ONE NEW ZEALAND FOUNDATION INC
P.O. Box 1, Awanui, Northland, New Zealand. www.onenzfoundation.co.nz
HOW THE CROWN ACQUIRED ALLAN TITFORD'S LAND AT MAUNGANUI BLUFF
In October 1999, Auckland Barrister Mr Greg Denholm contacted Mr Craig Linkhorn, Crown Counsel, Crown Law Office to advise him, Mr Titford intended, "to file judicial review proceedings challenging the manner in which the Crown acquired his farm at Northland". Mr Linkhorn replied on the 28 October 1999, "I have been instructed to refer your client to the agreements executed by him and the Crown in 1995 in full settlement of any claim against the Crown by Mr Titford. In light of these agreements, I am instructed that the Crown is not prepared to meet with you and your client to discuss either the litigation threatened by Mr Titford or any proposal to avoid such litigation".
Refused copies of Fully Executed Agreement
At the time Mr Denholm contacted Craig Linkhorn, Mr Titford did not have copies
of the fully executed Sale Agreement or Deed as he had never been provided with
copies and was refused copiesbin February 1996, when requested by his lawyer
Mr Clive Jackson of Atkinson Jackson of Auckland, New Zealand.
The Crown can no longer hide behind the Agreement
From the research we have conducted into this transaction, we have found the
Sale Agreement and Deed the Crown has on file (copies were supplied by the Office
of Treaty Settlements, the Minister in Charge of Treaty Negotiations and the
Ombudsman), have been "tampered with" on many occasion by many people
to fraudulently acquire Mr Titford's freehold titled property at Maunganui Bluff
in 1995. They are not the documents Mr Titford initialled and signed and the
Crown's lawyer Mr Samec witnessed in Tasmania on the 12 December 1995. Now
that we have evidence these documents have been tampered with, the Crown can
no longer hide behind them and deny Mr Titford a Judicial Review!!!
Sequence of events surrounding the Sale Agreement and Deed
In 1994, the Crown made an offer to purchase Mr Titford's property for the purpose
of the 1948 Land Act for $3.25 million - $2.25 to clear Mr Titford's debts incurred
by this claim and $1 million ex-gratia payment. Mr Titford made amendments to
this Agreement including increasing the ex-gratia payment to $3 million in order
to give a "fair" valuation of the property, subdivision, stock, plant
and buildings. He initialled every page, signed and had the documents witnessed,
but the Crown rejected this offer.
Federated Farmers Offer
On the 21 November 1995, Federated Farmers made another offer to sell to the
Crown on Mr Titford's behalf for $4.51 million based on their registered valuer's
valuation but the Crown again rejected this offer.
Crown extends previous offer
On the 6 December 1995, the Crown extended their 1994 offer and appointed Notary
Public lawyer Mr Samec of Chrisp, Hudson, Mann, in Tasmania, "to assist
in this matter". Mr Samec was appointed, instructed and paid by the Crown
"to assist in the matter" as shown by the memorandum to the Sale Agreement,
"To attach to the liabilities", the memorandum on page 11, the many
letters to and from the Crown Law Office and Mr Samec's account paid by the
Crown. Mr Samec was not acting for Mr Titford or as his lawyer.
Mr Titford accepts the offer with amendments
Mr Titford, who had earlier discussed this offer with his lawyer in New Zealand,
Mr Clive Jackson of Atkinson Jackson, was forced to accept this offer on the
8 December 1995 in writing with one amendment - 7(1)(c)(i). The Crown agreed
to this amendment. The Crown had employed Mr Ray Chappell to put pressure on
Mr Titford and his extended family to acquire Mr Titford's property. See,
www.onenzfoundation.com.au/Government20%Henchman.
Crown makes drastic changes to agreement
Between the acceptance of this agreement by Mr Titford and his lawyer Mr Jackson
on the 8 December 1995 and the 11 December 1995, the Crown completely changed
the structure of their offer and added an extra 3 pages to the Sale Agreement
and the Deed had been changed from an ex-gratia payment to a "monetary
consideration". The land was now being "purchased to secure the wahi
tapu of Manuwhetai to assist in the settlement of the claim of the Te Roroa
people under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975". While the Agreements stated,
"For the purpose of the 1948 Land Act", the property was no longer
purchased under this Act. This new agreement also breached the 1993 Treaty of
Waitangi Amendment Act as Mr Titford's farm was now being acquired to settle
a Waitangi Tribunal recommendation. Mr Titford did NOT agree to the
terms of this Agreement and made this clear in his amendment to page 11 of the
Sale Agreement.
Documents signed on the side of the road
Mr Samec received the changed Agreement and Deed on the afternoon of the 11
December 1995 and contacted Mr and Mrs Titford to meet with him on the "side
of the road" outside his house in Burnie, Tasmania to sign the Agreement
the following morning. He had earlier asked Mr Titford to make a list of any
further liabilities to add to the Sale Agreement. Mr Titford had no idea that
the Agreement and Deed had been re-written and was surprised to see this new
Agreement and Deed after he had agreed to sign the Agreement presented on the
6 December 1995 with the one small amendment.
Agreement signed under duress
In a memo from Helen Aikman, Crown Law Office to Paul James, OTS dated the 1
December 1995, she wrote, "Recommendation k ii, add that assurances would
be required that the deeds were not being signed under duress". The memorandum,
"To attach to the liabilities" and the memorandum to page 11 of the
Sale Agreement shows Mr Titford signed the deeds "under duress". The
Ombudsman stating in her investigation, "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 that he was
pushed into the sale without any real justification". It's
a fact; Mr Titford signed the Sale Agreement and Deed under duress!!
No legal advice from Mr Samec
There is no mention in Mr Samec's account showing he gave Mr and Mrs Titford
legal advice before they signed the final "drastically changed" Agreements
on the 12 December 1995. The only advice Mr Samec gave Mr and Mrs Titford before
they signed the documents on 12 December 1995 was, "You have lost your
case with the Waitangi Tribunal and must sign, otherwise you will lose everything
you have, including your father's farm held as security by the bank". He
also said he did not have a copy of the 1948 Land Act or an understanding
of it, therefore could not give advice relating to this Act or the documents
being signed. He said he was only following instructions from the Crown
Law Office!!
No amendments to the documents
Mr Samec told Mr Titford he had been instructed, "No amendments could
be made to the documents, except for a list of any extra liabilities the Crown
had requested". Mr Samec signed the amendment, "To attach
to the Liabilities" and attached it to the Sale Agreement. Mr Titford told
Mr Samec, as this was a new agreement and the Crown had not signed it, he was
entitled to make whatever amendments he wanted. Mr Samec agreed to and initial
the amendment to page 11 and the Deed "alleged" but became very
annoyed when Mr Titford made further amendments to the Sale Agreement.
Affidavits from Mr and Mrs Titford.
Mr Titford had Mr Samec amended the Deed to read "alleged wahi tapu"
and had his wife Sue write a memorandum on page 11 of the Sale Agreement, which
Mr Titford signed and Mr Samec initialled, plus other amendments. As there was
no photocopier on the side of the road, Mr Titford took photographs of the memorandum
to page 11 while Mr Samec was attending to the signing of Mrs Titford's documents.
Mr Titford has sent Affidavits to the Ombudsman and the Crown Law Office with
a copy of the amendment to page 11 and a photograph of the amended page of the
Sale Agreement.
Agreed pages initialled
The photographs show Mr Titford's memorandum and signature and Mr Samec's initials
on page 11. Mr Titford also states in the memorandum on page 11 he initialled
the pages he 'accepted' of the Sale Agreement and Deed but there are no signatures
or initials on any of the pages supplied by the Crown.
Pages of documents not initialled
It is interesting to note, all Mr Titford's previous agreements had every page
initialled. Mrs Titford's Discharge of Liabilities signed at the same time,
12 December 1995 is also initialled on every page. As Mr Titford's initials
do not appear on any of the pages of the Sale Agreements or Deeds supplied by
the Crown, they can only be compiled fakes!!
.
Memorandum not transmitted to Crown Law Office.
Mr Samec faxed the documents back to the Crown Law Office in New Zealand on
the 12 December 1995 but did not send the amended page 11. The Ombudsman stating
in her investigation into, The circumstances surrounding the execution of the
agreement and deed, and to the rather confusing number of copies which have
appeared, "I can only conclude, that for whatever reason, Mr Samec did
not transmit the memorandum to the Crown Law Office, or make any reference to
it. It is not appropriate for me to speculate upon why that may have been so,
and I do not propose to do so". Mr Samec, the Crown's appointed, instructed
and paid Notary Public lawyer had substituted page 11 with the memorandum that
Mr Titford had signed and he (Samec) had initialled, with a page that had no
memorandum, signatures or initials. Mr Samec had been instructed, "Amendments
could not be made to the Agreement".
No true copy of Sale Agreement or Deed
To this day, Mr Titford has never received a "true" copy of the Sale
Agreement and Deed he signed and initialled in Tasmania and had the Crown's
Notary Public lawyer witness. The various letters and the account between Mr
Samec, of Chrisp, Hudson, Mann and the Crown Law Office, and the entry in the
"To attach to the liabilities" attached to the Sale Agreement, shows
Mr Samec was appointed, instructed and paid by the Crown Law Office, "To
assist in the matter". He was not Mr Tiford's lawyer and did not advise
him on the final Sale Agreement or Deed. Mr Titford's lawyer was Mr Clive Jackson
of Atkinson Jackson, Auckland, New Zealand.
Mr Jackson would have advised, "NOT TO SIGN"!!
Mr Jackson wrote, "To summarise, I confirm that at no stage prior to
the execution of the final settlement agreement was I provided with a copy of
the documentation and I was not aware that the documentation had been signed
until after the fact. I did not provide you (Mr Titford) with any legal advice
in respect to the final agreement and if I had, my advice to you
would have been, not to sign. In fact, even after it was signed
the Crown refused to provide me with a copy of it".
Crown Law Office Memo
In 2004, we found a document stating there was a restricted file of the Hon
Doug Graham, Minister in Charge of Treaty Negotiations into the Te Roroa claim
held by Archives New Zealand. I wrote to Mr Graham asking if I could uplift
this file. Permission was given but I had to engage the Ombudsman before Archives
would release the file. In the file I found a memo between Helen Aikman, Crown
Law Office and Paul James and Mary-Anne Thompson, Office of Treaty Settlements
showing concern about an amendment Mr Titford had made to the Deed and a memorandum,
"To attach to list of liabilities" he had attached to the Sale Agreement.
A copy of both was attached to the memo.
See, www.onenzfoundation.com.au/TAMPERING20%WITH20%DEED.
Copy of the Deed
In October 2006, I went with Mr Titford to the Office of Treaty Settlement and
requested a copy of the Deed through the Official Information Act.
First "version" of the Deed
On the 1 November 2006, the Deed arrived from Mr Paul James, now the Director
of the OTS who had been very involved in the transaction in 1995. This agreement
did not have the amendment "alleged" as shown in the page of the Deed
attached to the memo. This document was not the document Mr Titford had signed
and Mr Samec had witnessed in Tasmania as shown in the memo.
Wrote to Minister - "Second version of the Deed!!
We wrote to the Minister in Charge of Treaty Negotiations, the Hon Mark Burton
with a copy of the memo showing this was not the Deed Mr Titford had signed
in Tasmania. I also asked for a copy of the Sale Agreement. Mr Burton wrote,
"The version released did not include an alteration made at the time
of signing at the request of Mr Titford, in which the word "alleged"
was inserted into the document prior to the phrase, wahi tapu". "Version"!!
How many "versions" can there be of a legal document?"
Pages cannot jump in and out of a document by themselves!!
A legal document cannot swap pages by itself; this can only be achieved by a
person for a specific reason. This claim was based on Manuwhetai being wahi
tapu, but the amendment Mr Titford made, showed Manuwhetai was only "alleged
to be wahi tapu" with the Crown agreeing to this amendment. To date, the
Crown or the claimants have been unable to supply one document to support Manuwhetai
or Whangairiki being "wahi tapu". This amendment told the people of
New Zealand this claim was a fraud, something the Crown did not want the public
to know!!!!
Sale Agreement - "Version one"
The Sale Agreement Mr Burton sent with the Deed on the 23 January 2007 did not
include the attachment "To attach to the liabilities" requested by
the Crown that Mr Titford and Mr Samec had signed and attached to the Sale Agreement
as shown in the memo and the memorandum to page 11.
Sale Agreement - "Version Two"!!
We again sent a copy of the memo from the Crown Law Office and Mr Burton responded
with a copy of the Sale Agreement with the memorandum, "To attach to the
liabilities" attached but still missing the memorandum to page 11.
How many "versions" can there be of a legal document?"
Ombudsman Investigation
Due to the various "version" of the Sale Agreement and Deed we had
received from the OTS and the Minister, we decided to ask the Ombudsman,
"To investigate the circumstances surrounding the execution of the Agreement
and Deed and the rather confusing number of copies that have appeared".
Ombudsman's "true copies of the originals"
On the 30 April 2007, the Ombudsman produced copies of the Sale Agreement and
Deed, stating, "I am satisfied that these are true copies of the originals,
with the exception that they bear the endorsement, 'Released Under the Official
Information Act', and that the notary seal of Mr Samec's on each executed page
is not reproduced". While the Sale Agreement had Mr Samec's Notary Public
seal, it was missing the attachment, "To attach to the liabilities"
and the memorandum to page 11. Mr Burton's latest "version" of the
Sale Agreement had this attachment attached although not signed by Mr Sam Brown.
When brought to the Ombudsman's attention, she stated, "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".
This sums up the whole Agreement; the Crown's Officials deciding
which part of the Agreement they wanted and which parts they would remove after
Mr Titford had signed the Agreement and Mr Samec had witnessed it!! HOW CORRUPT
IS THAT!!!!!
Photograph of page 11
Mr and Mrs Titford sent the Ombudsman Affidavits of the Memorandum to page 11
of the Sale Agreement with copies of the photographs Mr Titford had taken on
the morning of the 12 December 1995 when he and Mrs Titford signed the documents
on the side of the road that were witnessed by Mr Samec. The Ombudsman's comment,
"I can only conclude, that for whatever reason, Mr Samec did not transmit
the memorandum to the Crown Law Office, or make any reference to it. It is not
appropriate for me to speculate upon why that may have been so, and I do not
propose to do so".
No changes to be made to the documents
We speculate, as Mr Samec the appointed, instructed and paid Notary Public lawyer
was instructed by the Crown not to allow changes to be made to the documents,
he removed page 11 with the memorandum and replaced it with a clean page before
faxing it to the Crown Law Office. The reason Mr Samec and the Crown
did not provide Mr Tiford with a copy of the fully executed Agreement!!
How many "versions" can there be of a legal document?"
From the above, there is no denying there are many "versions" of the
Sale Agreement and Deed in existence compiled from numerous pages/documents
held in the files of the Crown Law Office. As Mr Titford initials do not appear
on any of the pages of these documents, the Crown can no longer prove,
which are the "true" documents and which have been "tampered
with" by people or agents within the Crown, but we do know, they are not
the documents Mr Titford signed and Mr Samec witnessed in Tasmania on the 12
December 1995.
Legal opinion is; this transaction is null and void. Legal documents cannot be changed by the purchaser after the vendor has signed them and had them witnessed by a Notary Public Lawyer.
This whole scenario is a disgrace to the Crown. The incompetence and dishonesty shown by people within these Crown identities and its agents are unbelievable and must be brought to justice. They have brought the Crown Law Office and New Zealand law into disrepute!
The documentation, when the Crown purchased the land from Tiopira Kinaki and Parore te Awha in 1876, is flawless; the documentation when the Crown purchased the land from Allan Titford in 1995, is a disgrace!!!!
Judicial Review
Now that the documentation into the Agreement between Mr Titford and the Crown
has been exposed, the Crown Law Office can no longer hide behind it to prevent
a Judicial Review. For the Crown Law Office to uphold its National and International
reputation, it must now declare this transaction null and void and hold a, "Judicial
Review into the fraudulent tampering with the documents by the Crown and/or
its agents to acquire Mr Titford's property in Northland".
The Crown is not above the law!!!
Ross Baker.
Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.
Cc To all Political Party Leaders and others.
The Webmaster, One New Zealand Foundation Inc. www.onenzfoundation.co.nz