agreement approved by Parliament and the Minister of Lands. The Crown Law Office cannot produce authorization from Parliament, the Minister or Mr Titford for re-writing a “completely new Agreement”.
8. Mr and Mrs Titford had discussed the 1994 Agreement with their lawyer Clive Jackson and had agreed to sign it with one amendment in Mr Samec office on the 8 December 1995, but the Crown tampered with this Agreement by completely re-writing it without Mr Titford's, the Minister of Lands or Parliament’s knowledge, authority or consent. Mr and Mrs Titford were instructed by Mr Samec to sign this Agreement without legal advice or representation. Mr Jackson stating when he eventually saw the “final” Agreement, "I would have advised him not to sign it".
9. Mr Titford and his lawyer Mr Clive Jackson were refused copies of the fully executed Agreement and Deeds. There is no denying the Crown knew that if Mr Jackson had received copies that he was legally entitled to, he would have challenged that the documents had been tampered with - and won!
10. There is no denying, the Crown was in collusion with the National Bank to put pressure on Allan Titford and his father Doug Titford and therefore had clause 16. "Release the National Bank from Any Liability to the Vendor", inserted in the Agreement.
11. The Crown Law Office does not have one page of the Sale Agreement, Deed or Memorandum of Transfer, except for the signing pages, initialled by Mr Titford, therefore there is no denying, these documents could have been tampered with after Mr Titford signed and initialled them as the photos show. Interesting that all the pages of Mrs Titford's Deed, which was signed at the same time, are initialled on every page except for Schedule 1 and 2, which it has been found, were missing from her Deed making it an “incomplete document”. An incomplete legal document is “legally null and void”.
We ask that you justify your opinion that you, “…. have found no evidence to support your allegations that the documents were tampered with or were in any way corrupt". There is no denying, the investigation under the Ombudsman’s Act, documents supplied by the Crown, documents supplied by the Crown Law Office, documents supplied by the Office of Treaty Settlement and documents supplied by those involved at the time, show the documents to acquire Mr Titford’s farm were tampered with and therefore, corrupt.
Both Mr and Mrs Titford and their young family were innocent victims and have suffered enough ever since the Crown made the mistake by agreeing to Te Roroa’s “alleged” claim in 1990 without one document of evidence. All Mr and Mrs Titford ever asked for was a farm for a farm, but the Crown, Te Roroa, the National Bank and the police continued to harass them until they were forced into bankruptcy. Not content with this, the Crown continued to cheat on them by tampering with the documents to acquire their freehold titled farm.
If the Chief Ombudsman cannot see this, with the documented evidence available, then what future is there for the Ombudsman’s Office and the people of New Zealand that own freehold titled property?
Yours sincerely,
Ross Baker.
Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.
This letter will appear on our website, www.onenzfoundation.co.nz
P.O. Box 1, Awanui, Northland, New Zealand. www.onenzfoundation.co.nz
14 September 2009.
Ms Beverley Wakem,
Chief Ombudsman,
Ombudsman's Office.
Dear Ms Beverley Wakem,
Re: Please Justify
Thank you for your letter dated the 11 September 2009.
You state in this letter, "Your recent correspondence seems to indicate a mindset that would not accept any outcome that did not coincide with your views". The views I hold are inline with the views of your officials that investigated this matter under the Ombudsman's Act, Mr Titford's lawyer Clive Jackson, Barrister G… D….. and all those that have read the paper trail left by those involved at the time. It seems your opinion is the only one that is out of sync with all others accept the Crown, the Crown Law Office and the Office of Treaty Settlements that continues to use your opinion to hide behind and hide the truth.
Clause 1, 2 and 3 of our letter dated the 5 August 2009; shows the Ombudsman's investigation under the Ombudsman's Act found the Crown's officials deliberately tampered with the documents and knew Mr and Mrs Titford were selling their farm without justification. Clause 4 - 11 shows there were discrepancies with virtually every document used to acquire Mr Titford's farm for the "alleged" Te Roroa claim. Even when we requested a copy of the Deed under the Official Information Act from the Office of Treaty settlements, the Crown had tampered with the fully executed document. When we brought this to the Minister's attention, he said we had been supplied with the wrong "version"! There can only be one "version" of any legal document unless they have been tampered with!
We also asked you to justify your comment,"....and have found no evidence to support your allegations that the documents were tampered with or were in any way corrupt". In your letter of the 11 September 2009, you make no effort to justify this comment, just blame me for not agreeing with your opinion. I have great faith in your officials and the investigative process when they investigated and found the Crown's officials or its agent had tampered with the documents to acquire Mr Titford's farm without justification. It is your opinion that is out of sync with your own officer's investigation under the Act, therefore, does not satisfy us, as we believe you have been influence by extreme "political pressure" in this instance.
If you can justify your comment above, we will accept your opinion in good faith, but without this, we will not accept that your consideration of the complaints we have brought to you have been independent and impartial and will continue to question your integrity in these matters.
I am sure you have sufficient other complaints, “who seek your assistance in good faith, accepting whatever the outcome of any investigation you undertake might be and their grievance will have received independent and impartial consideration”. The Ombudsman's investigation we accept, the Chief Ombudsman's opinion we ask for justification, as we believe it was made under extreme "political pressure”. Something we learnt from your statements below.
Beverley Wakem addressed the 2005 Churches Broadcasting Commission Scholarships in Wellington with the words “You will need to be well informed, develop a sense of perspective, what is the history of this and that, what is going on behind and what is going on in front, and what is the cause of this. Be curious, be sceptical, and don’t be sidetracked by political spin, and be alert to the large responsibility you have in seeking the truth.
“Achieving administrative justice and procedural fairness in Ombudsmen’s investigations”. Beverley Wakem, Chief Ombudsman, New Zealand
Yours sincerely,
Ross Baker.
Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.
P.O. Box 1, Awanui, Northland, New Zealand. www.onenzfoundation.co.nz
28 September 2009.
Ms Beverley Wakem,
Chief Ombudsman,
Ombudsman's Office,
Wellington,
New Zealand.
Dear Ms Wakem,
We are disappointed you will not or cannot justify your statement, "…..and have found no evidence to support your allegations that the documents were tampered with or were in any way corrupt". Your officer's investigation, which cost the country thousands of dollars, found plenty of tampering and corruption with the documents to acquire Mr Titford's farm, but it seems you have taken little notice of their findings when giving your personal opinion.
The Ombudsman's Office is the end of the line for New Zealanders that have been wronged by the Crown/Government. If the Chief Ombudsman cannot justify her opinions, then she should not be giving unsubstantiated opinions, which effects and destroys people lives. The Titford's have a right to know why you gave this opinion.
As we stated in our letter dated 14 September 2009, "If you can justify your comment above, we will accept your opinion in good faith, but without this, we will not accept that your consideration of the complaints we have brought to you have been independent and impartial and will continue to question your integrity in these matters".
Yours sincerely,
Ross Baker,
Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.
What can you do?
Email the Chief Ombudsman, Beverley Wakem and ask her why she will not support the findings of her officer’s investigation or justify her opinion. Email Beverley Wakem, Chief Ombudsman at; Beverley.Wakem@ombudsmen.parliament.nz
|
