Deputy Ombudsman, Leo Donnelly has joined the Chief Ombudsman, Beverley Waken in refusing to justify her opinion. It is a concern when the Chief Ombudsman has now involved the Deputy Ombudsman to deny the people of New Zealand justification of her opinion into the "corrupt" documents to acquire land for the "alleged" Te Roroa claim.
There is now no denying the Ombudsman's Office is not an independent organisation. While the Ombudsman's investigation under the Ombudsman's Act found the documents were "tampered with" to acquire land for the "alleged" Te Roroa claim, in the opinion of the Chief Ombudsman and her Deputy, ".... have found no evidence to support allegations that the documents were tampered with or were in any way corrupt".
The Crown is now using the Chief Ombudsman and her Deputy's opinion to hide behind and not the evidence found by the Ombudsman's investigation that the documents were "corrupt". There can only be one reason for the Chief Ombudsman and her Deputy not to justifying her opinion, "Political Pressure". How corrupt is that!
P. O. Box 1, Awanui, Northland, New Zealand. www.onenzfoundation.co.nz
2 November 2009.
Ms Beverley Wakem,
Chief Ombudsman,
Dear Ms Wakem,
Your ref; W57416
Thank you for your letter dated the 1 October 2009, re tampering with documents etc.
I have re-read your letters of the 27 June 2007, 21 August 2007 and 20 December 2007 and they definitely, "draw a distinction between your officer's investigation and your own opinion on our complaint".
You agreed to investigate, "The way in which the documents may have been tampered with after their return to New Zealand following execution by Mr and Mrs Titford, you say some "tampering" with them by some one or more of the Crown's representatives, and consequently, "something very corrupt with the documents".
Your officer's investigation under the Ombudsman's Act found the Crown's officials deliberately remove the memorandum, "To attach to the Liabilities" from the Sale Agreement, "Mr Samec did not transmit the memorandum to the Crown Law Office", “Mr Titford sold his farm without justification", and there was more than one “version” of the executed documents but in your opinion, you could find no evidence of the Crown “tampering” with the documents.
You also agreed to investigate, "That Mr Titford and his wife did not receive independent legal advice before executing the documents which they signed in December 1995".
Your officer's investigation under the Ombudsman's Act found that the Agreement Mr and Mrs Titford were asked to sign on the 12 December 1995 was not the 1994 “final” Agreement re-extended by Parliament they had discussed with their lawyer Clive Jackson and had agreed to sign with one amendment in Mr Samec's office on the 8 December 1995. This "new" Agreement was changed without Mr Titford’s knowledge, authority or consent, by the Crown Law Office from an "ex-gratia payment agreement" to a "monetary consideration Agreement" under a “new” format with many extra clauses including a "new" clause releasing the National Bank from all liabilities, but in your opinion, this was not "tampering" with the 1994 Agreement Mr and Mrs Titford, under his lawyer Mr Clive Jackson’s advice, had agreed to sign. Mr Samec’s bill also shows there were two sets of documents, the 1994 Agreement he held on the 8 December 1995 drafted by Phillip Fox solicitors and perused with Mr and Mrs Titford and the “new” draft agreement drafted by the Crown Law Office he received on the 11 December 1995.
Mr Titford's lawyer, Clive Jackson stating, "To summarise, I confirm that at no stage prior to executing the final settlement agreement was I provided with a copy of the documentation and I was not aware that the documents had been signed until after the fact. I did not provide you with legal advice in the respect of the final agreement and if I had my advice to you would have been not to sign".
It was extremely unethical for the Crown, (The purchaser) to use their Crown Law Office to re-write the “new” Agreement in the Crown’s favour then use their appointed, instructed and paid lawyer Mr Sam Samec to ask Mr and Mrs Titford to sign this “new” Agreement without legal advice, but in your opinion, this was not “corrupt”.
Mr Samec stated in his submission to the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania, "I suspect I was either acting as a Notary Public, but possibly I was acting as a solicitor for the New Zealand Crown". Mr Samec could not have given Mr and Mrs Titford legal advice as he was an Australian lawyer and would not have known New Zealand law. Barrister Greg Denholm wrote and phoned Mr Samec when his file was still available but he failed to respond for very obvious reasons. Mr Samec is still practicing law with his firm of Crisp, Hudson and Mann and is not in his 80's or senile as you suggested in your letter of the 27 June 2007 (30).
The New Zealand taxpayer's pay you to investigate and give unbiased opinions, but in this instance there is no denying your opinion was motivated by "political pressure".
From the paper trail left by those involved at the time and your officer’s investigation, the documents to acquire Mr Titford’s farm were definitely “tampered with”, therefore “corrupt”.
By sticking to your unsubstantiated personal opinion, you have joined those within the Crown/Government that have destroyed the justice and legal system of New Zealand and the future of an innocent young family for the “alleged” Te Roroa claim. Your investigating officers, especially the late Keith Robinson found in the investigation, that Mr and Mrs Titford did not have had legal advice when they signed the “new” Agreement on the 12 December 1995 and the Crown's officials had "tampered with” the documents. From the investigation under the Ombudsman’s Act, set out in your letters of the 27 June 2007, 21 August 2007 and 20 December 2007, you seem to have completely ignored these findings and there is no doubt your unsubstantiated opinion was due to "political pressure".
Hopefully, you will re-consider your opinion in line with your officer’s investigation!
Yours sincerely,
Ross Baker.
Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.
This letter will appear on our website, www.onenzfoundation.co.nz
P. O. Box 1, Awanui, Northland, New Zealand. www.onenzfoundation.co.nz
9 November 2009.
Mr Leo Donnelly,
Deputy Ombudsman,
Ombudsman’s Office,
P.O.Box 10152,
Wellington, 6143,
New Zealand.
Dear Sir,
Re; Complaint about Tampering with Documents
Your ref: 177992 (W59887)
We are disappointed the Chief Ombudsman, Beverley Waken has asked her Deputy to reply to our letter dated the 2 November 2009. Over the last six months we have asked her to justify her opinions into the Crown Law Office or its agent “tampering with” the documents to acquire Mr Allan Titford’s farm at Maunganui Bluff for the “alleged” Te Roroa Waitangi Tribunal claim.
Hopefully, you have read all the correspondence before becoming involved in Ms Wakem’s failure to justify her unsubstantiated opinion that has brought the Ombudsman’s Office into disrepute.
The Ombudsman’s Office is the last resort for people who have been wronged by the Crown/Government. An Ombudsman’s opinion must be based on the facts of her officer’s investigation, not succumb to “political pressure” as in this instance.
We believe the opinion given by the Chief Ombudsman has been influenced by “political pressure”. The facts found by the Ombudsman’s officer’s investigation and relayed in the Chief Ombudsman’s letters of the 27 June 2007, 21 August 2007 and 20 December 2007, shows the Crown Law Office or its agent deliberately removed memorandums from the documents after they had been signed by Mr Titford. It was also found the Crown Law Office drafted completely “new” Agreements than the 1994 Agreement drafted by Phillips Fox and re-extended by Parliament that Mr and Mrs Titford had discussed with his lawyer Clive Jackson and agreed to sign in Mr Samec’s office with one amendment 7. (1)(c)(i) on the 8 December 1995.
In the opening paragraph of Mr Zenia Samec's submission to the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania he states, “I suspects I was merely acting as a Notary Public, but possibly I was acting as a solicitor for the New Zealand Crown”. He later states, "I was merely a witness", therefore he was not representing Mr or Mrs Titford as their lawyer or gave them legal advice before executing the "final documents" he received on the 11 December 1995.
Mr Titford's lawyer, Clive Jackson stated, "To summarise, I confirm that at no stage prior to executing the final settlement agreement was I provided with a copy of the documentation and I was not aware that the documents had been signed until after the fact. I did not provide you with legal advice in the respect of the final agreement and if I had my advice to you would have been not to sign". Mr Jackson also did not give Mr or Mrs Titford legal advice before executing the “final documents”.
The Crown Law Office’s “new” Agreements only arrived in Mr Samec office at 4-00 pm on the 11 December 1995 and were presented to Mr and Mrs Titford by Mr Samec to sign without legal advice on the side of the road at 7-30 am the next morning, the 12 December 1995. Mr Samec could not have checked the documents as Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 of Mrs Titford’s Deed of Discharge was missing, making the document incomplete, therefore “null and void”.
Sir, not only did the Ombudsman’s investigation find the Crown Law Office or its agent deliberately remove memorandums from the documents Mr Titford signed on the 12 December 1995, the Crown Law Office completely re-wrote the Agreement under a new format with many extra clauses including a new clause, 16. “Releasing the National Bank from any Liability to Vendor”. The National Bank was about to bankrupt Mr Titford and take his father’s farm held as security, forcing Mr and Mrs Titford to sign the documents on the 12 December, under duress and without legal advice.
I am disappointed you have joined the Chief Ombudsman in failing to justify her opinion and succumbed to “political pressure”. From the paper trail left by those involved at the time and the Ombudsman’s investigation, there is no denying the Crown Law Office or its agent deliberately “tampered with” the documents to acquire Mr Titford farm for the “alleged” Te Roroa land claim.
Mr and Mrs Titford and their young family were completely innocent victims in this whole corrupt affair, which has completely destroyed the family, their future and their livelihood but the Ombudsman’s Office has chosen to succumb to “political pressure” in this instance – a very sad moment in New Zealand’s history and the reputation of the Ombudsman’s Office!
Yours sincerely,
Ross Baker.
Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.
This letter will appear on our website, www.onenzfoundation.co.nz
Email the Chief Ombudsman, Beverley Wakem and ask her why she will not support the findings of her officer’s investigation or justify her opinion. Email Beverley Wakem, Chief Ombudsman at; Beverley.Wakem@ombudsmen.parliament.nz
|
