ONE NEW ZEALAND FOUNDATION INC
P.O.Box 1, Awanui, Northland, New Zealand. www.onenzfoundation.co.nz.
ALLAN TITFORD STILL OWNS HIS LAND AT
MAUNGANUI BLUFF AND MUST RE-OCCUPY IT!!!!
The Crown has no “legal” documents proving they purchased Allan Titford’s property at Maunganui Bluff in 1995, only “versions” that have been “tampered with” on many occasions. When we asked under the Official Information Act for a copy of the Deed between Allan Titford and Her Majesty the Queen, Paul James, the Director of the Office of Treaty Settlements sent a copy that had been "tampered with". When this was brought to the attention of the Minister in Charge of Treaty Negotiations, the Hon Mark Burton, he immediately sent another "version" of the Deed and a copy of the Sale Agreement but they had also been "tampered with". Again we brought this to the Ministers' attention and he sent a third "version" but these were still not the "true" documents Allan Titford had signed in Tasmania and the Crown's appointed Lawyer, Mr Samec had witnessed on the 12/12/95. Even the Ombudsman, during her investigation into, "the rather confusing numbers of copies that have appeared", gave up on trying to locate the "true documents" stating, "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".
When we ask Jane Fletcher, Manager of the Policy/Negotiations of the Office of Treaty Settlements for a copy of the Deed and Sale Agreement faxed back from Tasmania by the Crown's Lawyer, Mr Samec, she stated, we had previously received "certified" copies from the Ombudsman. It seems the Office of Treaty Settlements has only read part of the Ombudsman's investigation as the Ombudsman withdraw her "certified" documents as the Minister had superseded these with another of his many and varied "versions".
Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act 1993.
The “Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act 1993” stated that only privately owned land with a “covenant” could be recommended or acquired by the Crown after 1993 for return to Maori. We asked Jane Fletcher what "covenant" was in place between the Crown and Te Roroa at the time of the acquisition of the Harrison and Titford properties, she stated, "On 10 July 1993 the Crown and Te Iwi o Te Roroa entered into a Framework Agreement in relation to claim WAI 38. This was a non-binding agreement that set out the scope of the negotiations, including that the Treaty settlement negotiations might include, but nor necessarily be limited to the findings and recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal with respect to claim Wai 38. This was superseded by the Terms of Negotiations signed in September 1996".
While there was a “Framework Agreement” in place prior to the purchase of the Harrison and Titford properties, it was only to "govern the conduct of negotiations". Jane Fletcher's definition of this “Framework Agreement” was actually the definition of the “Terms of Negotiation” between the Crown and Te Roroa signed in 1996. This was not a "covenant" between the Crown and Te Roroa. It's a fact; the acquisition of Allan Titford's property in 1995 breached the 1993 Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act, as there was no "covenant" between the Crown and Te Roroa until 2005!!!
We also asked Jane Fletcher for a copy of Sue Titford's, "Deed of Discharge of any Liability between the Crown and Mrs Titford". It is interesting to note that this document is initialled on every page by Mrs Titford, the Crown's lawyer, Mr Samec and Sam Brown the Commissioner of Crown Lands but the many "versions" the Crown has produced of Allan Titford's Deed and Sale Agreement are not initialled by Allan Titford or Sam Samec on any page, only Sam Brown. Why would Mr Samec instruct Mrs Titford to initial all the pages on her agreement as well as initialling them himself but a few minutes previously, no mention was made to Mr Titford to initial the pages? Was this a deliberate error so the documents could be "tampered with" after Mr Titford had signed them or have the pages been substituted for clean pages without Mr Titford’s amendments, Mr Titford swears he initialled the pages of the documents he signed in Tasmania, a fact shown by the photos he took at the time and produce to the Ombudsman. If the documents had not been “tampered with”, why was Mr Titford and his lawyer Clive Jackson refused copies of the fully executed documents and why are there so many “versions” in existence? “The rather confusing numbers of copies that have appeared”.
While the Crown stated in 1990, “Manuwhetai was taken by human error", but cannot produce one document of support, Allan Titford's property was taken in 1995 by "human corruption" and there are hundreds and hundreds of documents to support this fact!!!
It's time this nonsense stopped. The Crown got this claim and the acquisition of Harrison and Titford's properties horribly wrong. It's time the Crown bit the bullet, admitted their mistake and held a public inquiry where all the documents can be opened for public scrutiny. The only reason the Crown will not hold an inquiry, they know the documents would prove they have been “tampered with” and have no legal right to Allan Titford’s property. We challenge the Crown to hold a PUBLIC INQUIRY or return this property without delay!!!
Legally and morally, Allan Titford still owns his property
at Maunganui Bluff. Unless the Crown can prove otherwise,
ALLAN TITFORD HAS EVERY RIGHT TO RE-OCUPY HIS LAND!!
Letters to and from Jane
Fletcher, Policy/Negotiations, Office of Treaty Settlements
7 December 2007.
Dear Ross,
Thanks for all your recent emails. There are a couple of points I would like to
respond to:
Copies of documents
In your email of 10 December you request copies of the following documents:
1. The Deed that Mr Samec "faxed" back to the Crown Law Office on the
12/12/96.
2. The Sale Agreements that Mr Samec "faxed" back to the Crown Law
Office on the 12/12/95, including Mrs Titford's Agreement.
I note that you have previously received copies of the first two documents,
which have been certified by the Ombudsman's office (reference W57416). Therefore
we decline your request under section 18(d) of the Official Information Act
1982 (that the information requested is publicly available in that it has been
provided to you previously). We will however release a copy of the Deed of
Discharge of any Liability between the Crown and Mrs Titford under the Official
Information Act and have sent that off to you today. I note that under section
28(3) of the Act you may, if you wish, write to the Ombudsman seeking an
investigation and a review of this decision.
1993 Amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975
The amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act does not prevent the Crown from
acquiring private land. The amendment relates to the powers of the Waitangi
Tribunal. It prevents the Waitangi Tribunal from recommending the return to
Maori ownership of private land and from recommending that the Crown acquire
private land.
You have asked what covenant was in place between the Crown and Te Roroa at the
time of the purchase of the former Titford and Harrison properties. On 10 July
1993 the Crown and Te Iwi o Te Roroa entered into a Framework Agreement in
relation to claim WAI 38. This was a non-binding agreement that set out the
scope of the negotiations, including that the Treaty settlement negotiations might
include, but nor necessarily be limited to the findings and recommendations of
the Waitangi Tribunal with respect to claim Wai 38. The Terms of Negotiations
signed in September 1996 superseded this.
Finally I note at the end of your email of 21 November 2007 you say "P.S.
Jane Fletcher at Justice - I can fully understand why you had to ask Don
Harrison when this Act commenced…". I have no recollection of asking Mr
Harrison when the Act commenced.
Regards,
Jane.
Jane Fletcher | Manager, Policy/Negotiations | Office of Treaty Settlements
9 December 2007.
Dear Jane,
Thank you for your reply.
The "certified" documents I received from the Ombudsman were
superseded by later "versions" of the documents sent to Mr Titford,
with a copy to me by the Minister in Charge of Treaty Negotiations, the Hon
Mark Burton on the 11 April 2007. The Ombudsman was not impressed and had to
rewrite her report accordingly, dated the 27 June 2007.
The Ombudsman's final report into this investigation, W57416 dated the 21 August
2007 to Mr and Mrs Titford and a copy to me did not contain a Deed or Sale
Agreement, just her conclusion, "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". The documents Mr Samec transmitted to the
Crown Law Office were not the documents Mr Titford had signed and Mr Samec had
witnessed in Tasmania on the 12/12/95.
While we have had many "versions" of the Deed and Sale Agreement from
many sources, we have not had the copy that Mr Titford signed and the Crown's
lawyer, Mr Samec witnessed in Tasmania on the 12/12/95.
My request under the Official Information Act, is not for these documents as it
is obvious by the many "versions" we have been sent by the Crown and
the Ombudsman, no one knows, except Mr and Mrs Titford (the Ombudsman found,
"Mr Samec has no recall of the transaction and his files have been destroyed"),
which are the "true, legal documents" that were signed in Tasmania on
the 12/12/95. Fact!!!
My request through the Official Information Act was for a copy of the documents
faxed back from Tasmania at 10:23 am on the 12/12/95. These will have the Crown
Law Office fax marks dated the 11/12/95 as well as Chrisp, Hudson and Mann fax
marks dated the 12/12/95. The same as the documents that were attached to the
memo from the Crown Law Office to the Office of Treaty Settlements dated the
12/12/95 at 13.58. These marks were also on the final signing page of the Deed
supplied by Paul James on the 1 November 2006 so they must be in existence. You
will see the documents supplied to date only have fax marks on some pages, so
they have been "tampered with" and are therefore, not the documents
Mr Samec faxed back on the 12/12/95. The pages without Chrisp, Hudson and Mann
will be those Mr Samec couriered back to New Zealand later and "did not
transmit the memorandum (plus other amendments Mr Titford had made) to the
Crown Law Office". Samec told Mr and Mrs Titford he had been instructed
that further amendments could not be made to the documents. This may shed some
light on the many "versions" supplied to date.
Jane, a Framework Agreement is not a "Covenant - Formal Sealed Contract".
A Framework Agreement is an agreement between two or more parties on how the
Covenant or "Formal Sealed Contract" is to be formulated or set up.
The Framework Agreement between the Crown and Te Iwi o Te Roroa was, as you
stated, "a non-binding agreement that set out the scope of the
negotiations, including what the Treaty settlement negotiations might include,
but not necessary be limited to the findings and recommendations of the
Waitangi Tribunal with respect to Claim Wai 38". Hardly a "Formal
Sealed Contract"!!
Under the Official Information Act, we request a copy of this "Framework
Agreement".
Thank you for your help and honesty, it is much appreciated.
Regards,
Ross Baker.
Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.
12 December 2007.
Jane,
Further to your email dated the 7 December 2007.
You stated, "The amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act does not prevent
the Crown from acquiring private land. The amendment relates to the powers of
the Waitangi Tribunal. It prevents the Waitangi Tribunal from recommending the
return to Maori ownership of private land and from recommending that the Crown
acquire private land".
This is correct but without the Waitangi Tribunal's recommendation there would
have been no reason for the Crown to acquire Mr Titford's private land. In
fact, page 1 of the Deed under the heading, "Background" states,
"The Crown intends, contemporaneously with this Deed, to enter into an
Agreement with Allan Titford for the purpose of purchasing the Property, and in
particular securing the purchase of the alleged wahi tapu of Manuwhetai to
assist settlement of the claim of the Te Roroa people under the Treaty of
Waitangi Act 1975". The Crown agreed Manuwhetai was only alleged to be
wahi tapu, which they have constantly lied to the public and have still been
unable to produce one document to support this lie. A fact found by Chief Judge
Shepherd in the "1939 Inquiry".
Another error in this clause, the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 would not allow
this claim. Te Roroa could not lodge their claim until the 1985 Treaty of
Waitangi Amendment Act allowed claims dating back to 1840.
Jane it's a fact, the Crown breached the "1993 Treaty of Waitangi
Amendment Act" to acquire Allan Titford's property on a recommendation by
the Waitangi Tribunal to returned this land to Maori and there was no
"Covenant" between the Crown and Te Roroa at this time, only, a
"Framework Agreement" governing the conduct of negotiations"!!!!
This article from the Office of Treaty Settlements Document Library on the Te
Roroa Deed Summary sums up the various stages the final contract went through.
The "Covenant or Formal Sealed Contract" did not occur until the 17
December, 2005.
Te Roroa and the Crown have been engaged in periodic negotiations since 1992.
In 1993 Te Roroa and the Crown entered into a "Framework Agreement"
governing the conduct of negotiations. In 1996, the Crown formally recognised
the mandate of the Te Roroa negotiators and the parties signed Terms of
Negotiation specifying the scope, objectives and general procedures for the
negotiations. On 20 December 2004, the Crown and Te Roroa signed an Agreement
in Principle. A Deed of Settlement based on this agreement was confirmed by
exchange of letter on 10 September 2005. The Deed was then ratified by members
of Te Roroa through a postal ballot, and signed on the 17 December 2005. The
Deed of Settlement will be implemented following the passage of settlement
legislation".
From this summary, your statement, "This (The 1993 Treaty of Waitangi
Amendment Act) was a non-binding agreement that set out the scope of the
negotiations, including that the Treaty settlement negotiations might include,
but nor necessarily be limited to the findings and recommendations of the
Waitangi Tribunal with respect to claim Wai 38", did not occur until 1996
but was still not a"Covenant". A "Covenant or formal sealed
contract" did not occur until 17 December 2005.
I think the compliance with the "1948 Land Act" Mr Titford's property
was finally acquired under will also be interesting to research in detail!!!
Please discuss these two emails with the Hon Michael Cullen, the Minister in
Charge of Treaty Negotiations, as there seems to be many discrepancies. Thank
you.
Regards,
Ross Baker. Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.
13 December 2007.
Jane,
Thank you for the copy of Sue Titford's, "Deed of Discharge of any Liability
between the Crown and Mrs Titford".
It is interesting to note, Mrs Titford, the Crown's lawyer Samec and Sam Brown
initialled every page of this agreement, especially when it was sign in Tasmania
at the same time Allan Titford signed his Deed and Sale Agreement. Allan Titford
has always said he initialled all the pages he agreed to in the Deed and Sale
Agreement, but not one page of the many "versions" supplied to date has Mr
Titford's or Samec's initials attached. As well as being I believe a legal
requirement, it is normal practice as it stops the documents from being "tampered
with" after the first party signs the document.
Was this a deliberate error on Mr Samec's part so the documents could be "tampered
with", just an error by a Notary Public Lawyer or were they "tampered with"
after Mr Titford had initialled them? Seems strange Samec did not get Mr Titford
to initial every page when he made Sue Titford initial every page just a few
minutes later?? Makes it more obvious as to why Allan Titford or his lawyer,
Clive Jackson were refused copies of the fully executed Deed and Sale Agreement.
Surely the Crown Law Office, the Office of Treaty Settlements and/or Sam Brown,
the Commissioner of Crown Lands who initialled every page of the Deed and
Sale Agreement would have queried this. It left the contract wide open to
be "tampered with" or challenged at a later date!!
Jane, I cannot believe the incompetence shown by the people involved in this
transaction. Surely an inquiry must be held. Every document we receive just
makes this whole affair a complete sham. I am sure you would agree with this,
especially when the Agreement was between Allan Titford and Her Majesty the
Queen!!!!!.
Regards,
Ross Baker.
Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.
P.S. I have also sent this email to the Hon Michael Cullen as it's about time
he became involved.
17th December
Jane,
I have just been going through the many versions of the Sale Agreements between Allan Titford and Her Majesty the Queen that the Hon Mark Burton has sent to us.
On the 11 April, he sent his "final" copy stating that the memorandum entitled "To Attach to the Liabilities" was fax back with the Sale Agreement and was therefore, part of the Agreement. This was also confirmed by the Ombudsman.
I now find that this amendment was withheld from Sam Brown, the Commissioner of Lands when he signed the Sale Agreement as it is not initialled by him. It is signed by Mr Titford and witnessed by Mr Samec as Notary Public and Solicitor on the 12/12/95.
This means that Mr Brown did not have the complete Agreement when he signed it. He would not have known "Mr Samec was appointed by the Crown to assist in the matter" and "Allan Titford believed he had been pushed into this list of creditors as a result of the Waitangi Tribunal Claim". Forced to sell his land "under duress" A fact acknowledged by the Crown's appointed lawyer, Mr Samec.
Mr Brown was asked to sign an Agreement without being given the full document.
This is further evidence that the Agreement between Allan Titford and Her Majesty the Queen has been "tampered with" and therefore, is not a legally binding document.
Regards,
Ross Baker.
Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.
It must be remembered, Jane Fletcher had
nothing to do with this mess, but she has been put in the position of trying to
cover up the incompetence and corruption of people before her. I admire her for
her effort, but Jane, why take the İrap for something you did not do!!!
Research Departments. 13/12/2007.
To all Political Leaders and others.
Webmaster, One New Zealand Foundation Inc. www.onenzfoundation.co.nz