8 October 2007.

The Hon Mark Burton,
Minister in Charge of Treaty Negotiations,
Parliament Buildings,
Wellington,
New Zealand.

Dear Sir,

Re; Te Roroa Claim.
I have just received a copy of a letter you wrote to Mr Allan Titford on the 2 October 2007 in response to a letter from Mr Titford to the Prime Minister. Your letter, written on behalf of the Prime Minister is misleading and far too simplistic for this ongoing debacle, which has spanned over twenty years. To only make two small comments of an investigation by the Ombudsman and her staff, taking many months of work, is an insult to her intelligence, her integrity and the people of New Zealand.

The “tampered with documents” are only one small part of a long cruel plan by the Crown to evict Mr and Mrs Titford and their young family from their freehold titled property for a false Maori land claim. In the beginning the Crown allowed, no encouraged Te Roroa to terrorise and harass the Titford’s with the police laying false charges against Mr Titford, which he was acquitted on all counts. The police deliberately left Mrs Titford on her own amongst the “natives” while they took Mr Titford away late at night on “trumped up” charges to be acquitted once again. Mrs Titford suffered three miscarriages during this time. They then burn their house to the ground hoping all the documented evidence would be destroyed. Finally, they forced the Titfords to evacuate their property, family and friends and flee to Tasmania for their own safety. The Crown then offered Mr and Mrs Titford senior and their son Brian $500,000 to declare Mr Titford insane and become Power of Attorney to sign the Agreement, but they refused. The “tampered with” documents were the final straw in a long running battle by the Crown to illegally and immorally take possession of the Titford’s freehold titled property.

Mr Burton, the “tampered with” documents was the last corrupt, illegal and immoral act in a long running battle by the Crown to evict Mr and Mrs Titford from their freehold titled property, under duress, for a false Maori land claim. Something that will never, ever go away!!!

The Ombudsman did not find, “Mr Samec was acting for Mr and Mrs Titford at the relevant time”. She found, when you read the whole investigation report, that both Mr Samec and the Crown accepted Mr Titford’s memorandum stating, “Also the matter of the lawyer here in Tasmania, which you have appointed to assist in this matter”. She also found, Mr Samec signed Mr Titford’s amendment to page 11 of the Sale Agreement stating, “The Crown’s paid lawyer present made it clear that no deletions are allowed”. Mr Samec sent his account to the Crown and they paid it without contacting Mr Titford. Mr Samec was not acting for Mr and Mrs Titford; he was “appointed and paid by the Crown to assist in the matter”!!!!

If Mr Samec had been acting for Mr Titford, he would have returned all the pages he and Mr Titford had signed and/or initialled on the 12/12/95, but on instructions from the Crown Law Office that no amendments or deletions were to be made, he substituted the amended pages with clean page he had on file at his office before returning them. The Ombudsman stating, “I can only conclude, therefore, that for what ever reason, Mr Samec did not transmit the memorandum to the Crown Law Office, or make any reference to it”.

Mr Samec could not give “appropriate legal advice to Mr and Mrs Titford” because he stated to Mr and Mrs Titford, he had no knowledge of the ‘1948 Land Act’ this land was sold under. If he had knowledge of this Act, he would have known the final “changed” Agreement sent on the 11/12/95 to be signed by Mr Titford on the 12/12/95, breached the 1948 Land Act, and would have advised them not to sign it as Mr Clive Jackson, Mr Titford’s lawyer advised when he eventually saw a copy of the vastly changed Agreement Mr Titford was forced to sign.

The Agreement Mr Titford agreed to sign on the 8/12/95 was the Agreement he had discussed with his own lawyer Mr Clive Jackson and had made an amendment which the Crown accepted, but the agreement Mr Titford was given to sign without “legal advice” on the side of the road in Tasmania on the 12/12/95, was a completely different Agreement, which Mr Jackson had never seen or discussed with his client, Mr Titford. As Mr Titford’s own lawyer, Mr Clive Jackson was refused a copy of this Agreement, he could not advise him or lodge an appeal within the 21 days the Act allows. When Mr Jackson eventually saw a copy of the Agreement, he stated, “My advice to you would have been, not to sign it”. Surely, if Mr Samec had been acting for Mr and Mrs Titford, he would have invited them into his house to sign the documents, not on the bonnet of their car on the side of the road. Not very professional and definitely without “appropriate legal advice”

You also stated the Ombudsman found, “nothing to support the allegations of tampering or corrupt use of the documents”. She agreed the photos Mr Titford supplied to her were in fact photos of the documents signed by Mr Titford, and initialled by the Crown’s lawyer Mr Samec in Tasmania, but were never returned to New Zealand. The only feasible reason Mr Samec or the Crown Law Office never supplied Mr Titford or Jackson with a fully executed Deed and Sale Agreement, they knew they were not the documents Mr Titford had signed and Mr Samec had witnessed in Tasmania on the 12/12/95.

Your statement, “Mr Titford has been corresponding with you and the previous Ministers in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiation about the Agreement for many years now”, is a lie. Mr Titford only received his first “tampered with version” of the Sale Agreement from you on the 23 January 2007. Previous requests by his lawyer Mr Clive Jackson had been refused. In fact, he has never received a copy of the Deed and Sale Agreement he signed, initialled the pages and Mr Samec witnessed in Tasmania on the 12/12/95. A fact found by the Ombudsman in her investigation.

There is no disputing; Mr Samec was not acting for Mr and Mrs Titford and that he did not return the documents Mr Titford had signed in Tasmania on the 12/12/95. He substituted certain pages, which had been amended by Mr Titford, with clean pages he held in his office, as instructed by the Crown Law Office.

Sir, this whole claim has been based on lies from the start.
1. The Crown lied that Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were wahi tapu. From all the records prior to the claim, Manuwhetai was only a fishing camp and Whangaiariki, a pa site. It has been found this land was taken as a substitute for land held in multiple ownership, which we believe the claimants are lodging a further claim.
2. The Crown’s “Statement of Fact” in 1990, was a lie. The Crown had and still has no evidence to support their statement that Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were “intended by all parties to be reserved from the sale”. In fact the documents, now available, show the opposite.
3. The Waitangi Tribunal lied the original sale documents were missing. Mr Titford has proof; they were stolen by one of the claimants!! We have copies of the original sale agreements etc. showing conclusively, that all parties agreed to the sale and without further reserves.
4. The Crown lied to the public that Manuwhetai was wahi tapu. The Deed, signed by the Crown shows it was only “alleged” to be wahi tapu, although deleted in the first “version” we received.
5. The Crown lied to the public on the amount of money Mr Titford was paid for his farm as they constantly said he received $3.25 million.
6. The Crown lied that this sale was made under the 1948 Land Act. The “final” Sale Agreement breached the 1948 land Act. It was not the agreement Mr Titford had discussed with his lawyer Mr Clive Jackson and had agreed to sign on the 8/12/95.
7. The Crown lied “that not one square inch of private land would be taken for a Maori land claim”. A fact stated by Prime Minister David Lange and confirmed by the 1993 Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act. The Crown is not above the Law!!
8. The Crown lied when Mr Paul James, Director of the Office of Treaty Settlements sent the “first tampered with” Deed in November 2006. The amendment had been brought to the Office of Treaty Settlements attention in a memo in 1995 from the Crown Law Office, so he must have or should have known the Deed he sent was not the Deed Mr Titford had sign and Mr Samec had witnessed in Tasmania showing Manuwhetai was only “alleged” to be wahi tapu.
9. The Crown lied when you sent the “first tampered with” Sale Agreement. There was no amendment, “To attach to the liabilities”.
10. The Crown lied when you sent the “second tampered with” Sale Agreement. The Ombudsman has found it was not the document signed in Tasmania.
11. The Maori Affairs Select Committee lied to Parliament. They lied the ONZF submission was not heard and that it contained bad language.
12. The Crown is lying about the findings of the Ombudsman. The statements you made are not what she found when the whole documents is taken into consideration.
13. The Crown is lying that Mr Titford has been corresponding with you and the other Ministers about the Agreement for many years. This was not possible, as Mr Titford did not have a copy of the Sale Agreement until 23 February this year, 2007. Copies had been refused before this time.

The Crown breached the “1993 Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act” as no “formal sealed contract” had been entered into between the Crown and Te Roroa at the time and the final Agreement breached the “1948 Land Act”. The Ombudsman also found, “He (Mr Titford) held the view that he was pushed into the sale without any real justification”. He was forced to sell “under duress”!!!

Sir, Mr Titford has photos of the documents he signed and initialled in Tasmania, which were witnessed by the Crown’s appointed, instructed and paid lawyer, Mr Samec. These documents cannot just vanish off the face of the earth unless someone has destroyed them for a specific reason. The Ombudsman stated, “I can only conclude, therefore, that for what ever reason, Mr Samec did not transmit the memorandum to the Crown Law Office, or make any reference to it”……… “Mr Samec (who I think is in his 80’s) now has no recall of the transaction. His firm’s file has been destroyed”. Very convenient!!! If Mr Samec had been acting for Mr Titford, all the pages would have been “transmitted to the Crown Law Office”, not substituted and the file would have been returned to Mr Titford as it would have belonged to him, which is normal practice – not destroyed, unless there was information Mr Samec did not want Mr Titford to see, like many of the Crown’s restricted documents and files into this claim.

Sir, the Crown Law Office must have on its file the Deed and Sale Agreement faxed back from Mr Samec to the Crown Law Office on the12/12/95, unless they have been conveniently destroyed as well. While these are not the documents signed in Tasmania, as the Ombudsman has found, “that for what ever reason, Mr Samec did not transmit the memorandum to the Crown Law Office”, they would be a “true” record of what Mr Samec returned before the “second attempt” by the Crown Law Office, to ”tamper with” the documents again. They would have the fax marks as travelling to and from Tasmania as the copy of the final signing page – so conveniently saved and used over and over again to compile the many “version” of the documents on file!!!!!

Under the Official Information Act, we ask for a copy of the documents Mr Samec sent back from Tasmania showing the fax marks as travelling to Tasmania from the Crown Law Office, then back to New Zealand from Crisp, Hudson and Mann as the final signing page attached to the many “versions” already supplied.

Without these documents, there is no evidence as to which are the “true” documents the Crown Law Office received from Mr Samec in Tasmania on the 12/12/95 as not one of the pages is signed or initialled by Mr Titford or Samec except for the final signing page, which we know was shuffled about like a decks of cards to compile the many “versions” the Crown has on its files The photos Mr Titford took of the documents that were signed in Tasmania, shows Mr Titford’s and the Crown’s lawyer, Mr Samec initials on the “agreed” pages. The agreement from Mr Titford sent on the 11/11/95 by Mr Titford’s lawyer Clive Jackson, one month before the final agreement, as was Mr Titford agreement some twelve months earlier, were initialled by Mr Titford on every page, as is normal practise for all legal documents. Mrs Titford, Mr Samec, Mr Sam Brown and Lynette Porter initial Mrs Titford’s Agreement on every page that was executed at the same time. The un-signed or un-initialled pages that make up the alleged Deed and Sale Agreement can only be “compiled frauds” and not the documents Mr Titford signed in Tasmania on the 12/12/95; therefore they are “null and void”!!!

Sir, it’s time the lying stopped!! All you are doing is digging a deeper hole. You and your colleagues are doing unrepairable damage to New Zealand’s reputation on the world scene by continuing to try and cover up New Zealand worst ever, case of fraud!!!

Prime Minister Helen Clark, you must stop this now. From what has transpired, it is obvious, all the Crown wanted Mr Samec to do, was to get Mr Titford’s signature on the final signing page so the Crown could compile documents to steal Mr Titford’s farm for a false Maori land claim.
Before the Te Roroa Settlement Bill proceeds, an inquiry must be held where all the documents are open for public scrutiny or the claim rejected and Mr Titford’s and Harrison’s freehold titled properties returned to them. The people of New Zealand have been lied to enough; they have a right to know the truth.

Yours sincerely,

Ross Baker.
Chairman, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.

Cc. Prime Minister, The Rt Hon Helen Clark.
The Ombudsman, Beverley Wakem.
To All Political Leaders and other interested parties.
Webmaster, One New Zealand Foundation Inc, www.onenzfoundation.co.nz