|
One New Zealand Foundation Inc
P.O.Box 1, Awanui, Northland, New Zealand. www.onenzfoundation.co.nz
11 May 2009. Email, rossbaker@austarnet.com.au
Jo Mildenhall,
Associate Crown Counsel,
Crown Law Office.
Dear Jo,
Re: Official Information Act Request
Your Ref: SOL115/809
Thank you for your letter containing three files from Solicitor General, Justice John McGrath. From these files, the paper trail left by those involved at the time and the Ombudsman’s investigation, there are many very serious discrepancies in the handling of the documents to acquire Mr Titford’s farm, which the Solicitor General, Justice John McGrath would or should have known at the time, discrepancies that makes the sale; “Legally null and void”.
1. Mr Titford’s Sale Agreement that was returned to the Crown Law Office has an attachment, “To Attach to the Liabilities”, which is mention in Mr Samec’s accompanying letter dated the 12 December 1995 as being attached to the liabilities, but this attachment was removed before the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Mr Sam Brown executed it on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen. This attachment was signed by Mr Titford and witnessed by Notary Public Lawyer, Mr Sam Samec and shows; Mr Titford was forced to sell his farm “under duress and without justification”, the reason for it being removed before the Commissioner of Lands, Mr Sam Brown executed it.
2. Mr Titford’s Deed, page 2, Background (B) that was returned to the Crown Law Office, shows an initialled amendment made to this clause stating, “and in particular of securing the purchase of the “alleged” wahi tapu of Manuwhetai to assist settlement of the claim of Te Roroa people under the Treaty of Waitangi” also mentioned in Mr Samec’s accompanying letter. This amendment was also initialled by the Minister of Justice, the Hon Douglas Graham and witnessed by Mary Anne Thompson, Office of Treaty Settlement when they executed and witnessed the Sale Agreement. The initialled amendment acknowledges, Manuwhetai was only “alleged” to be wahi tapu and therefore should never have been acquired “to assist the settlement of the claim of Te Roroa people under the Treaty of Waitangi”.
3. On the execution page of the Memorandum of Transfer that was returned to the Crown Law Office allegedly signed by Mr Titford and witnessed by Mr Samec, there is no date of when this document was executed, but the Memorandum of Transfer held by the Crown Law Office and LINZ has a clause added, “In witness whereof these presents have been executed this 12th day of December 1995”. This clause was added without Mr Titford’s knowledge, authority or consent after Mr Titford had allegedly signed and had the document witnessed. This is not the “original” document Mr Samec was holding on Mr Titford’s behalf and was instructed by the Crown Law Office to have Mr Titford re-exectute. This document is not initialled on any page showing Mr Titford had not sighted, read or consented to this documents contents. This is a “bogus” document.
4. The Sale Agreement and Deed returned to the Crown Law Office is not the Sale Agreement and Deed Parliament had re-extended to Mr Titford or the document Mr Titford’s lawyer, Clive Jackson had discussed with him and recommended an amendment 7. (1)(c)(i), to be added before he signed it. It is not the Sale Agreement and Deed Mr Sam Samec, Notary Public Lawyer had discussed with Mr and Mrs Titford in Tasmania on the 7 December 1995 or the Sale Agreement and Deed Mr Titford had agreed to sign on the 8 December 1995. This is a completely new Sale Agreement and Deed drafted by Helen Aikman, Crown Counsel and sent to Mr Samec on the 11 December 1995. Mr Titford signed this Sale Agreement and Deed “under duress and without legal advice or representation” at 7-30am on the 12 December 1995 on the side of the road with Mr Samec still in his dressing gown!!!!
5. As Mr Titford was refused copies of the documents at the time he signed them, he took photos, which show Mr Titford and Mr Samec initialled the amendments he had made to the Sale Agreement. The Sale Agreement, Deed and Memorandum of Transfer the Crown has supplied to date, show no amendments and are not initialled on any page, therefore are not the pages Mr Titford sighted, read, amended or initialled. As Mr Titford was refused copies of the fully execute documents, there is no denying they had been “tampered with” after he had amended them, initialled them, signed them and had them witnessed.
6. In clause 1.1 of Mrs Titford’s “Deed of Discharge of Any Liabilities” it states, (both in terms of the agreement and deed, copies of which are annexed to this Deed as Schedule 1 and 2). If we look at the numbers on the pages faxed on the 11 December 1995 from the Crown Law Office, New Zealand to Mr Samec, Tasmania and back again on the 12 December 1995, Schedule 1 and 2 were never annexed to Mrs Titford’s “Deed of Discharge of Any Liabilities”. The Crown Law Office cannot produce a copy of Schedule 1 and 2. The Deed Mrs Titford signed without legal advice and the Commissioner of Crown Lands, Mr Sam Brown signed, “was an incomplete document”.
Under the Official Information Act dated this 11 day of December 2009, we request,
As the documented evidence on file shows the sale agreement documents were “tampered with” by the Crown Law Office or its agents after Mr and Mrs Titford had signed them and had them witnessed by Notary Public Lawyer, Mr Sam Samec; “On what legal grounds does the Crown Law Office or the Crown have to enforce these corrupt Agreements, Deeds and Memorandum of Transfer”?
Yours sincerely,
Ross Baker.
Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.
Cc, Justice John McGrath, Supreme Court.
Dr David Collins, QC, Solicitor General.
Webmaster, www.onenzfoundation.co.nz
|
