Jane,

I believe you have been inquiring as to when we will be occupying Mr Titford's property at Maunganui Bluff. We were planning on occupying it sometime before the elections, but now that the Solicitor General, Dr David Collins, QC has agreed with the Ombudsman, "That there was a clerical error or errors in the handling of the documents at the time", hopefully the Crown will come to its senses and re-instate Mr Titford's titles without having to take this action.

While the Crown denies the Ombudsman found the Crown had tampered with the documents, there is no denying, she concluded the Crown's agent, Mr Sam Samec had deliberately removed a memorandum to page 11 of the Sale Agreement before he returned it to the Crown Law Office and the Crown Law Office had deliberately remove the memorandum, "To attach to the liabilities" before presenting it to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Mr Sam Brown to be executed. This is fully explained in the attached letter to the Solicitor General, which I am sure he will not or can not deny. How corrupt is that!!!

The Government agreed to this claim in 1990 in the "Statement of Fact", stating the Crown had made an "error" in the sale to the Crown in 1876, but without one document of evidence to support it. Once the Crown had agreed to this claim, the Waitangi Tribunal had no other option than to also find in the claimant's favour, again without one document of evidence to support it. In fact, all the documents and the subsequent inquiries, show there is no claim to answer. The Maori Affairs Select Committee, consisting mainly of Te Roroa relations or people with a vested interest, then lied to Parliament and the public to suppress the truth at the second reading of this claim. How corrupt is that!!!

So Jane, it's up to the Crown when or if we occupy Mr Titford's property. They allowed, no encouraged, Te Roroa to occupy it and were in the process of giving it to them without one document of evidence to support it. We have the Ombudsman stating memorandums and documents were deliberately removed from Mr Titford's Sale Agreement by the Crown's officials or its agents and the Solicitor General agreeing with the Ombudsman, "there were clerical errors in the handling of the documents". How corrupt is that!!

We have hundreds of documents, including the 1876 Deed showing this land was legally and morally purchased by the Crown in 1876. We also have the documents showing Mr Titford purchased this land's freehold title, legally and morally in 1986.

The Crown has no other option now, they have been caught out "red-handed" and must re-instate the freehold titles they fraudulently stole from Mr Titford by removing a memorandum and a document from the Sale Agreement he signed in Tasmania and the Crown's agent, Notary Public Solicitor Sam Samec witnessed before the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Mr Sam Brown signed it on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen. Not a good image for the New Zealand Government on the world's stage!!! Hopefully, the Crown will come to its senses instead of us having to occupy the land!!!

Regards.

Ross Baker.

cc. One New Zealand Foundation Inc. Webmaster.

6 March 2008. Email, rossbaker@austarnet.com.au

Dr David Collins, QC,
Solicitor-General,
Crown Law Office,
P.O.Box 5012,
Wellington,
New Zealand.

Dear Sir,

Re; The Acquisition of Mr Allan Titford’s property at Maunganui Bluff, Northland.
Your Ref: SOL115/809

Thank you for your letter dated the 17 March 2008 re; “The serious allegations that officials within the Crown Law Office or their agents, unlawfully removed documents from the Sale Agreement relating to the above property at the time it was signed twelve years ago in December 1995”.

I cannot believe that the Solicitor General considers the Ombudsman’s comment, “That there was a clerical error or errors in the handling of the documents at the time”, disposes the allegations. Whether there was a clerical error or the documents were deliberately tampered with, the fact remains, the Sale Agreement Mr Sam Brown, the Commissioner of Lands signed on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen, was not the document Mr Titford signed and had witnessed by Notary Public Solicitor, Sam Samec in Tasmania on the 12 December 1995. The reason we believe Mr Titford and his lawyer, Clive Jackson were refused copies of the documents when requested at the time!!

While you say, “The Ombudsman has dealt with this matter and found nothing to support our allegations of tampering or corrupt use of the documents”, it seems you have been misinformed as to her findings. The Ombudsman stated in her letter dated the 21 August 2007, “I can only conclude, therefore, 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 mention of a clerical error or errors by the Ombudsman here, just the unlawful removal of the memorandum by the Crown’s agent!!

The Ombudsman also found Mr Titford sold his farm “under duress”, stating, “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”. No mention of a clerical error or errors by the Ombudsman here, just that Mr Titford sold his farm “under duress and without justification”.

In a further letter dated the 20 December 2007, the Ombudsman stated, “It may well be that the memorandum was not initialled by Mr Brown, or perhaps even seen by him, because it was not regarded as being part of the formal Agreement. 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”. No mention of a clerical error or errors by the Ombudsman here, just the unlawful removal of the memorandum by the Crown’s officials!!!!

Sir, it concerns me that you have been misinformed by your officials, these are very serious allegations, not only made by me, but also by the Ombudsman as shown above. The memorandum the Crown’s officials or its agents removed from the Agreement was not only signed by Mr Titford, it was fully executed by the Crown’s appointed, instructed and paid lawyer as, “Z Samec, Notary Public and Solicitor, Burnie, Tasmania, 12/12/95”. This memorandum was attached to the Sale Agreement and returned to the Crown Law Office on the 12/12/95. It was then acknowledged as being received as an attachment to the Agreement by Helen Aikman, Crown Law Office in a memo to Paul James and Mary-Anne Thompson, Office of Treaty Settlements on the 12/12/95, stating, “Faxed executed copies have arrived. Please note, (2) His attachment to list of liabilities”. The Ombudsman found there was great concern with this attachment and therefore the reason for it being unlawfully removed!!

From the above, there is no denying the memorandum formed part of the Agreement between Mr Titford and Her Majesty the Queen and was deliberately and unlawfully removed by the Crown’s officials from the Agreement after Mr Titford had signed it and Mr Samec had witnessed it, but before it was given to Mr Sam Brown, the Commissioner of Lands, to be signed. With both these memorandums removed, Mr Brown would have had no idea that Mr Titford was signing under duress, did not have legal representation and did not agree with the vastly amended Agreement. No mention is made of a clerical error or errors by the Ombudsman, just the unlawful removal of the memorandums by the Crown’s officials or its agents before Mr Brown signed it. We believe, making a corrupt use of a document!!

Sir, the Te Roroa claim and the reason to acquire Mr Titford’s property, “was based on an alleged clerical error or errors made by the Crown in 1876 when the Crown purchased this land". As the Ombudsman found, not only were “clerical errors” made by the Crown when they acquired Mr Titford’s farm, she also found documents were “unlawfully removed or tampered with”, therefore the Crown now has no other option than to return Mr Titford’s freehold titled land, stock and plant, plus compensation, the same as they were about to do for Te Roroa, but in Te Roroa’s case, without one document of evidence to support it.

Yours faithfully,

Ross Baker.

One New Zealand Foundation Inc.
cc. Prime Minister, Rt Hon Helen Clark.
Hon Michael Cullen, Minister

Your attached letter and our reply will appear on the One New Zealand Foundation’s website.