Te Roroa had made three previous attempts to steal this land at Maunganui Bluff but failed on all occasions, as there is no evidence to support their claims. In their fourth attempt in 1990, Te Roroa teamed up with the Government to steal it from an innocent victim, Mr Titford. After harassing the Titford's for eight years and finally bankrupting them, the Crown used corrupt documents to acquire Mr Titford's freehold titled farm and the corrupt Maori Affairs Select Committee allowed the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill to proceed. Legally, this land still belongs to Mr Titford. The Crown is not above the law!!

This summary is written from the paper trail left by those involved at the time and an on going investigation by the Ombudsman. All documents to substantiate this summary are available from the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. http://www.onenzfoundation.co.nz

Brief History of the Te Roroa claim.

Te Roroa's first attempt to steal this land
After the battle of Ikaranganui in 1826, Te Roroa lived at Waimamaku, Waipoua under the protection of Parore te Awha, Ngapuhi. In 1874, Tiopira Kinaki, (Te Roroa) tried to sell Waipoua No1 and the Maunganui Block to the Crown. He received 600 pounds deposit so surveying could begin under his supervision. When Parore te Awha found out, he threatened to take up arms against Te Roroa and others from claiming his land. After a lengthy court hearing, it was decided by both chiefs, Te Roroa would take Waipoua No1 and Parore Maunganui but both chiefs would have their names on both Titles and Deeds. Tiopira Kinaki sold Waipoua No1 and his interest in Maunganui to the Crown on the 4 February 1876 and Parore sold Maunganui and his interest in Waipoua No 1 to the Crown on the 8 February 1876. The Deeds show, Parore was granted one reserve Taharoa (250 acres) and Tiopira kept Waipoua No 2 of 12,220 acres. A month later, Tiopira complained he was not paid as much money as Parore but after a full inquiry, it was found each chiefs sold their land individually to the Crown, with an excess in Tiopira favour, of 348 pounds, seven shillings and sixpence.

Te Roroa's second attempt to steal this land
In 1939, Te Roroa claimed Manuwhetai was taken in error when the Crown purchased the Maunganui Block from Tiopira and Parore te Awha in 1876, but a full investigation by Chief Judge Shepherd in 1939/42 found there was no evidence to support this alleged claim and it was rejected by Parliament in 1942.

Allan Titford purchases land at Maunganui Bluff.
In 1987, Allan Titford used the proceeds from the sale of his fishing quota and other hard earned savings, plus a two year loan from the Crown owned Rural Bank to purchased 1742 acres of land at Maunganui Bluff. This purchase included an approved subdivision with a potential of 70 rural sections on the beachfront that would repay his loan to the Bank when sold. The Rural Bank held his fathers farm as security for the loan.

Te Roroa's third attempt to steal this land
Two months after Mr Titford purchased his farm under "freehold title"; Te Roroa placed a claim for 90 acres (Manuwhetai) of his land without any further evidence than that presented to the inquiry in 1939. In 1988 the Government made a promise to the Nation, "Not one square inch of freehold title land would be taken for a Maori claim".

In 1989, the Government and Te Roroa illegally declared Mr Titford "freehold titled" farm "Maori Land". This included 90 acres of Manuwheati, now held in 9 titles, 7 residential on the beachfront subdivision. Te Roroa, encouraged by the Crown, now squatted on Mr Titford's property and continued to harass him and his young family. They also erecting illegal signs declaring it was "Maori Land" stopping all sales of the subdivision to repay his loan to the Rural Bank. Even when Mr Titford issued Trespass Notices to Te Roroa, the Police refused to act, stating it was "Maori Land". The Rural Bank froze his accounts and took over the day-to-day running of his farm and livestock as it had now been declared "Maori Land" and the Government Valuation had more than halved. The Government now valued the potential 70 beachside sections at only $175,00 but later repurchased one of the sections Mr Titford had sold, for $32,000.

Te Roroa's fourth attempt to steal this land but this time with the Government's help
Before 1987, the Crown had always refuted this claim but in 1990, after many new apartheid Acts had come into force in 1988-89 giving Maori preference over non-Maori and ignoring the Treaty of Waitangi, the Crown agreed to this "alleged wahi tapu claim" without one document of evidence to support it. This was two years before the Waitangi Tribunal had completed its investigation or presented its report. The Crown's decision that this was a "wahi tapu claim" gave the Waitangi Tribunal no other option than to find in the claimants favour in April 1992 by re-writing history, falsifying documents and having many of Te Roroa's relations in positions of power where they could and did, influence decisions against Mr and Mrs Titford in favour of the claim for their own gain. Te Roroa were now secretly involved with the Government in ways to confiscate Mr Titford's entire farm and his 1500 head of cattle.

Once Mr Titford's land was illegally declared "Maori Land", the Police, acting as "puppets on a string" for the Crown, falsely arrested Mr Titford on numerous occasions for protecting his freehold titled property. Mr Titford was acquitted on all counts, but at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars, adding to the Government's/Bank's goal to bankrupt him to obtain his farm for a false claim they had foolishly, without evidence agreed to in 1990. While Mr Titford was being arrested on fictitious charges, no one was charged for burning down his two houses, destroying his machinery, shooting his stock, cutting his fences or erecting illegal structures on his property. The Government owned State Insurance cancelling his insurance once the land was declared, "Maori Land" and no compensation would be paid as the Crown stated, it was not liable for Mr Titford's losses incurred by this "alleged" Maori claim. .

The Government continued to encourage Te Roroa and the Police to harass Mr and Mrs Titford and his young family, by continually arresting Mr Titford on false charges, leaving Mrs Titford on her own amongst the "hostile claimants" and finally torching both their houses, until they had to flee to Tasmania in 1992 for their own health and safety. The Government then employed a "henchman", who offered Mr Titford's brother $500,000 to declare Mr Titford insane and become Power of Attorney to sell the farm to the Crown at well below its "true" value. He declined this offer. After making many well under valuation offers for Mr Titford's farm, which he declined, the Government made a final offer on the 3 September 1994. By this time, the Rural/National Bank and the Government had forced Mr Titford's debts to escalate five times over, to $2.25 million. Mr Titford now had no other option than to sell to the Crown for well below its true registered valuation or forced into bankruptcy, causing his father to loose his farm, which had been in the family for over 100 years. The stress from all this caused Mrs Titford to suffer four miscarriages and continuing health problems for Mr Titford.

All Mr Titford ever asked for; was enough money to buy an equivalent farm in another area but the Crown refused. Was this too much to ask when he was the innocent victim???

The Paper Trail

3 September 1994
The Minister of Justice, the Hon Douglas Graham made a final offer to purchase Mr Titford farm on the 3 September 1994. Enclosed in this letter were the Sale Agreement (Schedule 1), Deed (Schedule 2), Deed of Discharge of Liabilities from Mrs Titford (Schedule 3) and Memorandum of Transfer (Schedule 4). Mr Titford discussed these documents with his lawyer, Clive Jackson. Under Mr Jackson's instructions, Mr Titford made amendments to the Sale Agreement and increased the ex-gratia payment to a fairer figure. Mr Titford initialled each page and signed the Agreement (Schedule 1), Deed (Schedule 2) and Memorandum of Transfer (Schedule 4) in Tasmania. Registered Auctioneer and Land Agent, Mr Graham Scott witnesses Mr Titford's initials and signatures. Mr Titford returned the amended Sale Agreement and Deeds to the Crown Law Office in New Zealand and delivered the initialled, signed and witnessed Memorandum of Transfer (Schedule 4) to Notary Public Lawyer, Mr Sam Samec in Tasmania to hold until the Crown accepted his amendments, executed the documents and transferred the money to his bank account in Tasmania.
The Crown declined Mr Titford's counter offer and Mr Samec retained the Memorandum of Transfer. (Schedule 4)

21 November 1995.
The New Zealand Federated Farmers offered a proposal to the Crown on Mr Titford's behalf to purchase his farm using registered valuer's valuations, but the Crown also declined this proposal.

Crown Re-extends Previous Offer

6 December 1995
In a letter to Mr Titford's lawyer, Clive Jackson dated the 6 December 1995, the Crown decided to re-extend its previous offer, which including the Sale Agreement, Deed, Deed of Discharge and Transfer of September 1994, for a limited period. We have evidence these documents were circulated between Government Departments on the 7 December 1995.

8 December 1995
From Mr Samec's account (bill), he spent 2 hours with Mr and Mrs Titford perusing the Sale Agreement (Schedule 1), Deed (Schedule 2), Mrs Titford's Deed of Discharge (Schedule 3) and the Memorandum of Transfer (Schedule 4) This could only have been the documents from September 1994, as the new, re-drafted sale documents were not faxed to Mr Samec until the 11 December 1995. Mr Titford reluctantly agreed to the terms set out in the Crown's previous 1994 offer subject to the inclusion of clause, 7(1)(c)(i). Mr Samec was not Mr Titford's lawyer; he was a Notary Public lawyer appointed, instructed and paid by the New Zealand Crown to assist in having the documents executed in Tasmania. He told Mr Titford, he did not have the qualifications or knowledge to advise on New Zealand law. He also told Mr Titford he had lost his Waitangi Claim and therefore must sign the documents.

Completely New Sale Agreement and Deed

8 - 11 December 1995
Unbeknown to Mr Titford, the Commissioner of Crown Lands or the Minister of Lands, Helen Aikman, Crown Counsel, Crown Law Office had redrafted a completely new Sale Agreement and Deed consisting of 3 extra pages between Friday 8 and Monday the 11 December 1995. Inserted in the new Sale Agreement was clause 16. "Releasing the National Bank from any liability to the vendor". Why would the Crown insert this clause in the new Agreement between Mr Titford and Her Majesty the Queen unless the Bank and the Crown had worked together to force Mr Titford into bankruptcy, forcing him to sell his farm "under duress" and well below valuation? By this time, the Rural Bank had been bought by the National Bank. This new Agreement was not the Crown's re-extended previous offer of September 1994.

11 December 1995 (Letter 1)
The Crown Law Office wrote to Mr Samec accepting the inclusion of clause 7(1)(c)(i). They also stated that once Mr and Mrs Titford had signed the documents and re-executed the original Memorandum of Transfer, the New Zealand Government would be in a position to settle with Mr Titford within 14 days. From the paper trail, it seems Helen Aikman, Crown Law Office and Paul James and Mary Anne Thompson, Office of Treaty Settlement had taken it upon themselves, to re- draft completely new documents.

11 December 1995 (Letter 2 at 6-15pm)
Helen Aikman faxed Mr Samec stating,
1. I enclose the following documents:
1.1 Agreement relating to the sale of land and stock at Maunganui Bluff.
1.2 Deed of Settlement.
1.3 Deed of Discharge of Future Liabilities by Mrs Titford.
1.4 Instructions Regarding Payment to Titford.

2. "I understand you hold a memorandum of transfer on Mr Tiford's behalf and that he will re-execute this memorandum at the same time as he and Mrs Titford signs the above documents".

5. "We draw your attention to the existing warranties by Mr Titford that there are no undisclosed charges or liabilities in respect of the property. The settlement of course will be conditional upon full disclosures of these matters".

Mr Samec was also asked to insert the following to the top of the original Memorandum of Transfer execution page. "In pursuance of an agreement dated…………day of………1995 with Her Majesty the Queen".

At this time there was no new Memorandum of Transfer, Mr Samec was to have Mr Titford re-execute the original transfer he had held on Mr Titford's behalf since September 1994 with a replacement clause at the top of the execution page.

New Agreement signed on the side of the road without legal advice

12 December 1995 at 7-30 am
Mr and Mrs Titford met Mr Samec in his pyjamas and robe on the side of the road at 7-30 am the next morning expecting to sign the September 1994 documents they had perused with Mr Samec and agreed to sign on the 8 December 1995. Mr Titford realised his documents were not the Deed and Sale Agreement he agreed to sign on the 8 December 1995 and were not signed by the Crown, they were draft documents. He made amendments, especially to page 11 of the Sale Agreement, added a memorandum, "To attach to the Liabilities" and only initialled the pages he agreed with. Mr Titford also made an amendment "alleged" in front of the phrase "wahi tapu" to page 2, "Background" of the Deed. Mr Samec initials these amendments but then stated; Mr Titford could not delete any of the clauses in the Agreement or Deed, the reason Mr Titford refused to initial all the pages.

Mr and Mrs Titford have sworn affidavits that the Memorandum of Transfer was not presented at this time.Mr Titford made amendments and initialled the pages he agree with and signed the documents. Mr Samec initialled the amendments and witnesses Mr Titford signatures. Mr Titford took photos of the documents because there was no photocopier and Mr Samec refused to supply him with copies. All this took place within about 30 minutes, as Mr and Mrs Titford had previously arranged to catch a plane that morning to King Island to meet Mr Titford's mother and father who had arranged a holiday a month earlier. While Mr and Mrs Titford had independent legal advise on the terms, conditions and effect of the 1994 Agreement, and had it fully explained to them, there was no independent legal advise on the terms, conditions and effect of this new Agreement, nor had it been fully explained to them or they understood all of its provisions. Mr Samec was not qualified to do this. Mr Titford amended and signed this Agreement "under duress".

Mrs Titford's Deed of Discharge of Liabilities document, which she fully initialled and signed, had the Sale Agreement (Schedule 1) and the Deed (Schedule 2) of September 1994 attached, but these were removed when copies of her documents were returned.

While the Crown Law Office states it cannot locate the Sale Agreement (Schedule 1), Deed (Schedule 2), Deed of Discharge (Schedule 3) or the Transfer (Schedule 4), we retrieved copies of these documents from Mr Doug Grahams restricted file, which formed part of the Crown's September 1994 offer that Mr and Mrs Titford agreed to re-execute of the 8 December 1995 with one additional clause, 7(1)(c)(i).

On the 23 August 2000, Mr Titford's lawyer Clive Jackson wrote, "At no stage prior to the execution of the final settlement agreement was I provided with a copy of the documentation and 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 to you would have been, not to sign it".

New Documents unbeknown to Minister and Commissioner

12 December 1995
The Commissioner of Crown Lands, Mr Sam Brown wrote to the Minister of Lands, the Hon Denis Marshal asking him for approval, pursuant to Section 40 of the Land Act 1948 to purchase Mr and Mrs Titford's property on behalf of the Office of Treaty Settlements.

Clause 3 of his letter states, "However, the Crown Law Office contacted the department yesterday (11 December 1995) to advise they were preparing the conveyance documents, and required some advise on the procedures for the actual purchase".

Clause 4 states, "As this matter is urgent, we are taking the precaution of obtaining your consent before we are approached by the OTS for assistance. The proposal is based on CAB (94) M 312/6". This was the September 1994 proposal and is confirmed by Mr Brown later in Clause 4 vii.

From this letter, the Commissioner of Crown Lands and the Minister of Lands had no idea Helen Aikman had re-drafted a completely new Sale Agreement and Deed and that the draft had already been signed with alterations by Mr Titford and witnessed by Mr Samec.

Crown Law Office has a Problem, a Major Problem!

12 December 1995.
The Crown Law Office now had a major problem, Parliament had re-extended the 1994 offer for 14 days with the insertion of Clause 7(1)(c)(i) and Mr Titford had agreed to this Agreement but the Crown Law Office had re-drafted a whole new agreement. It was now an unsigned draft document, which Mr Titford had every right to amend. Mr Titford added amendments and memorandums as well as refusing to initial some of the pages he did not agree with in this re-drafted Agreement. This was now a counter offer. For this document to proceed with the amendments and memorandums etc made by Mr Titford, it would have to be reappraised by Parliament and an embarrassment for Crown Law. The Sale Agreement had to be a clean document if it was to be executed by the Commissioner of Crown Land, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen, within the 14-day limit.

It is obvious the Commissioner of Crown Lands would not have executed the Sale Agreement if it contained hand written memorandums and was only initialled on some pages, but it must be remembered, Mr Titford had every right to amend it as it was only an unsigned draft document. It was not the September 1994 re-extended offer Mr Samec had perused for two hours with Mr and Mrs Titford and the Sale Agreement, with the addition of clause 7(1)(c)(i), Mr Titford agreed to sign on the 8 December 1995.

IT HAD TO BE A CLEAN DOCUMENT FOR THE COMMISSIONER TO SIGN!!

Tampered with documents returned to Crown Law Office.

12 December 1995 Between 8-00am and 10-23am
Mr Samec rung Helen Aikman, Crown Law Office and discuss the documents Mr Titford had just signed. At this time, Mr Samec held a number of documents, some amended, some initialled, some signed and some untouched. From these documents, he compiled a Sale Agreement, Deed, Deed of Discharge and a Memorandum of Transfer as instructed by the Crown Law Office and fax them to New Zealand at 10-23 am. The documents had to be clean documents if they were to be executed by the Commissioner of Crown Lands on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen.

The Ombudsman's investigation found; Mr Samec has destroyed his files!!

In the letter from Helen Aikman, dated the 11 December 1995, she had asked Mr Samec in clause 5 that Mr Titford must declare any further undisclosed charges or liabilities in respect of the property. Mr Titford supplied, signed and had Mr Samec fully endorse a memorandum, "To Attach to the Liabilities". As it was requested by the Crown Law Office to be part of the Sale Agreement, Mr Samec attached it to the Sale Agreement as part of the agreement, not realising the implication the comment by Mr Titford at the end of this document would have.

From the Ombudsman's investigation and the paper trail, it was found the Sale Agreement Mr Samec returned was not the document Mr Titford amended, except for the execution page and the attachment, "To Attach to the Liabilities". The Ombudsman concluded, "Mr Samec did not transmit the memorandum to the Crown Law Office or make any reference to it".

All the pages, except for the signing page had been replaced with un-initialled, clean pages. Mr Titford's amendments, especially to page 11 had been removed. The photos Mr Titford took after he had signed the documents on the 12 December 1995 show a memorandum consisting of 10 clauses on page 11. Mr and Mrs Titford have sworn Affidavits that this amendment, including the wording, was made to page 11.

In a memo between the Crown Law Office and the Office Of Treaty Settlements, just after the documents arrived back from Tasmania, there is concern of the amendment "alleged" wahi tapu in the Deed and the memorandum, "To Attach to the Liabilities" but no mention is made of the memorandum to page 11 of the Sale Agreement, so this must have been removed, as the Ombudsman concluded, by Mr Samec in Tasmania before he returned the documents. The photos show both Mr Titford and Samec initialled this memorandum on page 11.

The Deed was the document Mr Titford had amended and signed. His amendment stated it was only an "alleged" wahi tapu claim, which the Crown had acknowledged and accepted.

Mrs Titford's Discharge of Liabilities does not relate to the new sale documents as it contained Schedule 1 and 2 of the 1994 Agreement and Deed. It is therefore, a useless piece of paper!!

The Commissioner of Crown Land did not execute the Sale Agreement until the 19 December 1995; so this would have given the Crown Law Office plenty of time to, compile documents for the Commissioner to execute!!

Mr Titford has never received fully executed copies of his documents, which were rightfully and legally his, while Mrs Titford received her Deed of Discharge minus Schedule 1 and 2.

Memorandum of Transfer a Bogus Document

From the paper trail, Mr Scott's statement and Mr and Mrs Titford's Affidavits, it was found the Memorandum of Transfer was never presented, sighted or signed by Mr Titford. Except for the final signing page, it is not the re-executed original transfer held by Mr Samec on Mr Titford's behalf. There is no mention of this new Transfer in Helen Aikman's letter of the 11 December 1995. Mr Samec was to have Mr Titford re-execute the original document he held on Mr Titford's behalf since September 1994. Mr Scott and Titford had initialled the original Transfer on every page. Rachel Taylor, Philips Fox solicitors, initialled this "bogus" document on every page, but Rachel Taylor was not present when it is alleged, Mr Titford signed this document in Tasmania on the 12 December 1995. The Crown admitted they "tampered with" the Transfer by adding, "In witness thereof these presents have been executed this 12 day of December 1995" after it was returned to New Zealand. This was to tie up with Mr Titford signing the other documents on that day. The Minister in Charge of Treaty Settlements, the Hon Mark Burton also stated on the 23 January 2007 that only two documents were signed on the 12 December 1995, the Deed and the Sale Agreement. There is no denying, the Memorandum of Transfer Mr Samec faxed to the Crown Law Office, and the Crown Law Office has since sent a copy, was a "bogus" document.

13 December 1995
Mr Samec wrote to Mr Titford, "Original documents couriered to New Zealand. We enclose copy of your memorandum called, "To attach to the Liabilities".

19 December 1995
Mr Samec informs Mr Titford that documents have been executed, but received no copies of his executed documents.

2 January 1996
Mrs Titford phoned Mr Samec's office asking when Mr Titford's initialled, signed and fully executed copies of the Deed and Sale Agreement would arrive. She is told the matter is being seen to.

5 February 1996.
Mr Titford's lawyer, Clive Jackson finds the Crown is making public statements that differ from the Agreement he advised Mr Titford to sign. He wrote to the Crown for copies of the executed documents on Mr Titford's behalf on the 5 February 1996.

9 February 1996
Rachel Taylor of Phillips Fox Solicitors acting for the Crown refused Mr Jackson copies. As Phillips Fox had drafted the September 1994 documents, they were afraid Clive Jackson would challenge that the re-drafted documents Mr and Mrs Titford signed on the 12 December 1995 were not the documents they had agreed to sign previously.

Hon Doug Graham's Restricted File

May 2005
We found a restricted file of the Hon Doug Graham, Minister of Justice/Minister in Charge of Treaty Negotiation at the time, was held by Archives New Zealand. We wrote to Mr Graham asking him for permission to up lift this file. Mr Graham gave the ONZF permission but it took six months and the help of the Ombudsman to force Archives to release the file on the 1/11/05. This restricted file had copies of the Sale Agreement (Schedule1), and Deed (Schedule2), Mr Titford had signed and Mr Graham Scott had witnessed on the 14 September 1994. We also found memos in this file showing Helen Aikman, Crown Law Office and Paul James and Mary Anne Thompson, Office of Treaty Settlements were concerned with the Sale documents Mr Samec had returned on the 12 December 1995. (Mary Anne Thompson has since been found guilty of falsifying documents when in charge of the Immigration Department). The memo had copies of the pages showing the amendment Mr Titford had made to the Deed, stating Manuwhetai was only an "alleged wahi tapu claim" and his attachment, "To Attach to the Liabilities" to the Sale Agreement showing Mr Titford was selling his farm "under duress". This attachment/memorandum was signed by both Mr Samec (acting for the Crown) and Mr Titford and was attached to the Sale Agreement that Mr Samec returned to the Crown Law Office as part of the Sale Agreement.

Official Information Act Request

12 October 2006
The One New Zealand Foundation Inc, on Mr Titford's behalf requested a copy of the Deed from the Office of Treaty Settlements under the Official Information Act.

1 November 2006
A Deed duly arrived from Paul James, Director of the Office of Treaty Settlement with clean, un-initialled pages, except for the signing page. This copy had the amendment "alleged wahi tapu" removed. There is no denying, this document had been tampered with. Pages cannot jump in and out of a document without someone's help!! The Crown's signature (Hon Doug Graham) was witnessed by none other than, Mary Anne Thompson!!

16 November 2006
The One New Zealand Foundation wrote to the Prime Minister, Rt Hon Helen Clark and the Minister in Charge of Treaty Negotiations, the Hon Mark Burton explaining from the memo we had from the Crown Law Office, this was not the Deed Mr Titford had signed and Mr Samec had witnessed in Tasmania in 1995.

23 January 2007
Mr Burton wrote back stating. "The version released did not include an alteration made by Mr Titford, in which the word "alleged" was inserted into the document prior to the phrase wahi tapu". The Minister of Justice, the Hon Douglas Graham, who executed this document on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen, initialled this amendment. There can only be one version of a legal document. To remove this page was deliberate, as the Crown did not want the people of New Zealand to know, this was only an "alleged wahi tapu claim" and that Mr Titford's farm had been "taken under false pretences" for an "alleged claim". Mr Burton also enclosed a copy of the Sale Agreement but the memorandum; "To Attach to the Liabilities" was missing.

28 February 2007
The One New Zealand Foundation wrote to the Minister in Charge of Treaty Negotiations the Hon Mark Burton explaining from the memo we had from the Crown Law Office, this was not the Sale Agreement Mr Titford had signed and Mr Samec had witnessed in Tasmania in 1995.

11 April 2007
The Minister wrote back stating, "In December 1995 the Crown did receive executed copies of the Deed of Settlement, the Agreement relating to the Sale of Land and Stock at Maunganui Bluff, Aranga, Northland, and the statement entitled, To Attach to the Liabilities, as signed by you". We had now been sent two versions of the Deed and two versions of the Sale Agreement. There can only be one version to any legal document!!

Request for "Certified" Copies.

26 March 2007
We request "certified copies" of the Sale Agreement and Deed from the Ombudsman.

23 April 2007
The Ombudsman, Beverley Wakem sent copies of the Sale Agreement and Deed supplied by the Office of Treaty Settlements stating, "I am satisfied these are true copies of the originals", but the Sale Agreement was missing Mr Titford's memorandum, "To Attach to Liabilities". Previously, on the 11 April 2007, Mr Burton had sent a copy of the Sale Agreement, which included Mr Titford's memorandum, "To Attach to Liabilities". The Office of Treaty Settlements had deliberately removed Mr Titford's memorandum from the document supplied to the Ombudsman as a "true" copy. This Memorandum showed Mr Titford had sold his farm "under duress".

The Ombudsman's Investigation.

15 May 2007
On the 15 May 2007 the Ombudsman agreed, "To undertake an investigation under the Ombudsmen Act limited to 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".

Crown Tampers With Documents

20 December 2007.
From the Ombudsman's investigation, it was found the attached memorandum, "To Attach to Liabilities" was removed from the Sale Agreement, because, "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".

Mr Titford's comment at the end of the document was, "I, Allan Titford believe we have been pushed into this list of creditors as a result of the Waitangi Tribunal claim".

The Ombudsman's investigation found, "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".

What right did the Crown Law Office or its agents have to "tamper with" the documents after Mr Titford had signed them and had them witnessed by Mr Samec?

If the attachment, "To Attach to Liabilities" had been left attached to the Sale Agreement, showing Mr Titford was forced to sell his farm "without justification", the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Mr Sam Brown would not have executed the document on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen. A legal document that has been "tampered with" by the purchaser's lawyers, after it has been signed by the vendor, or signed under duress, is deemed null and void by International Law.

All the previous Agreements signed by Mr Titford have the bottom of every page initialled - not one page of the documents supplied by the Crown to date has Mr Titford initials on the bottom of each page!!!!

The Crown Law Office responds, then goes quiet

On the 6 May 2008, we wrote to the Solicitor General, Dr David Collins, QC explaining the discrepancies with the sale documents to acquire Mr Titford's farm. On the 17 March he replied, "The Ombudsman dealt with this matter in a previous communication with you last year. I understand the Ombudsman found nothing to support your alligations of tampering or corrupt use of the documents. Rather the Ombudsman commended there was a clerical error or errors in the handling of the documents at the time. I consider the Ombudsman's inquiry disposes of the alligations". Some clerical error Dr Collins!!!

We then wrote to the Crown Law Office asking for further information, they replied on the 22 September 2008 stating, "The drafting of the sale agreement does not appear to have been drafted by our office". We sent the Crown Law Office evidence that this sale agreement was draft by its office, but they have failed to respond to date.

Perverted the Course of Justice

From the paper trail and the documented evidence above, the Crown Law Office "Perverted the course of Justice" and those responsible must be brought to justice and Mr and Mr Titford paid fair compensation for their lost profits, pain and suffering. The Country owes it to them!!!

THE CROWN IS NOT ABOVE THE LAW!!!

Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill

In 2007, the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill was presented to Parliament. The Maori Affairs Select Committee commissioned to hear the Submissions into the Bill consisted of members related to Te Roroa or with a vested interest in the Bill. This committee misled Parliament by withholding all submissions opposing this Bill. While this has been brought to the Prime Ministers, Helen Clark and John Key's attention, they refused to take any action. The Hon Christopher Finlayson, our Attorney General and Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, was a member of this "corrupt" Maori Affairs Select Committee that lied to Parliament to allow this Bill to proceed.

While the original "alleged" claim was for 132 acres, Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki, it grew to over 5000 acres and $15 million, without one document to substantiate it.

CONCLUSION
There is no denying, Te Roroa have continually tried to steal this land since 1874 and the Crown confiscated it from Mr Titford using corrupt documents in 1995. Mr Titford's evidence and valuations were completely ignored, memorandums removed and many Laws and Acts were violated by the Crown to allow this claim and Bill to proceed. The Crown has created an injustice where there was no injustice before, based solely on race.

Compiled by Ross Baker from some of the thousands of documents the ONZF has on file.

Research Department, One New Zealand Foundation Inc. 16 March 2009

This article will appear on the One New Zealand Foundation Inc website, http://www.onenzfoundation.co.nz and will be updated as further information becomes available.