"When someone "tampers with" a legal document for gain, it's called fraud and those responsible are brought to justice and the agreement declared null and void"!!!

ONE NEW ZEALAND FOUNDATION INC.
P.O.Box 1, Awanui, Northland, New Zealand. www.onenzfoundation.co.nz

Mr Paul James,
Director,
Office of Treaty Settlements,
P.O.Box 919,
Wellington,
New Zealand.

Dear Sir,

RE: Ombudsman's Investigation

Since receiving the Ombudsman's report into her, "Investigation into the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement and deed relating to the sale of Mr Titford's former farm, and to the rather confusing number of copies which have appeared", there are a number of unanswered questions. As the documents at the time show you were one of the people involved with Helen Aikman, Crown Counsel, Crown Law Office and Mary-Anne Thompson, Office of Treaty Settlements when the documents were returned to New Zealand on the 12/12/95, I thought you, as Director of the Office of Treaty Settlements would be the best person to answer these questions.

It cannot be denied, Notary Public lawyer Mr Sam Samec was not Mr or Mrs Titford's lawyer. Many documents signed by him, including his account shows he was appointed, instructed and paid by the Crown "to assist in the matter" only. Mr Samec's only advice to Mr and Mrs Titford when they were forced to sign the "revised" final documents was, "You have lost your case with the Waitangi Tribunal and must sign, otherwise you will lose everything, including your father's farm held as security by the Bank". How could he have given legal advice, when he told Mr and Mrs Titford he had no knowledge, understanding or copy of the 1948 Land Act? Mr and Mrs Titford's lawyer at the time was Mr Clive Jackson of Atkinson and Jackson, Auckland, New Zealand. While Mr Jackson had given legal advice to Mr and Mrs Titford on the Agreement Mr Titford had agreed to sign on the 8 December 1995, he gave no legal advice on the "revised" Agreement dated the 12/12/95 stating. "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 with any legal advice in respect to the final agreement and if I had, my advice would have been, not to sign. In fact, even after it was signed the Crown refused to provide me with copy of it".

Mr Titford and Mr Jackson never received copies of the fully executed Deed and Sale Agreement signed in Tasmania and when requested in February 1996 were refused by the Crown for what we know now - very obvious reasons!!!

If the memo dated the 12/12/95 from Helen Aikman, Crown Law Office to Mary-Anne Thompson and yourself, Office of Treaty Settlement had not been found in the Hon Doug Graham's restricted file, the "tampered with" documents would have gone undetected. It seems these amendments Mr Titford had made to the documents greatly concerned the Crown Law Office and the Office of Treaty Settlements. Our concern is; they and page 11 were all removed from the initial documents we received from the Crown until this memo and its attachments were brought to the Crown's attention!!! The memorandum to page 11 has still not been disclosed, where is it???

The One New Zealand Foundation's questions to you are.
A. The Ombudsman quoted, "From my Office's perusal of the number of files held by the Office of Treaty Settlements and 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 any real justification". This is again stated in the attachment, "To attach to the liabilities" attached to the Sale Agreement, which Mr Titford and the Notary Public lawyer Mr Samec signed, stating, "I Allan Titford, believe we have been pushed into this list of creditors as a result of the Waitangi Tribunal claim" and the memorandum Mr Titford made to page 11 of the Sale Agreement which the Crown's lawyer Mr Samec initialled but removed and replaced with a "clean" page before returning the documents to New Zealand, which stated, "This being signed under protest due to the bank's foreclosure and the Crown's recent attempt to declare the vendor insane in order to get Power of Attorney, so have no other choice than to sign".

In another memo found in the Hon Doug Graham's restricted file between Helen Aikman and yourself dated the 12/12/95 in relation to a media release, Helen Aikman states, "Don't push willing buyer/willing seller" showing she knew Mr Titford was not a willing seller. Attached to this memo is a copy of the media release showing "willing buyer/willing seller" crossed out.

Question. As a number of files, memos and Mr Samec's acknowledgement shows, "Mr Titford held the view, he was pushed into the sale without any real justification", shows he was not a willing seller, he was forced to sell "under duress". Why does the Crown continue to lie to the public that he was a willing seller?

B. The Ombudsman quoted, "I can only conclude, that for what ever reason, Mr Samec did not transmit the memorandum to the Crown Law Office, or make 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"........."I should say that I have no reason to disbelieve you (Allan Titford) what you have told me in relation to the writing of that memorandum, but there is no trace of the memorandum amongst the papers, which have been carefully examined". This was in relation to photographs Mr Titford had taken of the Sale Agreement he had signed and Mr Samec had witnessed on the side of the road in Tasmania on the 12/12/95. The Ombudsman has copies of these photographs and an Affidavit from Mr and Mrs Titford.

Question. It has been established that Mr Samec was appointed, instructed and paid by the Crown "to assist in the matter" and the Ombudsman concluded Mr Samec did not transmit the memorandum to the Crown Law Office. Why did the Crown's appointed, instructed and paid Notary Public lawyer, Mr Samec substitute page 11 of the Sale Agreement containing Mr Titford memorandum he had signed and Mr Samec had initialled, with a "clean" page, before returning it to New Zealand?

C. On the 1 November 2006, you sent a copy of the Deed requested through the Official Information Act to Mr Titford, stating, "I trust this satisfies your request". Unfortunately Paul, this did not satisfy our request!!!

It was found this Deed had been "tampered with". Mr Titford had made an amendment inserting the word "alleged" before wahi tapu, which both he and Mr Samec had initialled. When this was bought to the Minister's attention with a memo between Helen Aikman of the Crown Law Office and Mary-Anne Thompson and yourself of the Office of Treaty Settlements, he immediately admitted this was the wrong "version" and sent a copy showing "alleged" before the phrase "wahi tapu".

Paul, pages don't just jump in and out of a document by themselves; someone has to physically and deliberately assemble the document for a specific reason, in this case by taking pages that were faxed back from Tasmania on the 12/12/95 and pages that had not left New Zealand to compile this fraudulent Deed. The obvious reason being, not to let Mr Titford or the rest of New Zealand know, that the Crown had agreed with Mr Titford, "Manuwhetai was only "alleged" to be wahi tapu", destroying the basis of this fraudulent claim.

When someone "tampers with" a legal document for gain, it's called fraud and those responsible are brought to justice and the agreement declared null and void!!!

Question. As it is obvious the document were "tampered with" and you were very involved at the time. Who in your view, besides Samec named by the Ombudsman, "tampered with" the Deed and Sale Agreement?

D. In the final letter we received from the Ombudsman on the 20 December 2007, she quoted, "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 document to have been initialled might have suggested agreement with the views you had stated".

This refers to the memorandum, "To attach to the liabilities" Mr Titford had signed and Mr Samec had also signed with "Notary Public and Solicitor, Burnie, Tasmania, 12/12/95 then returned it with the Sale Agreement as acknowledged by a fax from Mr Samec and the Crown's memo, therefore making it legally part of the Agreement. These extra liabilities had been asked for by the Crown Law Office to be added to the "Schedule II, Liabilities", therefore, it became part of the Sale Agreement.

Question. What right did the Crown's officials have to "tamper with" the Sale Agreement between Allan John Titford and Her Majesty the Queen that had been executed by Mr Titford and witnessed by the Crown's Notary Public Lawyer, Mr Samec in Tasmania?

E. In the Ombudsman's letter dated the 21 August 2007, she states, "As I have indicated, it was decided by Crown Counsel (after Mr Titford had agreed to the Agreement on the 8 December 1995) to change the format of the agreement but not its essentials", but the Crown had included another 3 pages in the Agreement, including many clauses not in the agreement Mr Titford had agreed to sign on the 8 December 1995 and the reason he added a memorandum to page 11, which Mr Samec failed to transmit to the Crown Law Office.

Question. Why did the Crown change the format and add 3 extra pages/clauses to the agreement after Mr Titford had discussed it with his lawyer Clive Jackson and agreed to sign it on the 8 December 1995, then forced to sign the "revised" agreement without legal advice or a copy to Mr Jackson?

From the Ombudsman's investigation, the documents the Crown's appointed, instructed and paid Notary Public lawyer, Mr Sam Samec sent back to New Zealand are not the documents Mr Titford signed in Tasmania, stating, "I can only conclude, that for what ever reason, Mr Samec did not transmit the memorandum to the Crown Law Office, or make reference to it".

Mr Samec conveniently has no recall of this translation and his firm's file has been destroyed!!

There is no denying, the Deed you sent on the 1 November 2006 had also been "tampered with". Mr Burton and the Ombudsman later sending Deeds, which included the word "alleged", which had been omitted from your "version".

There is also no denying, Crown officials had fraudulently removed the memorandum, "To attach to the liabilities" Mr Samec had attached to the Sale Agreement before Mr Sam Brown executed the documents. The Ombudsman stating, "The Crown's officials perhaps did not consider it appropriate for it to be authenticated as part of the agreement".

While you and the Crown continue to say the Ombudsman found nothing untoward with the Deed and Sale Agreement between Allan John Titford and Her Majesty the Queen and that Allan Titford was a willing seller; the Ombudsman in fact found many discrepancies, as shown above, that can only be clarified by those involved at the time. Perhaps Helen Aikman, Mary-Anne Thompson or Mr Samec could help jog your memory into, "Who else besides the Crown's appointed, instructed and paid Notary Public lawyer Mr Sam Samec named by the Ombudsman, "TAMPERED WITH THESE DOCUMENTS"?

Yours sincerely,

Ross Baker.

Chairman, One New Zealand Foundation Inc

Cc, The Prime Minister, The Rt Hon Helen Clark.
The Hon Michael Cullen, Minister in Charge of Treaty Negotiations.
The Webmaster, One New Zealand Foundation Inc. www.onenzfoundation.co.nz.

This letter may appear on the ONZF website.