THE CROWN LAW OFFICE AGREEMENT IS "NULL AND VOID" -
The Crown must re-negotiate an agreement to “legally” purchase Titford’s property.
P.O. Box 1, Awanui, Northland, New Zealand. www.onenzfoundation.co.nz
15 June 2009 Email, rossbaker@austarnet.com.au
Mr Cameron Tyson,
Associate Crown Counsel,
Crown Law Office,
Wellington,
New Zealand.
Dear Sir,
Re: Corrupt Documents
Your Ref: SOL115/809
It is obvious from your letter dated the 9 June 2009 and previous letters received from the Crown Law Office, the documents used to purchase and transfer Mr Allan Titford's freehold titled farm at Maunganui Bluff into Crown title were “corrupt”. The One New Zealand Foundation Inc investigation has found without doubt, every document to acquire Mr Titford’s farm was "tampered with" by the Crown Law Office, its agents or the Office of Treaty Settlement in one way or another.
While the Ombudsman's personal opinion, possibly for political reasons, could find no 'tampering with the documents", the Ombudsman's investigation under the Ombudsman's Act found both memorandums Mr Titford had made to the Sale Agreement had been "removed" by the Crown's officials or its agent without Mr Titford’s knowledge, authority or consent after he had signed and had the document witnessed by Notary Public lawyer, Mr Zenia Samec.
The Ombudsman's investigation found,
“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 Mr Titford had stated". "Mr Samec did not transmit the memorandum to the Crown Law Office, or make any reference to it". The Crown’s officials had no right to “tamper with” the documents after Mr Titford had signed and had them witnessed by Mr Samec.
There is no denying, from the paper trail left by those involved at the time, the Deed we obtained under the Official Information Act from the Office of Treaty Settlements had been deliberately "tampered with" by Crown officials by removing the amendment to page 2 (B) stating this claim was only an "alleged" claim. After this was brought to the attention of the Minister in Charge of Treaty Negotiations, the Hon Mark Burton he sent a correct “version”. How many “versions” are there to a “legal” document? For this amendment to remain, which was initialled by the Minister of Justice, the Hon Doug Graham, Mr Titford's farm was acquired "under false pretences".
The Crown Law Office cannot supply Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 to Mrs Titford's Deed for the simple reason; they were never annexed to the Deed, again shown by the paper trail and the inability of the Crown Law Office to supply copies. The Deed Mrs Titford was asked to sign was an "incomplete document ".
The Crown Law Office has admitted it "tampered with" the Memorandum of Transfer by adding a clause after it was witnessed and returned to New Zealand by Mr Zenia Samec on the 12 December 1995. This was not the "original" 1994 Memorandum of Transfer to be re-executed by Mr Titford and referred to in correspondence from the Crown Law Office leading up to the execution of the document, a fact confirmed by Mr Graham Scott, registered auctioneer and estate agent who witnessed the "original" Transfer in 1994. From the paper trail, the execution page was the only page from the “original” 1994 Memorandum of Transfer. It was a “bogus document”.
There is no denying, the Sale Agreement, Deeds and the Memorandum of Transfer that Mr and Mrs Titford were forced to sign on the 12 December 1995 were not the documents Notary Public Lawyer Mr Zenia Samec perused with Mr and Mrs Titford on the 8 December 1995, Mr and Mrs Titford had discussed with their lawyer Clive Jackson or Mr Titford had agreed to sign on condition of one amendment being inserted. While it is clearly stated in Mr Samec’s invoice dated the 31 January 1996, the documents he received on the 11 December 1995 were now "draft" documents, the Ombudsman's investigation also found the format of this “draft” Agreement had been completely changed without Mr Titford's knowledge, authority or consent. Mr Samec was a Tasmanian Notary Public lawyer, instructed and paid by the Crown "to assist" in the signing and witnessing of the documents. He had no knowledge or authority to advise on the "draft" documents Mr and Mrs Titford were “forced” to sign on the 12 December 1995. These “draft” documents were signed “under duress” and without “legal advice”.
Mr Titford was forced to sell his property "under duress", a fact stated in the memorandum "To Attach to the Liabilities" and the amendment to page 11 of the Sale Agreement that the Ombudsman's investigation found were removed by the Crown's officials or its agent after Mr Titford had signed it, but before it was presented to the Commissioner of Lands, Mr Sam Brown to sign on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen. 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".
Mr Titford and his New Zealand lawyer, Clive Jackson were refused copies of the fully executed
documents. Mr Jackson stating, “In fact, even after it was signed the Crown refused to provide me with a copy of it. I did not provide you (Mr Titford) with any legal advice in respect of the final draft and if I had my advice to you would have been, not to sign it”!
Sir, There is no denying the above, these are facts proved without doubt by the paper trail left by those involved at the time, information and memos supplied by the Crown Law Office, information supplied by the Office of Treaty Settlements, information contained in the Hon Doug Graham's restricted file, information found by the Ombudsman's investigation and other information we have on file from third parties.
The One New Zealand Foundation’s investigation found; the documents used by the Crown to acquire Mr Allan Titford’s property on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen were “corrupt” for the following reasons.
1. Mr Titford’s property was acquired, “Under False Pretences”.
2. The documents Mr and Mrs Titford were forced to sign on the 12 December 1995 were not the documents they had agreed to sign with legal advice on the 8 December 1995.
3. The Crown officials and its agent deliberately “tampered with” the Sale Agreement after Mr Titford had signed and had it witnessed by Notary Public Lawyer, Mr Zenia Samec.
4. The Crown officials deliberately “tampered with” the Deed after Mr Titford had signed it.
5. The Minister in Charge of Treaty Negotiations, Mark Burton admitted there were “version” of the Deed.
6. Mrs Titford Deed was an “incomplete document”
7. The Memorandum of Transfer was a “bogus document”.
8. Not one page of the Sale Agreement, Deed or Memorandum of Transfer supplied by the Crown Law Office is initialled by Mr Titford.
9. Mr and Mrs Titford had no legal advice when they signed the “draft” documents on the 12 December 1995. They signed the documents, “Under Duress”.
9. Notary Public lawyer, Mr Zenia Samec was instructed and paid by the Crown.
10. Mr Titford and his lawyer were refused copies of the fully executed documents.
11. The evidence shows, the Crown Law Office “Perverted the Course of Justice”
12. Under New Zealand Law, this agreement is “Null and Void”.
The time has come when the Crown Law Office must accept, the documents to acquire Mr Allan Titford’s property at Maunganui Bluff on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen were “tampered with” by the Crown’s officials or its agents and therefore are, “Legally Null and Void”.
The Crown must re-negotiate an agreement to “legally” purchase Mr Allan Titford’s property at Maunganui Bluff on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen now that they have returned it, without “legal” ownership, to Te Roroa for their “alleged” claim.
Yours sincerely,
Ross Baker.
Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.
cc Dr David Collins, Solicitor General.
Ms Beverley Wakem, Chief Ombudsman.
The New Zealand Law Society.
To all Members of Parliament.
Allan and Sue Titford
For further information, click onto, www.onenzfoundation.co.nz
This letter will be posted on our website. The people of New Zealand have a right to know the
truth into the “corrupt” purchase of Mr Allan Titford’s property by the Crown on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen. |
