ONE NEW ZEALAND FOUNDATION INC
P.O.Box 1, Awanui, Northland, New Zealand.
26 August 2007.
Ms Beverley Wakem
Ombudsman.
Your Ref ; W57416
Thank you for your letter dated the 21 August 2007and a copy of your letter
to Mr and Mrs Titford also dated the 21 August 2007.
I must agree with your conclusion to Mr and Mrs Titford, "That
for whatever reason, Mr Samec did not transmit the memorandum to the Crown Law
Office, or make any reference to it".
Mr Samec was appointed, instructed and paid by the Crown, “To
assist in this matter”, a fact Mr Samec acknowledged in
the memorandum, "To attach to the liabilities",
attached to the Sale Agreement. Mr Samec was not acting for Mr Titford.
If Mr Samec did not transmit the Sale Agreement Mr Titford had executed and
he (Samec) had witnessed, including the memorandum on page 11 as shown on the
photographed copies, then Mr Titford can not be responsible for the Crown not
receiving the "true"
executed Sale Agreement and Deed on the 12 December 1995.
From your investigation, the Sale Agreement the Crown Law Office received from
Mr Samec on the 12 December 1995 and subsequently posted in hard copy, could
only have been a compiled document assembled from the pages Mr Samec had been
faxed from the Crown Law Office on the 11 December 1995 and the final signing
page and memorandum Mr Titford had signed and Mr Samec had witnessed as Notary
Public and Solicitor, 75 Mount St, Burnie, Tasmania on the 12 December 1995.
As he had been instructed not to make changes or amendments to the document,
it seems he decided to compile a clean document, without amendments, by substituting
pages from both documents.
Whether in error or intentional, your investigation shows Mr Samec, who
was appointed, instructed and paid by the Crown “To assist in this matter”,
sent the wrong Sale Agreement back to the Crown Law Office.
The memorandum on page 11, that Mr Titford signed and had Mr Samec witness,
clearly shows Mr Titford did not fully accept this Sale Agreement or Deed. In
fact, it shows he was "forced"
to sign the documents "under duress".
It was not the agreement Mr Titford had agreed to sign on the 8 December 1995.
While you state, "This new information does not change the view
I indicated in my letter to Mr Baker regarding the matters I had undertaken
to investigate", it does change it dramatically. You state in
your letter to Mr and Mrs Titford, "Mr Samec
did not transmit the memorandum to the Crown Law Office",
therefore the Sale Agreement the Crown Law Office has on its file is not the
Sale Agreement that the Crown's appointed, instructed and paid lawyer, Mr Samec
had Mr Titford sign, with amendments and he (Samec) witnessed on the 12 December
1995.
Your investigation also shows that the amendment "alleged"
in the Deed and the memorandum "To attach
to the liabilities" attached to the Sale Agreement, is
a completely separate issue than the documents sent back to New Zealand by Mr
Samec. The omission of these amendments from the earlier "versions"
we received; shows they were further “tampered with” after the documents
arrived back in New Zealand on the 12 December 1995. The Crown then made sure
Mr Titford or his lawyer; Clive Jackson never received a copy to challenge the
validity of the documents. It was only after we produced the memo from Helen
Aikman, Crown Law Office to Paul James, Office of Treaty Settlements, that the
Minister in Charge of Treaty Negotiations, Hon Mark Burton, reluctantly produced
the “compiled” documents
Mr Samec had returned, showing these amendments.
The sale of Allan Titford's farm was based on Manuwhetai being wahi tapu. The amendment "alleged" shows that the Crown had no evidence to support the sale/claim, a fact that has now been confirmed. The memorandum, "To attach to the liabilities" shows Mr Samec was appointed, instructed and paid by the Crown, “To assist with this matter” and the “liabilities” that Mr Titford had incurred, were due to the Waitangi Tribunal claim, therefore forcing him to sell his freehold titled farm “under duress”. Mr Samec would have thought, as you have, these were "relatively minor amendments” and left them as is, but in fact, they undermined the basis of the sale of Mr Titford's freehold titled farm for this false claim and therefore, had to be suppressed from the public and Parliament, for this claim to proceed.
While your initial investigation only gave the Crown’s interpretations
of events, this further investigation, with its conclusion, has clarified many
outstanding matters. As for Mr McKinnon’s papers, this would be a waste
of time unless the whole file was made public. What Mr East may think, “were
relatively minor”, may have a major bearing on this matter.
From your investigation and conclusion, the
Sale Agreement can only be a forgery, whether in error or
intentional, but the fact remains, it is not the document Mr Titford signed
and the Crown's lawyer, Mr Samec witnessed in Tasmania on the 12 December 1995,
therefore the Sale Agreement and Deed held on file by the Crown Law Office,
are null and void.
Thank you for your help, your investigation and conclusion has given us more
than, “the outcome we had hoped for”.
Yours sincerely,
Ross Baker.
Chairman, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.
cc. The Hon Mark Burton, Minister in Charge of Treaty Negotiations.
All Political Party Leaders
This letter may appear on the ONZF website.
Rt Hon Helen Clark,
Prime Minister,
Parliament Building,
Wellington.
Dear Prime Minister,
The Ombudsman's investigation has found our concerns, regarding the documents
into the sale of my land at Maunganui Bluff, were justified.
"That for whatever reason, Mr Samec did not
transmit the memorandum to the Crown Law Office, or made any reference to it".
Mr Samec was appointed, instructed and paid by the Crown, “To
assist in this matter”, a fact Mr Samec acknowledged in
the memorandum, "To attach to the liabilities",
attached to the Sale Agreement. Mr Samec was
not acting on my behalf.
From the Ombudsman's investigation and conclusion, the Sale Agreement can only be a forgery, whether in error or intentional, but the fact remains, it is not
the document I signed and the Crown's lawyer, Mr Samec witnessed in Tasmania on the 12 December 1995, therefore the Sale Agreement and Deed held
on file by the Crown Law Office, are null and void.
Will I have his land returned plus compensation or will the Crown re-negotiate the sale plus compensation? If my land it to be returned, please notify Mr Russell
so that he can vacate the property before the 30 October 2007 when I would like to re-occupy my land. If the Crown decides to re-negotiate the sale, then I would need to inform my solicitor so he can act on my behalf.
Yours sincerely,
Allan Titford
From: Ross Baker
To: Hon Mark Burton
Cc: Prime Minister
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 4:37 AM
Subject: Te Roroa settlement Bill
29 August, 2007
Hon Mark Burton,
Minister in Charge of Treaty Negotiations,
Parliament.
Dear Sir,
Re; Maunganui Bluff.
As the Ombudsman, Beverley Wakem has found that the documents to purchase Allan
Titford's freehold titled property at Maunganui Bluff have been "tampered
with" making them null and void, this property must now
be withdrawn from the Te Roroa Settlement Bill.
Yours sincerely,
Ross Baker.
Chairman, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.