THE “TE ROROA SETTLEMENT BILL”

DO YOU WANT TO GO ON PUBLIC RECORD AS SUPPORTING A CORRUPT BILL?

There are just too many unanswered questions, corrupt documents and lies for the Te Roroa Settlement Bill to proceed without a full public inquiry. Many of these confirmed by the Ombudsman’s investigation and the Solicitor General, Dr David Collins, QC agreeing, “That there was a clerical error or errors in the handling of the documents at the time”. These “errors” occurred after Mr Titford had signed the documents but before the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Mr Sam Brown had executed them. The Crown Law Office then refusing Mr Titford and his lawyer, Clive Jackson copies, for very obvious reason.

HOW CORRUPT WAS THAT!!

In 1876, a legal title was issued for this land in the name of Tiopira Kinaki (Te Roroa) and Parore te Awha (Ngapuhi) for two blocks of land known as the Maunganui Block and Waipoua No 2. On the 8 February 1876, a legal Deed of Conveyance between Tiopira Kinaki, Parore te Awha and the Crown was signed for these blocks, less one reserve “Taharoa”. The Crown became the legal owners of the Maunganui and Waipoua No 2 on the 8 February 1876. While the Crown had a copy of the Deed of Conveyance, it was not used at the Waitangi Tribunal in their defence of this claim. The Crown, the Waitangi Tribunal or the claimants do not have one document to over-rule the Deed of Conveyance. To over-rule this Deed of Conveyance without legal documentation makes a complete sham of New Zealand Property Law. Copy of Deed of Conveyance attached.

One month after the sale in 1876, an inquiry was held because Tiopira felt he had not been paid an equal amount for his share. The report on this inquiry is so detailed it even states Tiopira put on his spectacles to sign the documents but no mention is made of Manuwhetai or Whangaiariki. Neither chief mentioned either of these areas before, during or after the sale, they were of no interest to them. After the inquiry, both chiefs were completely satisfied with the sale to the Crown, the amounts paid and the one reserve granted. One of the main claimants, Garry Hooker wrote the history of Te Roroa in 1978, ten years before the claim was lodged and no mention is made of Te Roroa occupying Maunganui, Manuwhetai or Whangaiariki. Te Roroa occupied Waimamaku under the protection of Parore te Awha. This whole claim and the acquisition of Mr Titford’s properties were summed up in a letter to the Hon Margaret Wilson, Minister in Charge of Treaty Negotiations in 2001 by respected Ngapuhi Maori elder, the late Graham Rankin, “The research into this claim was shoddy, unclean and destructive in the eyes of New Zealand society – Te Roroa were just squatters living on the edge of the Waipoua Forest”

An investigation by the Commissioner of “The Natives Land Fraud Prevention Act 1876” was completely satisfied with his inquiry into this sale. There were no further reserves.

In 1939, another inquiry was held when an “uncertified” plan ML 3297/8 was found showing Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki. For a plan to be used by the Court it had to be certified. This plan has written on it, “Included in Maunganui. Proclaimed Wasteland of the Crown. Vide NZ Gazette 7 Sept 1876, p 623”. The Gazette notice dated the 7 September 1876 makes no mention of Manuwhetai or Whangaiariki – only one reserve, “Taharoa”. Chief Judge Shepherd found, after a thorough investigation, there was no case to answer, as Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were never intended to be cut from the sale of the Manganui Block. Parliament rejected this claim in 1942. It has been found plan ML3297/8 had nothing to do with the Kinaki/Parore purchase. It was of no interest to them.

From 1876 when the Crown legally purchased this land, until 1986 when Allan Titford purchased it, there had been many sales, all issued with legal titles, including Mr Titford’s purchase. These sales were made under the Property Law of New Zealand at the time and were all legal purchases with legal titles being issued.

A few months after Mr Titford purchased this land, Te Roroa lodged a claim through the Waitangi Tribunal. It must be stated here that Te Roroa had many of its relations or people with a vested interest working in high positions in Government Departments at this time. For example, Ned Nathan, the main claimant was serving on the Waitangi Tribunal and Tom Parore was Head of the Maori Affairs Department in Whangarei, plus many others that could and did influence the outcome of this claim and the acquisition of Mr Titford’s properties.

Even before the Waitangi Tribunal’s recommendation in 1992, the Crown had agreed to an “Agreed Statement of Fact” in 1990 to return Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki to Te Roroa but without one document of evidence. This gave the Waitangi Tribunal no other option than to find in the claimants favour in 1992 by accepting falsified and manufactured documents – a fact admitted was happening at the time by the Chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal, Chief Judge Eddie Durie. (NZ Herald, 17 November 1999)

Over the years we have asked the four Ministers in Charge of Treaty Negotiation to supply one documents of evidence, that the Te Roroa claim is a genuine claim. Not one Minister has been able to supply this one document for the simple reason, there are none are there Dr Cullen!

Allan Titford had borrowed $750,000 to purchase this land from the Rural Bank, later to become the National Bank. The subdivision already approved on the beachfront of his land, when sold, would repay his loan to the Bank. He had reduced this to $600,000 by 1989, had over 2000 head of stock and had sales for the subdivision to reduce his loan by another $250,000 when the Crown accepted this claim in 1989 and his property became “Maori Land” stopping all further subdivision sales. We believe the Rural bank then froze all Mr Titford’s accounts and took over the financial running of his farm. In 1995, his debt of $350,000 in 1989 had escalated to a staggering $1,83 million forcing him to sell his farm “under duress” (a fact found by the Ombudsman’s investigation) to the Crown or go bankrupt and the National Bank taking his elderly mother and father’s farm held as security by the Bank. If Mr Titford had known the bank was going to allow his debt to escalate to $1.83 million, he could have sold half his stock and cleared his debt to the Bank in 1989. The Government had promised; no private land would be taken for a Maori land claim. The Government lied!!!

While the Crown continues to lie that Mr Titford received $3.25 million for his properties and stock; after the repayment to the National Bank, plus other costs associated with this fraudulent claim, such as the legal fees of over $150,000 to defend the “jumped up” charges by the Police, which he was acquitted on all counts, Mr Titford received less that $1 million in a “monetary consideration”, less than the cost of his stock. The Crown stole Mr Titford’s freehold titled properties, including the subdivision, for nothing/zilch, while the Rural/National Bank made over $1.5 million dollars in interest!!! The “monetary consideration” paid by the Crown to Mr Titford for his properties was in breach of the 1948 Land Act the properties were purchased under!!!!!

Interesting to note, between the time Mr Titford agreed to sign the Sale Agreement on the 8 December 1995 and it was presented to him to sign on the 12 December 1995, a new clause had been inserted by the Crown Law Office stating, “16.0. Release of the National Bank from Any Liability to Vendor”. Why would the Crown insert this clause in the Sale Agreement between Allan Titford and Her Majesty the Queen at the eleventh hour for a third party? Was the Rural/National Bank involved in acquiring this land with the Crown by forcing Mr Titford into bankruptcy? Did they force him to sell his farm to the Crown by threatening to bankrupt him and take his elderly mother and father’s farm? Were the National Bank and the Crown afraid of being sued for malpractice/corruption to acquire Mr Titford’s properties and stock? What other reason would there be to insert this clause?

HOW CORRUPT WAS THAT!!!!

We have written evidence the Crown tried to bribe Mr and Mrs Titford senior and their son Brian with $500,000 to declare Alan insane so they could become Power of Attorney and sign the Sale Agreement papers on Allan’s behalf. The family refused. The Crown also promised the people of New Zealand, no private land would be taken for a Maori land claim. The “1993 Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act” was to stop the Crown from acquiring private land on a recommendation from the Waitangi Tribunal. This Act was breached in Mr Titford’s case when they took his land for the Te Roroa claim in 1995.

On the 12 December 1995, Allan and Sue Titford were forced to sign documents for the Crown to acquire their freehold titled properties and a disclaimer to any liabilities they may have against the Crown or the National Bank. These were not the documents Mr Titford’s solicitor Clive Jackson had advised him to sign. They were completely different document with many extra clauses, three extra paged in fact!!! Mr and Mrs Titford had no “legal representation” when they signed these documents on the “side of the road” in Tasmania on the 12 December 1995. After the documents were full executed by the Crown, Mr Titford and his lawyer, Clive Jackson was refused copies for very obvious reasons.

We have letters from the Office of Treaty Settlements to Te Roroa, after the date of the sale, stating Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were only “alleged” wahi tapu. The Crown admits this claim is only “alleged” but is still prepared to proceed with it.

HOW CORRUPT WAS THAT!!!

In 2004, we requested copies of the Deed from the Office of Treaty Settlements. When the Deed arrived from the Director of the Office of Treaty Settlements, Paul James it was found to be a compiled document made up of “original” pages faxed back from Tasmania and pages that had been “tampered with”. The amendment that Manuwhetai was only “alleged” wahi tapu had been removed for a clean page. Why would Mr James send this compiled document when he was involved with the documents when they came back from Tasmania and would have known it was not the “original” document? Memos from the Crown Law Office to the Office of Treaty Settlements show Mary Anne Thompson (of Immigration Department fame) was also involved with her lawyer Helen Aikman, QC and Paul James when the documents came back from Tasmania before being presented to the Commissioner of Lands, Mr Sam Brown for signing!!

We wrote to the Minister in Charge of Treaty Negotiations, Mark Burton with a memo from the Crown Law Office to the Office of Treaty Settlements showing this Deed had been “tampered with”. The Minister then sent many different “versions” of the Deed and Sale Agreement until we asked the Ombudsman to investigate the many and varied “versions” of the Sale Agreement and Deed.

The Ombudsman’s investigation found memorandums and an attachment had been deliberately removed from the Sale Agreement by Mr Samec in Tasmania and the Crown’s officials in New Zealand after Mr Titford had signed them and had them witnessed by the Crown’s appointed, instructed and paid Notary Public Lawyer, Sam Samec but before the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Mr Sam Brown had executed them on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen. This was the reason the Crown refused Mr Titford and his lawyer copied of the executed documents – the Crown had removed amendments and an attachment not to their liking after Mr Titford had signed it and had it witnessed. The Solicitor General, Dr David Collins, QC agreeing, “That there was a clerical error or errors in the handling of the documents at the time”. Whether the documents were “tampered with” in error or deliberate, the fact remains; the Crown’s officials or its agents “tampered with the documents” after Mr Titford had signed them to acquire his properties.

HOW CORRUPT WAS THAT!!!

At the first reading of the Te Roroa Settlement Bill, the Hon Mark Burton continued to mislead Parliament that this was a “wahi tapu claim” when the Deed had stated it was only “alleged” to be wahi tapu and Office of Treaty Settlements letters showed it was also only “alleged” to be wahi tapu. Was this another deliberate lie by the Minister to mislead Parliament and the public?

When submissions were asked for the Te Roroa Settlement Bill, the One New Zealand Foundation Inc lodged a submission, which was accepted. I presented this submission to the Maori Affairs Select Committee on the 10 May 2007 at Parliament. At the second reading of the Te Roroa Settlement Bill, the Maori Affairs Select Committee (Tau Henare) lied to Parliament that the One New Zealand Foundation’s submission had not been heard because of bad language. This was a deliberate lie by the Maori Affairs Select Committee to again mislead Parliament. They did not want the truth of this fraudulent claim or that documents to acquire Mr Titford’s properties were “corrupt” to be made known to Parliament or the public. Our submission was heard on the 10 May 2007 and it contained no bad language!!! The Maori Affairs Select Committee consisted of many of Te Roroa’s relatives or people with a vested interest. A fact admitted by MP Pita Paraone, one of the Maori Affairs Select Committee members.

HOW CORRUPT WAS THAT!!!

The Te Roroa Settlement Bill cannot proceed. The Crown, Waitangi Tribunal or the claimants do not have one document of evidence to support this claim and the method and documentation to acquire Mr Titford’s properties were corrupt!!! The fully documented paper trail and corruption will never go away, they are on public record forever. To vote for this Bill is to vote for the end of freehold title and property law in New Zealand. It is a vote for a corrupt Bill!!!

DO YOU WANT TO GO ON PUBLIC RECORD AS SUPPORTING A CORRUPT BILL?

If any Member of Parliament would like documented evidence of the above, please write to;

Ross Baker.
Researcher,
One New Zealand Foundation Inc.
P.O.Box 1,
Awanui,
Northland,
New Zealand.

This article will appear on our website, www.onenzfoundation.co.nz
20/06/2008

COPY OF THE “LEGAL” DEED OF CONVEYANCE BETWEEN TIOPIRA KINAKI, PARORE TE AWHA AND THE CROWN. NOTE ONLY ONE RESERVE, “TAHAROA”.

“Ross, I am attaching jpeg images of both sides of the original 1876 Maunganui Crown purchase deed. These images have just arrived from Archives. Please note that neither the Manuwhetai or Whangaiariki areas are identified as reserves. The only reserve included within the purchase is the 250 acre Taharoa area adjoining the southern boundary”. Barry Rigby, Justice Department/Office of Treaty Settlements. (13 May 2008).

The Crown, Waitangi Tribunal or the claimants have been unable to supply one “legal” document to over-rule this Deed of Conveyance. While this sale between Tiopira Kinaki, Parore te Awha and the Crown was flawless, the Ombudsman’s investigation found the sale between Mr Titford and Her Majesty the Queen, was corrupt!!!