P. 1
Interview Hohepa Mapiria Joseph Murphy Royal Regent, 30707-4

Interview Hohepa Mapiria Joseph Murphy Royal Regent, 30707-4

|Views: 180|Likes:
Published by TaneRakau

More info:

Published by: TaneRakau on Sep 20, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/11/2014

pdf

text

original

Interview with Hohepa Mapiria Joseph (“Joe”) Murphy Royal Regent, 7 July 2003.

The Application of Maori Sovereignty in Aotearoa - New Zealand. ........On the fisheries issue, the Native title covers all land, natural and physical resources under Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi) 1840 (“TOW”)............... Basically, the fisheries issue covers Customary Law and the Native Title, where it has not been extinguished. He Whakaputanga o Te Rangatira o Nga Un o Nu Tirene (He Wakaputanga o Te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni) aka 1835 Declaration of Independence (“DOI”) is still alive today, .......where? It currently exists Under Part XIII of Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993.
Hohepa Mapiria Joseph (“Joe”) Murphy Royal Regent, 7 July 2003

The DOI was included in statute under Part 4 of the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967 however the New South Wales settlers Parliament (NZ Settlers Parliament), utilising the then Maori Affairs department made amendments to it to suit themselves rather than Maori. Now, the DOI is protected by the TOW, all those rights that existed before the TOW are protected. The first recorded document of the rights of Maori was the DOI. In the TOW they say Maori have ceded cession to the British Crown . Therefore now, the DOI is protected by the TOW.
CEDED, pp. Yielded; surrendered; given up. CESSION, n. 1. The act of giving way; a yielding to force or impulse. 2. A yielding, or surrender, as of property or rights, to another person; particularly, a surrender of conquered territory to its former proprietor or sovereign, by treaty. 3. In the civil law, a voluntary surrender of a persons effects to his creditors, to avoid imprisonment. 4. In ecclesiastical law, the leaving of a benefice without dispensation or being otherwise qualified. When an ecclesiastical person is created a bishop, or when the parson of a parish takes another benefice , without dispensation, the benefices are void by cession, without resignation. CEDE, v.t. 1. To yield ; to surrender; to give up; to resign; as to cede a fortress, a province or country, by treaty. This word is appropriately used to denote the relinquishment of a conquered city, fortress, or territory, to the former sovereign or proprietor. 2. To relinquish and grant; as, to cede all claims to a disputed right or territory. The people must cede to the government some of their natural rights. We b s ters 1 82 8 N ew Internati on a l D i cti on ary.

There are two (2) documents of the Common Law between the DOI and the TOW. The first document is the feudal title of the Crown. The feudal title meaning the Crown are bound by their status in a hierarchy of reciprocal obligations of service and defence to Maori under the TOW. In simple terms the Crown have under the TOW, guaranteed Maori protection and justice if our rights are threatened here in Aotearoa, NZ. This came about by the standing orders of Lord Glenelg to Major General Bourke to protect the Maori people by military might in saying that, His Majesty King William IV will not fail to avail to the chiefs such protection , (that’s military protection). The second document is the fiducial title of the Crown. The fiducial title meaning, the Crown owes to Maori under the TOW, the duties of good faith, trust and confidence and must exercise a very high standard of care in managing our Mãori lands, resources, estates and funds. This came about by the Letters Patent issued by Lord Normanby to Lieutenant Consul William Hobson in 1839. That gives you a clearer understanding as to the purpose of the TOW 1840 and the recognition given to the DOI 1835 by the Crown and his Majesty King William IV. And so the TOW was put together to protect us against the evil consequences being the settlers who have escaped from their penitentiary (at the Prison colony in Australia) and were coming here, and who are still coming here to live on these lands, and so it was necessary under the preamble of the TOW that Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II (as her ancestors before her) intended to protect the Maori peoples rights against those evil consequences of the immigrant settlers. So the purpose of the TOW was to protect the Maori people against those evil consequences by setting up under Article I of the TOW. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is now the legal owner and Trustee of all the Maori people ’s lands and natural and physical resources in Aotearoa, New Zealand forever... And so she became, as a matter of inheritance under the TOW, the legal Trustee and the legal owner of all land in New Zealand - which is Maori Customary land deemed Crown Land. Under Article 2 of the TOW the Maori people retained their Sovereignty by the Queen granting to them the unqualified rights of possession of their lands, forests and fisheries and other taonga, which made the Maori people the legal beneficial and equitable owners, of all land in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Therefore, it created a Trust where the Maori people, under the TOW had sovereignty over all people living within its domain. On the 6 February 1840 prior to the signing of the TOW, nga Rangatira (the chiefs), exercising their powers under Article 2 of the DOI, gave to the Crown, these people, whom they ceded sovereignty over the British subjects to the Queen. Nothing else.

The Maori people gave to the Queen the pre-emptive right (or first right) to purchase lands before all others , or the first right to refuse, to the sale of any Maori land in Aotearoa, NZ however, Maori have not done that to date, and the Queen has not purchased one inch of soil in Aotearoa New Zealand.
PRE-EMP’TION, n. [L. proe, before, and emptio, a buying; emo, to buy.] The act of purchasing before others. 1. The right of purchasing before others. Prior discovery of unoccupied land gives the discoverer the prior right of occupancy. Prior discovery of land inhabited by savages is held to give the discoverer the pre-emption, or right of purchase before others. 2. Formerly, in England, the privilege or prerogative enjoyed by the king, of buying provisions for his household in preference to others, abolished by statute 19. Charles II. We b s ters 1 82 8 N ew Internati on a l D i cti on ary.

Article 3 of the TOW gives the same right to the Maori people, to hold something similar, in equal measure to the Queen which of course is sovereignty. Therefore, the purchase of any land in New Zealand has to be conducted with the Queen directly. All other lands that are recorded in New Zealand, that Mãori have sold to any individual person, is an illegal sale. Any Maori who has sold to a European/immigrant or any European/immigrant who has brought from a Maori , it is not a legal sale. In law the beneficiary cannot sign any document , it is up to the Trustee, and that Trustee is the Queen. If a Maori signs his name to any land, forest, fisheries or other taonga, it is an improper sale. It is to be done through the British Crown. So any person who has purchased land directly from a Maori hasn’t purchased anything at all, that person was to apply to the British Crown to purchase land that the British Crown had already purchased from Maori, which has been nothing. The Queen as our Trustee knows what is happening socially, economically and politically here in NZ. She has eyes her ears in New Zealand here through members of her counsel who inform her of the social , economic and political matters affecting New Zealand and the way in which the Maori people have been treated and are currently being treated.

The Introduction of Constitutional Law in New Zealand. After the TOW, there was the 1846 NZ Constitution Act. In that Act there was Section 9 and Section 10 which provided that Maori Customary laws were to be made by Maori self Government, Governments in their own native districts, and if they wanted their laws recognised internationally, they could do this through the Queen who issued letters patent more or less acknowledging receipt of those laws , and she placed them into the law of England right around the Common Wealth of the United Kingdom (UK) and enforces them back into Aotearoa, New Zealand. Now a similar thing happened in 1852 under the 1852 NZ Constitution Act of the United Kingdom (UK), Section 71 stated the same thing that Maori customary laws were to be made by Maori self Government . So the 1846 New Zealand Constitution Act was created to restrain the Governor from governing over Maori which preserved Article 2 of the TOW 1840, Maori Govern over themselves, Tino Rangatiratanga, which preserved the DOI 1835 before that. Now the settlers were granted their right by warrant to govern themselves under the 1852 NZ Constitution Act . Section 71 of that Act told the European Government lay off! Maori Govern themselves under their own laws in their own districts, and were entitled to International recognition by Letters Patent through the British Queen , who issued those Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom , enforcing them into the law of England and into the law of New Zealand, that was in 1852. The next Act, Native Districts Regulations Act 1858. Where lands were unextinguished of the Native Title, the Government, Maori Government, would appoint justices of the peace or native assessors, to create jurisdiction in summary proceedings and, in that same year (1858) the Native Circuit Courts Act came into play, which provided for one Magistrate, and one Native assessor. So all Courts in NZ, were, since 1858, and are currently today, suppose to have one Native assessor (Maori) and one Magistrate (European) sitting up on the bench before any decision was or is lawful or legal. Guess what......... Today and of yesterday there has only been one judge, a European magistrate. Why? Because this and other successive governments have been acting insubordinate of the laws set down by the Queen through the Crown, the Privy Council and the Common Wealth of the UK. In other words, this action has been, and still is, an act of treason by the NZ Settlers Parliament and successive Settlers Parliaments The penalty under the Crimes Act of your own Government for treason is death, and by/for any m ember of the judiciary it is imprisonment for life so help you God, and when you get there - to prison you will m eet the people who you put in there, yourself, other sovereigns like myself! So Maori should have equal representation in all courts within New Zealand under the Queens law, the Queen who has the rightful ownership, the legal ownership of New Zealand and who is, along with Maori, the legal sovereign’s of all British subjects living in Aotearoa, New Zealand. There are quite a few Maori out there who believe they have lost their land . In fact, they have not lost any land; they have been tricked and deceived into believing they have by this New Zealand Settler Parliament’s conspiracy which has been ongoing for the past 157 years.

I (Hohepa Mapiria) have placed the lands of our ancestors in Aotearoa, New Zealand, back in the hands of their descendants as kaitiaki/owners, which is of course the whole of the country, te Ika (the fish/North Is) me te Waka (the canoe/South Is) a Maui (of Maui). Many Maori people today are angry, upset and frustrated about the way in which their lands have been and are being forcefully taken and abused, the way in which their natural resources are being raped and depleted and the way in which their people are being treated socially, economically and politically. When all this stress mounts up they are compelled to take matters into their own hands with actions such as protests and occupations and when their point is not being heard, recognised or acknowledged by the assumed authorities they turn violent and vengeful and take their frustrations out on either their own whanau or the general public. Of course, one would understand their anger and frustration but violence and vengeance is not the way to go. It is simply a matter of pitching the law against the law . The courts in NZ here are the proper place to challenge the law but you must know the law first before you can challenge the law. “To be radical attracts radicalness.” Those are the words of the most radical of Justices of the Privy Council, Lord Denning. Whilst minding my own business, acting for myself in court, I didn’t go saying I’m the legal sovereign, and I didn’t jump up and down, I wrote it on a piece of paper and handed that paper to the presiding judge, that is my gun. Put all those acts together, NZ Constitution Act 1846 Section’s 9 and 10 and the Royal Charter which stated, I quote, “on the British Crowns Royal Charter, in cases arising between the aboriginal inhabitants of NZ alone, the courts and magistrates shall uphold, (the words “shall uphold”) Maori customary laws and usage’s as aforesaid” unquote. That is what is stated in the Royal Charter (Magna Carta) of the Parliament of Westminster concerning NZ, who enacted Section’s 9 and 10 of the NZ Constitution Act 1846, which is a common law doctrine and statute , Internationally recognised. That statute and that common law doctrine used together, forms the common law under statute of Maori Customary law. Then in 1901 in the judgement of the Privy Council where Lord Phillimore was presiding over, he stated in his decision in the case “Hineiti Rirerire Arani versus The Public Trustee of NZ”, he stated that, I quote “Maori customary law enjoyed legal status in European Colonial courts in NZ, in the absence of any statute indicating otherwise, that statute being enacted by the Native inhabitants themselves.” Unquote. Now what that decision did, was it entrenched that Maori customary law is to be legally recognised in every court in New Zealand, and the same to the decision of Lord Davey in 1900 - 1901 where he made a decision in “Nihara Tamaki versus Baker”, where “the Crown refused, in fact they were devoid actually, they refused to accept, that the issue of a Crown grant amounted to this extinguishment of the Native title.” He stated numerous statutes in the common law which are referring to the Native title or such like, of a tenure of land under custom and usage which was neither known to lawyers nor discoverable by them by evidence. When he made that statement, he said “that the lawyers in New Zealand were just too plum lazy to look in the statutes,” he defined that the Native title had not been extinguished. Once it reached that point, the Privy Council heard it, and under investigation, they found that the Crown has not purchased one inch of soil in NZ. That is what they found and therefore, the Crown lacked unreviewable prerogative power in relation to the Native title . That shook the NZ Settlers Parliament, then they changed their voting system and they went on the populist sovereignty model because they owned no land. No land, no kingdom, no sovereignty. We have served an affidavit on the NZ Settlers Parliament stating the facts about Maori sovereignty and self Governance under the DOI, TOW and the Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993, and we have found that when we are looking at the Government of today, after all those documents have been served on them and the Governor General, we find that they are chasing their tails and jumping up and down , you’ll see them jumping around in parliament, and it makes you laugh, because you know what you’ve done. The problem is, they (New Zealand Settlers Parliament) can not find it in themselves to completely admit that they have made a big mistake, an error in judgement. I was putting it to them in this way, giving them the opportunity to change, and they are trying to bring about change, but as quietly and as softly as they can. That is what they are doing right now. But the moment you start or they start getting violent, is the time for Maori to exe their right and recall for the standing orders of Lord Glenelg to Major General Bourke and the Letters Patent from Lord Normanby, the Secretary of Colonies and war, to Lieutenant Consul William Hobson (latter Governor of New Zealand), their judgements, their directions, to be enforced. Once those standing orders are called for, then the Maori people don’t exercise the fear or need to get angry or argue, we just leave it to the British Crown to solve under their feudal and fiducial titles for protection of the Maori people. We let them do the pointing of the gun , which is what the TOW is all about . Now today, we leave things as they are, in the hope that these people, in Wellington, will exercise fairness. If we don’t get any satisfaction from the New Zealand Settlers Parliament, then its time to call for those standing orders. A time limit has been set for the NZ Settlers Parliament to comply. Maori must have control of their lands and resources by the year 2005. This was the three regent’s determination of how long it is going to take.

From 1986 to the year 2005 Maori should be in control as it states in Section 2 of Te Ture Whenua Maori , Maori Land Act 1993 which is, and shall, bind the Crown under the Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993. In 1993 comes in an Act called Te Ture Whenua Maori , Maori Land Act. This Act was an Act that was brought into existence by the Parliament of Westminster, whom appointed three (3) Regents namely Cliff Whiting, David Singh and Joseph Hohepa Mapiria Murphy to draft up laws for the sovereign right here in Aotearoa, NZ. A Regent as defined in legal terms is, quote “a person who exercises the ruling power in a kingdom during the minority, absence, or other disability of the sovereign.” Unquote. Maori are the sovereigns, are a minority and are - under a disability at this present time. This was a directive upon all ministers of the Crown and all judges and Departments of the Crown . They are to do so in a way that reaffirms the Rangatiratanga (Sovereignty) of Maori as stated in Article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

*****Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993, (TTWMML Act). - Sovereign Law. ***** Within the Act the key words to listen to are these, “Shall!” in each sub section you will hear the word “Shall”, the missing words are “The Parliament of Westminster.” So you listen to the word “Parliament” which means “the Parliament of Westminster” has made an Act through three regents who are members of the Privy Council in the House of the Spiritual Temple in the Common House of Lords of the Parliament of Westminster who reside personally here, right here in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Now the key words are “shall” and “control” and “the power” in Part XIII of the TTWMML Act 1993, which allows a Maori incorporation to alter, add too or replace any parts of their constitution under any provision of the Act, or any regulations made under the Act, or any other enactment and the general law. They can change their fulfil rights, powers and privileges in full capacity to exercise. Now listen to this............. The Act reads; “Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993, Section 2. Interpretation of Act generally— (1) it is the intention of Parliament that the provisions of this Act shall be interpreted in a manner that best furthers the principals set out in the preamble to this Act.”. What is in the preamble of this Act, Te Tiriti 0 Waitangi, Kawanatanga (governorship) for the protection of Rangatiratanga (sovereignty), and to have a court to assist it in the necessary mechanisms to create any law, statute, regulation or limitation they choose to; that’s in the preamble to this Act. Now subsection (2) of Section 2, - Without limiting the generality of subsection (1) of this section, it is the intention of Parliament that powers, duties, and discretion’s conferred by this Act shall be exercised, as far as possible, in a manner that facilitates and promotes the retention, use, development, and control of Maori land as taonga tuku iho (forests, fisheries and other taonga) by Maori owners, their whanau, their hapu, and their descendants. So, when you take a look at the common law you see the decision made by Lord Davey, that the Crown lacked unreviewable prerogative power in relation to the Native Title , who were unwilling to accept that a Crown grant amounted to the extinguishment of that Native Title and so, there is no land in NZ that is not Maori customary land, it is only deemed Crown land for certain purposes. (3) In the event of any conflict in meaning between the Maori and the English versions of the Preamble , the Maori version shall prevail. So in the Maori version of the preamble the key word in the preamble is “Tika”. Now, when you look at the word deemed, in the eyes of a Maori arguing a word saying deemed and that is “to be” you would read Section 144 of the Act “Maori Customary Land deemed (to be) Crown Land for certain purposes, or you can read it as, “Maori Customary Land for the time being Crown Land”.. Subsection (3) of Section 2 states” In any conflict between the Maori and the English version of the preamble , the Maori version shall prevail. Alright, now I go to Section 17 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Act 1994 , sub Section (3) states that” A Maori incorporation made by special resolution of the owners may alter , add to or replace its constitution in accordance with any provision of this Act or any regulations made under this Act. Such provisions are, under Section 144, if it says Maori Customary Land deemed Crown Land, it could be added to, altered or replaced, the word “deemed”. You take the English words out and you say it as you really want it, but as the Maori people really wanted it. Moreover, they say it is Maori Customary Land for the time being, Crown Land.

Challenging Jurisdiction of HIGH COURT or DISTRICT COURT JUDGES.
This is what you say to the judge, (to the presiding Judge)... Sir, being a Native Indigenous Aborigine and therefore a sovereign of Aotearoa, NZ, I reckon I’m suppose to have a Native assessor up there by (beside) you to make sure that Me and My people get a fair deal. If you’re going to sit there by yourself, then that’s not fair, that’s a total injustice.

As your lord and sovereign, Her Majesty Queen-Elizabeth-the-Second, under whom You swore Your judicial oath, which is as follows; Quote “I,..........., swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen-Elizabeth-the-Second, Her heirs and successors, according to law, in the office of; and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of New Zealand without fear or favour, affection or ill will. So help me God. Cf 1908 No 151 s 4 ” unquote. This book here, the Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993 states, that this Act shall bind the Crown and so, if you Your Honour deny me the use of this book and the laws within it and say to me, NO I do not accept that, then you are saying to your sovereign that you are over stepping her....... then you are in breach of your judicial oath and you are not exercising the law that binds the Crown, you are misbehaving by not upholding the laws of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II her heirs and successors according to law, and therefore, you are acting with misconduct as a judge. By the power vested in Me under Section 12 of Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993, I will personally see to it that ‘your position as judge, be removed from you, so help you God. The penalty under the Crimes Act of your own Government for treason is death, and by/for any m ember of the judiciary it is imprisonment for life so help you God, and when you get there to prison that is - you will meet the people who you yourself put in there, other sovereigns like m yself. Under the Native Circuit Courts Act 1858, number 5, under section 32 of that Act. Such provisions come under Section 32 of the Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993. (“TTWMMLA”). Section 33 TTWM, ML Act 1993. Additional me mbers in relation to matters of representation - (1) where a request is made to the Maori Land Court under section 30 (1) of this Act, the Chief Judge shall appoint two or more additional me mbers (not being Judges of the Maori Land Court) to the Maori Land Court. (2) Each person appointed under subsection (1) of this section shall possess knowledge and experience relevant to the subject matter of the request. (3) The chief judge shall, before appointing any persons under subsection (1) of this section for the purposes of any request, consult, as the case may require, with the parties to the proceedings or with persons involved in the negotiations, consultations, allocations, or other matter about the knowledge and experience that any such person should possess. Section 62. Additional m embers with knowledge and experience in Tikanga Maori - (1) Notwithstanding anything in any other provisions of this Act, or any cases stated under Section 61(1) (b) of this Act, for the opinion of the Maori Appellate Court, the Chief Judge may, if any party to the proceedings so requests, direct that, for the purposes of the hearing of that case, the Maori Appellate court shall consist of (a) Three judges of the Maori Land Court; and (b) One or two other m embers (not being judges of the Maori Land Court) to be appointed by the chief judge. (2) Each person appointed under subsection (1) (b) of this section shall possess knowledge and experience of Tikanga Maori. (3) The Chief Judge shall, before appointing any person under subsection (1) (b) of this section for the purposes of any hearing, consult with the parties to the proceedings about the knowledge and experience of Tikanga Maori that any such person should possess. Interpretation of “Tikanga Maori” m eans “Maori Customary values and practices.” Where do you go and practice what is in accordance with Tikanga Maori? Back to your Marae. Where is the law that defines this, in the He Whakaputanga o te Rangatira o Nu Tirene (Declaration of Independence) 1835 and Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi) 1840, and at what place are the creation and dispensation of laws to be made for Maori by Maori? At Waitangi Marae, Waitangi. Therefore, the court proceedings under Tikanga Maori shall be conducted by persons with the knowledge of Tikanga Maori, back at the Marae are Maori customary values and practices, and on sitting on that Marae, additional m embers and the judges of the Maori Land Court become a witness of the kawa of the Marae, hurinoa to tatou whare, those are the people within the house who are the judges. There are problems on our Marae today with entities such as Trust Boards created and constituted under the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955, Incorporated Societies and the sort whom are constituted under the New Zealand Settlers Parliament. They are however, artificial people or creatures and therefore , they do not settle between Maori and European, they are only settling a deal with themselves, not with Maori. Maori are a natural flesh and blood body, the NZ Parliament and all departments and people within those departments operating under them are artificial bodies, corporately coloured entities or non living breathing flesh and blood creatures/animals. Maori Incorporations under Part XIII of Te Ture Whenua Maori. Maori Land Act 1993 (TTWM,ML Act 1993). When you come up against a Maori Incorporation under Statute of Law , it has the same powers as Parliament. ] When you’re dealing with Parliament your dealing with an animal , when you’re dealing with a Maori Incorporation your dealing with a natural person and a natural body,.

Section 35 of TTWM, ML Act 1993 will indicate for you what a Maori Land Court is ; it has the same powers as the High Court, for example; Section 35 Fees and allowances - There shall be paid to any additional member of the Maori Land Court or Maori Appellate Court appointed under Section 28(1) or Section 31(1) or Section 33(1) of this Act or by an order in council made under section 27(1) of this Act, out of Public money, remuneration by way of fees, salary, or allowances and travelling allowances and expenses in accordance with the Fees and Travelling Allowances Act 1951, and the provisions of that Act shall apply accordingly as if the Maori Land Court or the Maori Appellate Court, as the case may require, were a statutory board within the meaning of that Act . As if, in which they are not a statutory board. The Jurisdiction of the Maori Land Court is this. Section 237 Jurisdiction of Court generally — (1). Subject to express provisions of this Part of this Act , in respect of any trust to which this section applies, the Maori Land Court shall have and may exercise all the same powers and authorities as the High Court has (whether by statute or by any rule of law or by virtue of its inherent jurisdiction) in respect of trusts generally. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall limit or affect the jurisdiction of the High Court. So therefore the MLC has the same jurisdiction as the High Court, but the High Court’s jurisdiction is still retained for the benefit of the settlers and not Maori and so when you talk of the High Court the Maori Land Court and any other court for that matter, it is not a statutory body, but a Maori incorporation is a statutory body independent, stands alone by Section 150, under the provisions of Section 150, the Maori Land Court has no jurisdiction over a Maori incorporation. Section 150 TTWM Act 1993 — Manner of alienation of undivided interests — (1) No undivided interest in any Maori freehold land may be alienated otherwise than by vesting order made by the court under Part VIII of this Act , unless the court is of the opinion that the arrangement or agreement of the parties should be given affect to by memorandum of transfer, and so orders. (2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section applies in relation to the alienation of (a) Shares in a Maori incorporation: (b) Interests in shares in a Maori incorporation: (c) Beneficial interests in land that, by virtue of Section 250 (2) of this Act, remain vested in the several owners of that land despite the vesting of the legal estate in fee simple in that land in a Maori incorporation. (3) No other interests in any Maori freehold land may be alienated otherwise than by;. (a) An instrument of alienation, executed and attested in accordance with the rules of the court, and con firmed by the court under Part VIII of this Act; or;. (b) a vesting order made by the Court under that Part:. (4) Nothing in subsection (3) of this section applies in relation to the alienation of any interest in Maori freehold land that —. (a) is effected — (i) by a Maori incorporation; or (ii) by the trustees of any trust constituted under Part X of this Act; and. (b) Is not an alienation by way of sale or gift? Which means that a Maori incorporation is totally independent from any other court. No other court has jurisdiction over a Maori incorporation, and so when you walk into the District court or the magistrate ’s court you say, my jurisdiction, I challenge your jurisdiction over me because I am a beneficiary of a Maori incorporation, I am tangata whenua. You can go through a process if you like, or you can go through by your own will . As the whakatauaki says, “A lone tree in the forest is easy to bend and to break”. If you go in an incorporated way under a Maori incorporation nothing can break you , because it is like a big animal, there are many tentacles to a Maori incorporation. It can suck the life out of you if you oppose it or it can suck the life out of your adversary, this is a Maori incorporation, this is a sovereign. What is sovereignty; I will give you an understanding of what sovereignty is................ Sovereignty in the legal term when you’re using it against the settlers in a court of law - you must be describing what sovereignty is, and according to Vattel, an old English writer on international law , sovereignty is vested in the ruler of the land. It is a society of people who have united together to procure their safety and welfare. They govern themselves under their own laws, this is sovereignty. I will describe to-you what the common law is. The common law is a judgement made by the Privy Council. The common law of the UK is made by the Privilege Council of the monarch, in this case Her Majesty Queen-Elizabeth-the-Second. When a decision is made from there it becomes a common law. The common law of the UK in relation to NZ preserves the Maori customary law in a judgement of Lord Phillimore in 1901.

Case, Hineiti Rirerire Arani versus the Public Trustee, on the customary law, based on the statute, the 1846 New Zealand Constitution Act and 1852 NZ Constitution Act, those are the statutes of the common law being upheld by the Privy Council in their judgement that forms the common law. As to the extinguishment of our customary rights in our lands , forests, fisheries and other taonga which includes human resources. Lord Davey in a case, Nireaha Tamaki vs Baker, and in the United States, Johnstone vs Macintosh. Lord Davey stated that the issue of a Crown grant does not amount to extinguishment of the Native Title and now that the case has been up before the Privy Council, the highest court in the land, the Crown lacked unreviewable prerogative power in relation to the Native Title. The Native Title being, all the rights, powers and privileges existing prior to the Treaty of Waitangi. Government after that decision, a year following created a statute, trying to over rule the common law of the UK and they did it again here (New Zealand) in a case called Willis vs the Attorney General, in the case where it affected the Bishop of Wellington to a title of land and an agreement between the tribes in Wellington , that the bishop of Wellington might be able to build a school. The government issued a Crown grant to the Bishop of Wellington and was held in the High Court of Appeal that the Crown grant gave the Bishop of Wellington full title to the land . The appeal went to the Privy Council via Willis vs The Attorney General. Presiding on the Privy Council was Lord Mac-naughten who stated, “We will have none of that.” The court was not an instrument of executive dictate, it was up to the court to determine what a breach of trust was and Lord Macnaughten squashed the Crown grant issued to the Bishop of Wellington because it was insufficient. Reason being, because the Crown had not purchased one inch of soil in New Zealand and I state an italic by way of first right of pre-emption and the first right of refusal. Now when that decision went to the Privy Council Lord Mac-naughten stated that, “it was rather late in the day for the Colonial bench to deny the Native title legal status” and so in 1947 the Government adopting the Statutes of Westminster Act which gave them full power to make laws for themselves it was subject to Section 8 which stated this , quote “Nothing in this Act shall give any power to repeal the Constitution Act of the Colony of Australia or the Constitution Act of the Dominion of NZ” unquote. Again, years go by and in 1986 the New Zealand Settlers Parliament breached the Statutes of Westminster Adoption Act 1947 and repealed the NZ Constitution Act 1852 and on repealing the Constitution Act of New Zealand they gave it full power and chopped off their own neck because by the Constitution Act 1852 it was by that Statute that they obtained from the British Crown a warrant to Govern themselves and they gave themselves full power to chop off their own heads by repealing the NZ Constitution Act 1852. New Zealand now stands in limbo. The NZ Settlers Parliament has no legal nor lawful constitution. Three Regents of Her Majesty’s put together an Act called Te Ture Whenua Maori Act , Maori Bill, and in doing so, the Government enacted the Conservation Act 1987. The Regents put on hold by the Common law that private land under the Conservation Act means land referred to in the Maori Land Act 1993 or Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 . That was to come into force some years later. In the mean time in the year 1987, those three Regents put into force the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988. Section 5 of that Act states that the common law of the United Kingdom shall form part of the law of NZ , reference behind that was the Privy Council decision in 1947 concerning the Statutes of Westminster Adoption Act. Following that came into place in 1991 the Resource Management Act ; resource management was for the managers to act as interim managers of the resources. That meant that the Local Governments and the Minister of Conservation, had to manage the resources and the conservation of those resources until the Maori Land Act could be put into place and enacted into NZ. That Act took place in 1993 being the Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993. Three Regents of Her Majesty’s put together an Act called Te Ture Whenua Maori Act , Maori Bill, and in doing so, the Government enacted the Conservation Act 1987. The Regents put on hold by the Common law that private land under the Conservation Act means land referred to in the Maori Land Act 1993 or Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 . That was to come into force some years later. In 1995 the land was conquered by International Law, it was taken under the law of conquest of International Law. This occurred when the flags on the 6 of February 1995 , the flags of the NSW and NZ Company hit the ground and the Governor Generals flag as the representative of the Crown came down and hit the ground. The NZ “rag” (or flag) was trampled into the ground. The declaration of war was placed to the Governor-General against the New Zealand Parliament by Maori, and when all the flags hit the ground at the Treaty grounds in Waitangi in 1995 the Maori flag went up and hit the top of the mast , the Maori people had conquered back Aotearoa, NZ. In 1996 the Fisheries Act was put into place, was enacted and now it is up to Maori under the provisions of Section 17, amending Section 268 Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993 subsection (3) stating that, a Maori incorporation by special resolution of the owners or shareholders may alter, add to or replace its constitution in accordance with any provision of this Act or any regulations made under this Act. This includes the provisions of

Section 253 which states that, subject to this Act, Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act and any other enactment and the General Law made by Parliament or any statute. Subject to this Act the Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act and any other enactment both International and National, and the general law made by parliament, subject to this Act and any other enactment and the general law, every Maori incorporation made by Special Resolution including in its constitution or any restrictions imposed by the court shall have both within and outside NZ, full capacity in the discharge of its obligation of the trust in the best interests of the shareholders, to carry on or undertake any business or activity, do any act, or enter into any transaction and, for the purposes of paragraph 3(a) of this section, full rights, powers, and privileges. What it says is that, a Maori incorporation by the blink of an eye in front of a court of law in any court in NZ or in any international court, Maori by special resolution says, meet my eye, hold on judge, we are just going outside and we are going to pass a resolution changing the law, we think its about time we passed a resolution, we’re going to change that law under Section 253 of TTWM,ML Act 1993, subject to this Act and any other enactment and the general law made by Parliament. You can change the law in an instant, bang! In Section 5 of TTWM,ML Act, it says, “This Act shall bind the Crown”, so the Crown has said , we can change it, we can change any law. You can add to it, alter it or replace it and we have full rights, powers and privileges to do that. In all the cases that I have been involved with myself personally, before this Corporation business started up I was exercising the same thing, my rights as a sovereign. The people were asking me, how come you’re getting away with a lot of things that we don’t get away with. And I said “well I’m just doing my own thing, m inding my own business, applying the law, and I’m getting away with it, that’s all.” At the end of the day, it is the quality of your lawful and/or legal argument. When other people try it out and fail , they fail because they have not learnt the law properly. I have heard Judges running out of the court room, they say ah, we’ll adjourn, they read the affidavit and then they adjourn and they say we’ll adjourn till 1 o’clock and then you look out the window on your side and you see the judge still in his robe he’s running out to the car, hops in and takes off. In an hours time he comes back, and your sitting and waiting for him and the registrar comes up and says the judge wont be back today, because of this and that and so and so whilst putting on a brave face.

New Zealand Constitution in Crisis - Geoffrey Palmer tape 1 side 1.
Hohepa Mapiria Joseph (“Joe”) Murphy Royal Regent of the Privy Council. Mihi.

..........I don’t come here.., prepared, for anything... I never go anywhere prepared. Why I am here for is to help our people, help you understand your legal position in our dear own Land - and to clarify a whole lot of lies that have been told... [help our people that have been listening]... and [into a world of confusion because of a misunderstanding... and they were taught wrong in their European schools]. As for me... I’ll give you a little bit of history... my background... when I was 4 years old, my Parents gave me to my Grandparents, to look after. During that time my Grandparents used to go to a lot of Wananga around the Maraes... and at that time they used to be... [whangan’ing] they’ll hold Wananga on our different Kawas of our Marae... that was in the North... and I sort of learnt the Maori Customary Lore... through that process. In that process I was taught... Whakapapa, which is undeniable... [...] by the old people taught me never to write the Whakapapa down... keep it in your head and it is so [ everybody’s whakapapa is the same.., you are never above anyone... you are all on the same plane....... and that Whakapapa I give you... what is coming out of my mouth,....... my Whakapapa goes like this... .............. RECORDING STOPPED........... ........... During many a Sittings, while on Council [?] the Native Title arose for [?] in several countries... [of the Native Title.., it arose in Canada, America... right around the Common Wealth, and in some of those Sittings I sat on them... I learnt a lot from my fellow Lords , and I took a... in my studies I took a lot of attention to New Zealand , or Aotearoa I would rather say... on Issues on Aotearoa. Issues [Law on the Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Waitangi itself... and looked right behind everything:.. Turned it all inside out and come back... and I am going to give you a history now... up here on the stage there is, black and white..... plenty available, I see you have a photocopier over there, if it works; if you like you can photocopy what you like... I am going to bring you up to today [to date?] and the Declaration.., but the Declaration that [DOI?] in 1835 still exists today... and it is in Statutory Lore today... and it relates to our Whenua... it is the only Law in which we in Maori believe.... tell me someone who doesn’t believe in this... Papatuanuku, [?], Tanemahuta, Tangaroa..... That Lore is in Statute Law... it always has been... it never has disappeared... just our minds that wandered... In 1835, our Chiefs signed the Declaration of Independence. One, that First Article [?] determined the Sovereignty to the [?]... they united as... united the Tribes together... they also united their Lands together [?]... Article one. Then they went to the matter of Sovereignty, Article Two... Does anybody know what Sovereignty is [ ]... [it in the English terms... [so that they can understand... then turn it around and put it back up where the Sun doesn ’t shine]...

Sovereignty is a law [in the Law according to an old Professor way back in the 1700 ’s ... [Vattel?] was his name and he determined what was sovereignty.... he said sovereignty was a gathering of people united together to procure their safety and welfare..... they then govern themselves under their own laws........ all right? This is sovereignty... the problem with our people todays is we are not actually living under our Law... our people have been strayed into believing that we live under the Government of Wellington , who is the Government of New South Wales residing in New Zealand... by wrongful occupation at Wellington in the Beehive. And so by following their Rulings and their Laws you living under the Australian Law.., and that’s the truth of the matter. OK now, we’ll go to the Treaty of Waitangi what is that?... Maori [Chiefs] In 1840, under their Law, Article II of the Declaration... [Article 4... they invited the British Crown, King William the 4th,... they invited King William the 4th to be our Parent.. of our Infant State. and so he died anyway and his Successor [ Victoria completed the job for him]... She turned up with Governor Hobson [1840 prior to the Treaty] but prior to that there was two [put in by the Privy Council [One was by [Glenelg] and the Chiefs asked in Article 4 [protection .., of their Infant State... The Privy Council reacted very quickly and it was Lord Glenelg who gave instructions to Major General [ ?] of the Royal Armed Forces... and in that [?] it says that he will not fail to provide [to the Chiefs] such protection that may be required... by the Chiefs on this occasion... And so Maori today, and we experienced it in 1995... this went right back to 1836 this Instruction of the [General Burke]... on two occasions in 1995... at Waitangi was the first one, the other one was down in Taranaki, Wanganui, at Pakaitore... where the Government... incidentally in 1995... 1 think I got some... [?]... for standing on the flag... [they got me back in the hospital]... In 1995 under International Law.., a document was served on the Government... a Declaration of War and it was served on the Major General... that Major General was. ?], from Ngati Porou, requesting the arrest of Parliament and it happened... That why they had to close that Ceremony in 1995... And again at Paikaitore involved a [by the Mayor [Chas Poynter]... in Wanganui, [used] the Royal Armed Forces, the Navy to remove these Maori [?] He went to dame Kath Tizard, who was the Governor then... Kath Tizard refused him on the grounds that there was the use of the Navy [up along the Wanganui River] on the grounds that there is a Standing Order, a Military Standing Order, by Lord [Glenelg] and Major General Burke and that is still Standing today... so we got the Military might of the British Crown if we want it... Then there was the other Decision made by Lord Normanby... Lord Normanby to confirm our Sovereignty.., the Decision of the Privy Council way back then.., this was prior to the Treaty being signed... these were Instructions that were ‘given to Major... on our Sovereignty.., the Royal Instructions by Lord Normanby.... who... Governor Hobson [it] was his instructions in the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi... “ but to certainly fraught with calamity to a numerous and inoffensive people whose Title to the Soil and to the Sovereignty of New Zealand is indisputable and has been solemnly recognised by the British Government!”. All right? These are just extracts... “I have already stated that we acknowledge New Zealand as a sovereign and independent state , so far at least as it is possible to make that acknowledgement in favour of the people composed of numerous dispersed and [?] tribes who possess few political relations to each other and are incompetent to act or even deliberate in [?]... but the omission of their rights though inevitably qualified by this consideration is binding on the fault of the British crown. All right? Now what we saying is how we are... We’ve been divided as a people... that must stop... We must come together and start [?]......... Te tai ra. Te tai ra,. Te tai I runga... Te tai ki raro,. Te tai ki roto. T tai ki waho,. Te hei Mauriora. Now I want to know how many of you think you lost your land ? - I want to know why are you fighting for your land?... Here we are, here are those Instructions going into the Land [Now the Treaty wasn’t intended to take away the Land at all... “All dealings with the Aborigines for their Lands must be conducted on the same principles of sincerity, justice and good faith as must govern your transactions with them for the recognition of her Majesty ‘is Sovereignty in Ireland. Nor is this all. They must not be permitted to enter into any contract in which they might be the either ignorant or unintentional [authors] of injuries to themselves.” All right? Now... how many Maori have sold Land to the Settlers ?.., a lot aye!?... Signed the dotted line.., the Maori Land Court helped them all these years... Well that paper that they signed, was not worth the paper it was written on... The Governor had an obligation of protection and he wasn ’t to allow anyone to purchase from us ,

without our willing consent, as a Tribe... In the same way that the Treaty was signed... that’s right across the Motu... In the same way the Treaty was signed, the same way Land was signed... and Maori has never done that... And so that was the intention of the Crown and the Treaty of Waitangi ... The legality of the Treaty of Waitangi is that the Crown entered into an agreement of protection of our Infant State... The Crown entered into a Treaty of protection of our Infant State and the Chiefs in agreement to her Government [ ?] exchanged with them... the Europeans in New Zealand would call it ceding but that ’s not according to the [?]... they say they gave over to the Crown the right to govern their people [?]... not the Maori people... So all those people that resided in Aotearoa from 1835 up to 1840 came under Maori Sovereignty and after 1840 the Chiefs [?] gave it back to the Queen... and we claimed our Sovereignty under Article 2... The land of Aotearoa was vested under Article 1 in the Crown , the whole of Aotearoa forever. But the Crown holds that land on Trust, the legal title of it all is that the British Crown hold the Title and the Maori people 0 Aotearoa hold the legal, beneficial and equitable ownership... this is... we benefit by the Crowns protection... We are still the legal owners... equitable... equal to the Crown and that is the legality and so the Crown is in the position... and always has been in the possession of Trust... they are our trustees... that’s the legality of it all... Notes 3/3/02 Form/from Hohepa. In 1835, our Chiefs signed the Declaration of Independence. One, that First Article....... determined the Sovereignty to the..... they united as United the Tribes together they also united their Lands together... Article One. Then they went to the matter of Sovereignty, Article Two [explain it in the English terms... so that they can understand...... then turn it around and put it back up where the Sun doesn’t shine] Sovereignty is in the Law... According to Professor Vattel way back in the 1700 ’s He said Sovereignty is a gathering of people who have united together to procure their safety and welfare - They govern themselves under their own laws...-. all right? and this is Sovereignty. The problem is with our people today..... All right? Now what we’re saying is, how we are... We’ve been divided as a people that must stop....... We must come together and start... Te tai ra. Te tai ra,. Te tai I runga... Te tai ki raro,. Te tai ki roto. T tai ki waho,. Te hei Mauriora. Now I want to know how many of you think you lost your land? Why are you fighting for your land? Here we are, here are those Instructions going into the Land [...read...]... How the treaty wasn ’t intended to take away the Land at all. “All dealings with the Aborigines for their Lands must be conducted on the same principles of sincerity ,, justice and good faith as must govern your transactions with them for the recognition of Her Majesty ’s Sovereignty in Ireland. Nor is this all. They must not be permitted to enter into any contract in which they might be the either ignorant or unintentional [authors] of injuries to themselves.” All right? Now how many Maori have sold Land to the Settlers? a lot aye!? Signed the dotted line... the Maori Land Court helped them all these years... Well that paper that they signed, is not worth the paper it was written on... The Governor had an obligation of protection and he wasn ’t to allow anyone to purchase from us without or willing consent, as a Tribe In the same way that the Treaty was signed...- that’s as a Maori Nation right across the Motu. In the same way the Treaty was signed, and Maori has never done that... And so that was the intention of the Crown and the Treaty of Waitangi... The legality of the Treaty of Waitangi, is that the Crown entered into an agreement of protection of our infant State......... ........ There appear to be a few pages m issing from here....... /\/\/\ above was labelled as page 1 and below \/\/\/ was labelled as page 6....... .........that Court... if we wanted to establish Courts of our own... we could have Jurisdiction over criminal, civil and Land... those are our own people. Now they named that Court the Native Circuit Courts of Assessors ... now if you want to... all that means that, In Maori a Taumata to sit on the Taumata isn’t it? those committees those assessors it’s just Marae practice and in the Laws today we have the right to practice our Tikanga Maori under Section 3 of Te Ture Whenua... They Interpreted the Maori interpretation of Tikanga Maori.., m eaning Maori Customary Values and Practices well it’s a Customary Value to practice our justice system on your Marae it’s simple as that those people that have been applying to the High Court, Court of Appeal to have their cases heard on the Marae are justified now under Te Ture Whenua Act as long as they bring up that Section in the Law the Courts are required to uphold...

End of Tape 1- Side A. TAPE 1 – SIDE B. Question:.....as long as they bring up that Section in the Law... the Courts are required to uphold the Queen’s Law... they swear an Allegiance... it goes like this... “ I swear to uphold the Laws of Queen Elizabeth the Second [ Her Heirs] according to Law... so help me God”... Now, under Te Ture Whenua Maori Act this is the only Law that you use to... and this is the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act ... it says... gives a direction to everyone... They’ve Sworn their Oath of Allegiance and this Act... under Section 5 of it says... this Act shall bind the Crown... all right..... And everything in it has to be enforced by those in authority to exercise the Law under this Ture and if they don’t, under the Ture, under Section 12 of it... if you don’t like the Judge you’re talking to... and he doesn’t uphold the Ture ,that you are trying to [ at them]... and he goes against your interpretation of the Law , this Law... then you are... the Governor-General may remove a Judge for inability or misbehaviour... so if he does not uphold this Law then you can ask for his removal, the Governor General will remove him. Question: [was that thing that you said... when you can get your case heard back on this Marae?]. Section 3... 1993... can you read the Maori version to the preamble of this Act? ‘An Act to inform the Laws relating to Maori Land in accordance with the Principles set out in the Preamble to this Act [of March] 1993”. “Na te mea...”. ...in a court case representing some young fella in Whangarei... - and he came up with this because I was telling him exactly what I am telling you today... you do as you are told Mister... and he came up with his as part of his Decision.... “There is absolutely no doubt that all persons exercising powers by Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, Ministers of the Crown, Judges, Officials of the Departments of Courts must do so in a way that affirms the Rangatiratanga of Maori embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi. This is mandatory. The provision in Section 2, Subsection 1, noted above [shall] which is not a maybe. “As to the affirmation of Rangatiratanga in the Preamble [the English version] says that it is desirable that Rangatiratanga [reaffirmed] the Maori version of the Preamble says that it is Tika - that it be reaffirmed. Again that is a must and not a maybe by Section 2, Subsection 3 of the Act where there is doubt between the Maori and English versions of the Preamble the Maori version prevails”. And that’s what he came down to in that young fullas case... he had no Jurisdiction... However, those are what we got in Law for us , right this day... it’s always been, right back in [1835] ... that’s where you’ll find the recognition... Not good going into any Court Cases or into Parliament with their Law ... No good... any Trust or any Organisation under their [Statutory] Law... because that breaks the cycle of Sovereignty... If you acknowledge their Law... Parliament’s Law, then you acknowledge their sovereignty and you come under it. So we have a separate Law from them... they say there’s one Law for all... that is a general... there’s a lot of people out there that say there is one Law for all... yes, Maori Law!... Yes, but however, if you have a look at the Laws in the Statute that are in place in New Zealand at the mom ent, they’ve got what you call... and we’ve got our own Native Land... but we can own Maori Customary Land, we can own Maori free hold land, we can own General land or European Land... funny thing that because I can go into European Land but they can’t come into Maori Land unless “I whangai them ”... so there are TWO Laws in this Land. Now we come down to the Constitutional crisis... in 1894 they created the Native Land Court... the Native Land Courts Act - -. Under the Native Land Courts Act, Provision 2... there is a Provision that is still in the Laws today... the Native Land Court... its owners may be Incorporated... and that’s still in the Law today!!! Note schedule 1&2. We have our own Native Land Court [they’re out there], we have our own Circuit Courts [they’re out there], we have or own Government [they’re out there]... and in 1931 Westminster Parliament - Westminster the Statute of Westminster was created by the House of Lords and under it was intended for all the Countries in the Co m mon Wealth - to govern over themselves, instead of having to be running back to the Crown for permission to trade on the High Seas and so, under the Statutes of Westminster Act, 1931 was put out in to Com mon Wealth for all it’s Com mon Wealth to adopt... [if they want their independence]... And in Section 8 of that in the Statutes of Westminster... in Section 8 of that when it was adopted by the New Zealand Settlers Government in 1947... Section 8 of it... stated that they weren’t [change] for repeal... nothing in that Act, allowed them to repeal the Constitution of the Colony of Australia or the Constitution Act of the Dominion of New Zealand Section 8! Now... and so they thought they had their Independence... they’re on their way - to sovereignty, the Constitution... but they... all it meant was they didn’t have to go running to Westminster to ask permission to fly their Flag on the High Seas...[on their Ships]... they were allowed to trade with each other... that’s all that Act meant... But anyway come to 1986... Geoffrey Palmer was in the [seat of prime minister] at the time - and he said ... he got together with Labour and overnight... and they repealed the 1852 [Act]...in 1986... it stated that no longer the Laws

of United Kingdom [effected them]... therefore they [the Statutes of Westminster Act, Section 8... the... and New Zealand... and that’s why today... they are in a constitutional crisis... However, the Members pre-Members of the Privy council which... for a reason [together here] in New Zealand and we put together a Ture... that turned everything back to the Crown... and that was under the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988 for the time being... until we geared ourselves up for putting into place the appropriate Laws... Question: We brought in an Act called the Imperial Laws Applications Act 1988... in that Act Section 5 of it... causes the Government of New Zealand to become subordinate to [Council... the Common Law of England... and this is why and during.... anyway, during that time... from 1986 to 1988 we put together a load of Legislation ... [three of us]... an Englishman, a Maori and an Indian... A man called [Singh] in Wanganui... by the way he’s my whangai son... a lovely man... Anyway, we put huge Statutes together... and we changed the Conservation Act 1986... they brought that out in 1987 but we put in the Imperial Laws Application Act... turned the Conservation Act 1987 back... [ and lifted it over on its head]... and [ plans of New Zealand... if you hear the... over the news they say... “oh they can’t touch Private Land”... well Private Land in the Conservation Act 1987... is Land [referred] to in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act or the Maori Land Act [... so all Conservation Land is still Maori Land]. However, there’s a problem with conservation... the occupancy of that Land and all Lands for that matter... and I’ll explain that very shortly... we also... in that big heap of Legislation... we put in, [motions]... not only the Conservation Act, but the Resource Management Act, Te Ture Whenua Maori - Maori Land Act and the Fisheries Act, someone [?] got in and they were trying to regulate our Customary Fishing ... But they didn’t know what their interference, in our Law making process was ... Those Laws the Conservation Act, Resource Management Act, and this one, and the Fisheries Act 1996, and every other Law in this Country has to be now, adopted by Maori or [... and so you can pick out the good parts ... [... the ones you want... and retain them under your own Law and done the rest... Ok ?... So if you are worried about the Conservation Act [don’t be]... if you are worried about the Resource Management Act, - Maori never actually appointed... The Resource Management Act says Resource Management... but it has to be [who appoints the Manager?... Maori [appoint their Manager... if they don’t like them, they get rid of them... [remove them]... because we have legal control of this... no the Local Body, not the Regional Council, not the Parliament in Wellington, OK?... not the Courts... that’s for Maori to adopt... if you want to use their Laws put the facts in front of them all right]. All right, in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act... it allows us to use this Act or any other Enactment that is under Section 253... it allows Maori to use this Act and any other Enactment ... meaning the Resource Management, the Fisheries, Conservation, Criminal Justice Act... anything, use it to our advantage... that’s under Section 253 of this Act... And as far as paying taxes is concerned Section 258 of this Act doesn’t require Maori to pay taxes [or rates] . -. and our [need] to declare it... Question: [...........it voluntary under Section 258 to pay rates and taxes?] Yeah... But your ah... what you call it?... the Circuit Court of Assessors set you up and declares you [tariff]... non taxables, non rateable. All right, now [as for making] Law... [for making Law, not part] of Sovereignty?... where we make our Laws and live under our own Laws?... All right, under Section 2.8.4 of this Act... the Governor-General makes Regulations... to... the Constitution for Maori... believe it? No!... because in 1903 in the same year Te Ture came out there was a fella I don’t think you ever heard of this fella [in government] before... but he’s here his name was [Thomas Ritchalabon] there’s the other fella who was supposed to be the Governor, and his name was Mr John Banks but he was presiding in Council all right? And in Section 268 the Governor-General..... shall..... the Governor-General nor was Ritchalabon..... so we came in the regents watching these little moves ‘we came in and brought in section 268 in 1994. puts an end to any more interference...... Question: [.........what was that Matua?]. 1994 of Te Ture Whenua Act 1994 i.e. 268 and in that Section it reads. Section 268 Subsection 3 reads this..... and this gives you a guide and how to... you can take any Law or Te Ture Whenua or any Enactment and change it all around. It shows you how to do it... “A Maori incorporation made by Special Resolution of the Shareholders, alter add to or replace its Constitution in accordance with any provision of this Act or any Regulation under this Act”. In other words you can change the whole [we just got to do it.] But you got to have the people passing that resolution members of the whanau, the hapu, the Iwi....... As for the Legality of our Rights... they have never disappeared... I guess what I am doing here today is to bring that Taonga Tuku Iho to you. Bring that message.... unite........ [we are one family under our Whakapapa] that is all I have to say to everyone. Question: [what did you use on the police station like a trespass notice? How did you shut them down?].

What happened there is that we put our Trespass Notices on all the Police Stations and all the Courts because they are on Crown Land... ah, they are on Customary Land deemed Crown Land for certain purposes... and that was for the purpose of Justice... We used Te Ture Whenua to do that ... and under Te Ture Whenua we used Section 19 18 20 and Section 144. Question: ... Is it like an ordinary Trespass Notice or do we just write it out ourselves?]. Just an ordinary trespass notice using Te Ture Whenua... and you look up the Title in the Gazette Orders and you’ll see it there... their Title to that Court or Police Station... all right?... you use the Gazette Notice, that’s theirs... that shows the Land is Crown Land... use Section 20 which is a [ Section] for Actions in Recovery of Land... and then Section 19 is to place an Injunction on them and [ a Section in respect of an injunction...] and then Section 18 determines the ownership all right? And the quick way of taking back your Tribal area of Land... is not through the Waitangi Tribunal it takes ages it takes ages if you’re doing it under the Treaty of Waitangi Act of 1975 that’s under their Law... you don’t use Parliament’s Law to try and defeat them because you’re not... you end up making a settlement -. and it’s not a real settlement I’ll tell you why in a minute... Under Section 144... it says “Customary Land deemed Crown Land for certain purposes” then it says “not withstanding any of the foregoing Provisions of this part of the Act but subject to Subsection 4 of this section, Maori Custo mary Land shall be deemed to be Crown Land within the [meaning] of the Land Act 1948.... remember the Government. you’re attacking the Government here... because they were given their [independence in 1947 and they BREACHED it in 1986... they repealed the Constitution... and they held Land under the 1948 [they made the Law] the Land Act 1948... they’ve now become illegal. Question: [how would you apply it to them?]. You get yourself a copy of the Ture and you look up those Sections ... photocopy it for them and say here... that’s the quickest way I can think. Question: [Do you put those Sections on the Trespass Notice?]. Yes... And then trespass them under their own Trespass Act as well because their own Trespass Act requires them to stay off that property, all right?... that you are demanding... stay off that property... and each day they stay in occupation they pay $1000 dollars a day... they expect you to pay it... so you use their Law to make them pay... because they are in the [wrong]... all right? Now under this Section 144 it says A) “.... possession of the Land for [many] persons in wrongful occupation of the Land”...Did Maori give the Courts the right to exist the Settlers Court the right to exist on that Land? Did we give their Police the right to reside on that Land? NO so they are in wrongful occupation aren’t they? And so... then you say “ any trespass” you can use this one [in the Court]... “or other injuries preventing any trespass or other injuries... preventing any trespass or other injuries to the Land or recovering damages for any such trespass or injury “ Ok.. when the Court fines you, you say thank you very much Sir... add it to the rest of the rent you owe me... since [1852]... see, but you are in wrongful occupation thank you... But do it calmly... nice and calmly you don’t need to get into violence . -. and you’re only quoting the Queen’s Law and what does it say?... By the way, you can get one of these... from Whitcoulls or they are in our Library and sure get all the Amendments as well... Question [...all these Laws you mention are still Legally binding, why aren’t they recognising them?...]. The answer to that is... a lot of our people have been going into the Court and they acknowledge those... but the Courts they want something that they are subordinate to... do you know what I mean ?... like this Ture... if you go into the Court saying my Maori Customary Law exists the Judge is going to turn around and say where is it? I can’t see it... I can’t uphold it!... so this is what I mean about uniting... and making our Laws together, in.... At the same time in the absence of any Statute indicating otherwise... you know that Privy Council Decision from (Lord Philamore]... we have something in place that we can use now... that’s the Ture.... Which requires our Maori Customary Law... don’t go and acknowledge their Laws.... you say ‘under the Ture, Whenua Maori Act, Section 3, is under my Tika, my Values and Practices”... but you must uphold the Law in here. Question:. What he is asking is, Maori excepting... m y answer to that is NO!... because it’s English Law from England... to us as Maori, it is a tool... like I was saying... to use against the system... It is rubbish... I know I took part in putting it together... It comes from all the Decisions of the Privy Council... and because the Privy Council has made Rulings and have made them by Common Law.. - we now have brought it into Statute Law... and all the Lower Courts must uphold what the Privy Council has... the Queen... to get them to obey... we use this one. Question: [ Is that one of the reasons why they want to discard Privy Council?]. Yes.. they’ve been trying to... and they are not going to succeed... and I’ll tell you why... the Treaty of Waitangi brought the Queen and the Government and her Government... under the Treaty of Waitangi we’re [stuck] with the Parlia ment of Westminster and Her Majesty the Queen... That’s the vision our Tipuna had when they signed that Document... all right now, the only people that can dissolve the Native Title... the Native Title is the Treaty of Waitangi and the Declaration of Independence... - the only people that can get rid of the Privy Council are the same people that brought her in.

Brought them in... and it’s the same people that brought the Queen... and that is what we call the Exercise of Prerogative Power . In the Privy Council Decision on the Extinguishment of the Native Title... it was in 1919 that Lord Watson referred to numerous Statutes... by referring to the Native Title or [ like, this is quoting from the Decision]... “Or such like, which are either known to [ or discoverable by them, [ by...]”. And what Lord Watson was saying there, “was that the Lawyers here, in New Zealand, are just plum lazy, they don’t look... like today I showed you the Native Districts Regulations Act... where the Native title is under... all right?... that is just one of them.” Then he went on to say... “The Issue of a Crown Grant, does not amount to the Extinguishment of the Native Title”... “And now that this Court, takes back the Decision.... Decision deciding the Native Title... the Crown now lacks Unreviewable Prerogative Powers in relation to the Native Title” so they can’t go back on this Decision from Lord Watson they will not from 1919 onwards all this Land in Aotearoa still remains Maori Customary Land just held by the Crown on Trust... He Maori!. He Tangata Whenua nei?... you want your Whakapapa? [this one, as of right] that’s everybody.... the Marae... [the Universe, the Whole Globe] between [Rangi Tane, ka moe ia ka Papatuanuku]... [ko hau kaikorero, you Kaitiaki...] you’re tied to the Land... [Tangaroa, ko Tanemahuta... there you are! Tangata Whenua, Kaitiaki... that is your Whakapapa]... If you try to [say your whakapapa in Human terms] it goes too far and wide... very confusing... because right throughout this Whenua... you have relatives... the North... [far as the] North... right through the South... right around the Globe you are not on your own. But the Ture... [there for us all to use]... because we have a challenge put on our plate... to get back our Whenua... it’s not so much of a challenge... it’s our way...
END OF TAPE ONE - SIDE B. TAPE TWO - SIDE A.

But the Ture... [is there for us all to use]... because we have a challenge put on our plate... to get back our Whenua... it’s not so much of a challenge... it’s our way... we just need to do it... but in order to do that we got to mahi [tangata kotahi!]... that’s a Law for you to use... when you are in great trouble. First of all... we have a Partner in this Country... all right?... If that Partner does not exercise the Crown’s [prerogative] then you come to me... What I am saying is the Governor-General first must give him , or her the first opportunity... the Royal Regent can not intervene, until he’s been... until he or she has been acknowledged... But with... [All] our Rangatahi invite you... we will be at some stage, we’re going to be... training people... because I have been training a few up [ the North and they’re doing pretty well for themselves].., they are going and getting other people out now...

Who does represent Maori. Under law, you also have those trust created by m/l court, ahu, toopu, we putea, they are all belonging to the govt. Now there is a difference, the difference in the Ture Part XIII. Those also by order of the m/l court belong to tauiwi, heoi noa, it is access through the British crown and their acknowledgement, Te Ture is a protectorate law, and so you are constituted by crown under Te Ture Whenua Maori Incorporation 1995 out of jurisdiction of government and stand independent when you come through the ‘law society we take your land interest, you identify your mana, and the people are really the Kaitiaki, you create the law, and pitch their law against their imperial law their sovereign law, use the Ture, our protectorate to beat up on the subjects of the crown . So you call to question the council in the h/c. that puts you out of the picture, it is their liability, they failed and the council failed in finding out who was the representative, who had mana whenua and mana tangata. The r.m.a. has interpretation, the h/c. will look at who holds mana whenua and mana tangata and Kaitiakitanga , those are the people who own the land. Clear Environment Court has enforced the resource consent, but the council who don’t own the land has granted consent. The non-owner, the manager has not gone and looked for the owner. Pitch law against law. They don’t own the land, I do, tangata whenua do, the organization I have is incorporated under the Declaration of Independence and Te Tiriti 0 Waitangi . If you are not incorporated use the one closest to you. That would be enough grounds to halt the h/c action, to ask for rehearing? They will ask you for your points of law. No jurisdiction over mana whenua, mana tangata and Kaitiakitanga section 61, once you are in the h/c —high court may state case for appellate court. While you are in the h/c you ask them to state the case before the a/c. And they must go to section 62, additional members. What it is saying, state case to appellate court, and they will come from Maori incorporation with knowledge in Tikanga Maori, once appointed for the time being act as assessors and when you are there, what they do is this, is in accordance with Tikanga Maori, we are going to this marae and the ka of the marae is, everybody is the judge and these fellows are merely witnesses , once decision is made it is drawn up and referred back to h/c sect 61 (4) so the opinion of the marae is binding on the h/c you the applicant can nominate the additional members.

Kereru In regards to Brenda’s korero, because this fails under the Tainui district can she go to Te Marama 0 Hauraki. Yes. Can they repeal the Ture 93? No! they can only repeal their creatures they create. What happens is they are welcome to do that, they will repeal access to the m/l court, they cant repeal Maori Incorporations under the act, check mate! Leaves us with the same jurisdiction as parliament and override the government. And anyway the incorporations here under the Te Ture 95, they cant repeal that. As a consequence, are we to be concerned to the parliaments intention? Kao, no, the decision is they caught up with the customary title last week, you see this is the whakapapa I’ve given it so many times and then the sum up. The determination of the h/c of appeal is long gone and the decision was made a long time ago by privy council, the Declaration of Independence, act of state, that is an act, the Treaty of Waitangi is an amendment to that act and created another act of state, partnership and trusteeship that come under the protection of external sovereign, you will hear from tauiwi they are documents of common law, true enough. Lord Glenelg to Major General Bourke as fiducial title to our independence. The feudal title is we have military protection of his majesty King William IV , next, standing orders of Lord Normanby, the intent to the TOW. All the juicy things that make up the treaty, it is only in that that you can clearly understand why the British Crown, wanted to fulfil the T.W.W. they saw their subjects here who escaped from Australia were the worst criminals on the face of the earth, had come here and settling lands from individual Maori who did not own the land individually, exchanging axes, taniwha soap etc. They saw all of these crooked things happening, and saw it necessary to take stock and so the laws of the British Crown, are here to protect you from their law and also maintain our independence while we are in infant state, that makes the T.O.W. under Article 1-our Tipuna gave all of our land to the Queen forever , in return under article 2- the Queen gave it back to us as beneficiaries lands forest etc. so she became the protector under art 1 - and art 2- we became the beneficiaries, under art 1 she is the legal owner and art 2 we are the legal internal sovereigns and we are equal to her, and so under article 3 we are to have the same government in equal measure as her, we are suppose to be governing over her subjects here internally, our people have pinned the tail in the donkey and said to our servants, yes sir! Three bags full sir, signing of Treaty of Waitangi, Westminster Parliament under Royal Charter, Parliament of Westminster House of Law Lords, landlords and common peasants, in cases arising between inhabitants, the........ And so the privy council legislated section 10 of that Act , the 1846 Act was for the governor to prevent making laws for us we govern ourselves, and it goes like this....... And then in 1852 the settlers applied to govern themselves and so came in NZ the Constitution 1852 , Section 71 if they did not gain the assent of Maori then they were not to govern themselves, so they are today still under our governance but assume right to govern themselves because there was no one to ask. The Queen has made a provision for that, subject to a provision, sec 10 section 71, okay sect 10 is similar to sec. 71................. After that act came the 1858 native districts act and in that came the preamble ......... As far as courts and judges are concerned go to section 3 and 4 of that Act. That means under section 71, our government appoint the judges, all judges in Aotearoa in our native district, they have never been put into place until now , our Waka districts, we have now put them into place, 160 years later. Now those judges are to sit in such a fashion, the Queen suggests under native circuit courts Act 1858 sect 2; her governor will appoint a magistrate that provision under sect 2, is now in section 62 of Te Ture and section 63. Under section 32 of that act provisions are made in Maori Incorporations they have criminal and civil jurisdiction over all lands unextinguished. Legislative councils act 1891 article 2. However in 1891 the tauiwi saw no Maori Government, they said no need for Maori to govern so they abolished this, they did, not the queen. So they put into place cabinet, the ministers for upper house, they did not have the power to create this, they presumed to have upper house and lower house. 1894 the native land courts act, established under division 2 the owners may be incorporated. (part 2) that formed the basis of Maori Incorporations. Under Te Ture Whenua Maori - Maori Land Act 1993 section 247 — owners may be incorporated , we are at law the native land court. We continue to do it from 1894 right up to today, we have in the Maori Incorporations, the jurisdiction of government, govern the whole of the motu in our native districts under sect 15 of Te Ture we can abolish the districts set up now, request the governor to abolish the districts under tauiwi, section 15 of Te Ture Okay under their system they have district courts and Maori land court, ‘kaua tika nga korero’, you have here Tainui native land court and native assessors court and in Taitokerau we have native ‘land court’ criminal and Civil jurisdiction and legislative body so we make our own laws under Te Ture, section 253, 253a, 284, 268, section 17 amendment amending section 268 and putting it to this, by special resolution of shareholder, may alter, add to or replace any of its constitution or regulations made under this act, and so we can over-rule NZ. Parliament laws made here, Parliament of Westminster, and take us back to declaration of independence, section 253 — capacity and powers of incorporation. Within NZ, we can change any law inside and outside NZ or use any law as well as our own, a long as it is not inconsistent with law sect 284 (2) (u) It is not inconsistent to legislate under Tikanga Maori and ahi kia and all that sort of thin. Now, all those laws of previous years are a basic background into Maori incorporations. However it has been transitioned out and place into the clarified form under Tikanga , make our laws and put into Te Ture Whenua Maori Constitution Regulations Act our laws and put into Te Ture Whenua Maori Constitution Regulations

Act 1995. We too k back this country under International law, conquest in 1995, come on people don’t let it be another 160 years. As for the court of appeal decision 2 weeks age, in 1901 Lord Philamore on the privy councilcustomary law on adoption, the decision of Privy Council in its finding , Maori customary enjoys legal status in the absence of any statute stating otherwise. Unless we as a Maori Government say our customary law no longer exists , it still stands today. We never made a law repealing our right..... 1935 2 decisions, 1-Lord Watson, Nihara Tamaki versus Baker. His lordship referred to numerous statutes and common law. (Don’t trust law in NZ they don’t go looking) in his final sum up he stated, they refuse to accept that a crown grant amounted to the extinguishments of native title . The crown has never purchased one inch of soil in NZ and is rather late in the day for the colonial bench to recognize the native title, and that the crown lacked unreviewable prerogative power. The government jumped up and down then and still now, the native title is unextinguished. In order for them to acquire this land they must have receipt from Queen and she must have receipt from Maori under the crowns first right of pre-emption . The governor is not allowed to accept these treaty settlements because of the common law, you must not allow native inhabitants to sign anything that is of injurious nature to themselves (Governor Hobson), the common law of England is protecting and our Maori trustee is still there. All still customary land deemed crown land under section 144 of Te Ture, the Te Ture Whenua 95 have repealed a section saying “Within the meaning of the 1948 land Act” and so reads So whose in wrongful occupation? Government of N.S.W residing in NZ we did not give them the right to govern , we gave it to the Queen of England. The laws are still alive to day, in 1947 the settlers were given right to make full laws for themselves adopting 1931, section 8 nothing in this act shall............. 1986 they tried to do away with our rights of self-government be repealing the 1852 constitution , when they did that they breached section 8 of the statute of Westminster 1931. In 1988 a couple of fellows and I put together imperial laws application act and section 5 & 6 states this that was to hold over until Te Ture came into place . Containing conservation in 1987, Resource Management Act 1991, and Te Ture 93 and the Fisheries Act in 1996 . So we can take all of those laws and add, alter or repeal any of them. Under Kaitiaki trust you can constitute your own Environment court, within your incorporations.. Robert Tukiri : Hearing all these Acts, I challenge the courts, I am starting to feel like the Shakespearian, we are in court where they are not taking any notice of us . Quit fighting in the courts and unite the people and kick arse later . We take upper house and start controlling, listen to the word of Parliament of Westminster shall and control of Maori land and I have the power to add to it and will add all forests, fisheries taonga tuku iho, section 2 of Te Ture which reads Preamble contains Treaty of Waitangi, Kawanatanga for the protection of Rangatiratanga, it is tika in the preamble and so sub section 2 You make them prick their ears up then, it is a matter of making your laws stand out in Te Ture. Robin Maxwell How do you do that? Court of appeal decision which is common law of NZ, customary title to the seabed’s, that’s land, claim through m.1. court. Customary law accordance with declaratory judgement act 1908 section 12 and sect 347 of Te Ture. Learn to put together the law, and beat the hell out of them. It’s only a problem when you think it is. We have lost nothing.

(Lecture On Law) from Hohepa Mapiria Joseph (“Joe”) Murphy Royal Regent. Recorded on 18/03/2002. It is not Maori Customary Law but The (British Crown Law) the (British Crown) reaffirms the Tiro rangatiratanga of Maori and then they give them a (MANDATE) and not quite a (mandate) in that the (British Crown) does not have any powers to make (Laws) for Maori but they can make Laws for (Her People) and therefore Te Ture Whenua Maori Act is Binding on the British Crown and upon ALL European Institutions such like its Courts and the Ministers of the British Crown AND ALL its Departments. It’s an Act that is binding on all the European Institutions to this - Law that effects Maori. Maori are not bound by any other Law either and so, Te Ture is referred to by (Tika). TIKA - There he is, starting from the (preamble) of every Act. (Legislated) by (Parliament) of (NZ), (or Parliament of England). In this case Act was legislated by the (Parliaments) (of England) (Westminster). You would find that their (Parliament of Westminster) are giving instructions to (Parliament of N Z and all its Courts) giving (Directors) and so, when we look at the (preamble), The Preamble in any Act is The Intention of the Act in Te Ture . We have the Maori version - and the European-version) Now it’s up to you fellas to choose. (Refer) to (Sec) (2) (Subsection) (1) Without limiting the generality of (Subsection) (1) of this Section. It is the intention of Parliament that the powers, duties and discretion’s conferred by this Act possible in a manner that facilitates and promotes the retention use, development and control of Maori owners, their whanau, their Hapu and their descendants. (Section)(2) Interpretation of Act Generally - (1) It is the intention of parliament that the provisions of this Act. Interpretation of Maori Terms - In this Act unless the Context otherwise requires... Ahi Ka – Ahi means the Fires of Occupation Ka - means Guardians. Tikanga Maori - means Customary Values and Practices Tupuna - means Ancestor. Whanaunga - means a person related by blood. Whangai - means a person related by adoption in accordance with Tikanga Maori.

Okay, those are the things we can (Legislate from). Okay [Parliament knows about that]. That is why we stuck all those words, they’re all right. They do not know - everything (Westminster Parliament) that’s what they have picked up okay and then they have put it into (Section)(3). What they think it means the (UK). It’s not necessary exactly to the Maori but it’s up to the Maori to say “Oh, That Teka does not mean that, it means this (Okay?) and so, in order to create something that is going to (Bind) [Court - Kooti in the Land NZ and even Parliament - in New Zealand] You have got to have the power. Maori incorporation’s have that power. There is no mistake but where to find it? I will show you later. But first we are going to find out what is this [What is the name of it? [Te Ture Whenua Maori Maon Land Act] and so, What does this Act relate to? [is the Law of Maori for their Land and Maori People] All right, that is why (Two) Maori) (Maori) - it says it twice (one) is Te Ture Whenua Maori and then it goes [Land Act] . We know that the [Title is unextinguished] and so it is the WHOLE OF (AOTEAROA) and then the (intention). In (Section)(2) (Westminster Parliament) is that we take control - every whanau , every hapu, every descendant. We [retain the ownership of Aotearoa and (Maori)(retain) the rights of control. That is what the Law is saying and it’s not a maybe. It’s not a maybe and the Courts in NZ and where the (Minister) of (Parliament of NZ) are concerned it’s a [because it’s a Directive by the [[You [reaffirm all right. You listen to the words in Subsection (1) of Sub (2) as he reads through and I go with the words There and There etc. Those are the important words in that [Subsection (1) of Section (2) Interpretation of the Act generally it is the Intention of [that the provision of this [Shall]. There be interpreted in a manner that best furthers the principles set out in the Preamble to this Act. 2 (sub) Sect (2) Without Limiting the generality of (Subsection)(1) of. this Section it is the Intention of (Parliament) that the powers, duties and discretion conferred by this [Shall] be exercised as far as possible in a manner that facilitates and promotes the retention use Development and control of Maori Land as Taonga Tuku Iho by Maori owners, their whanau, their hapu and their Descendants. All right to have [CONTROL] 3 (sub) Sect (3) In any event of any conflict in meaning between the Maori and the [English Version] of the (preamble) [Maori Version Shall Prevail]. Now you go up to the top of the preamble and you see [in the Maori Version and [now what is your Interpretation of that session at the Marae. That our (Maori Parliament) is at the Marae and your (Kooti) and so you insert the word in (section) (3) down below where you have got [Ka] (Marae) (Kooti) or (Court) or Kooti Marae mean Maori (Customary Kooti or Court) or (Parliament) Kooti. Interpretation of Kooti means Maori Customary values and practices held on the Marae and so you add it in that section as Marae, as meaning to you okay. Now, the power to do that is by a (Maori Incorporation) exercised by its owner. These are the (sections) that give the [the Tautoko to do all this to the Laws,’ the [Law] [All right now you go to the High authority in NZ. Remember who we were looking for this year at Waitangi, it was (The Governor General) and it is Binding on the (Crown UK). Maori do not need their signature, all you need is the tools at the Marae - a (Maori Incorporation putting their (Seal) to it, okay? You have the (British Crown Mandate) by the Te Ture Whenua Maori - Maori Land Act (This Act Shall Bind the Crown UK) (section) (5) - bind them to it)(okay?) Now we go to section (5) Act to bind the Crown every thing in it that (Maori me) exercise in it is binding on (Parliament of Westminster UK) (Parliament of NZ) the (Settler Government) the Ministers of the Crown UK., Judges and Officials and all Departments - Government Departments. This Act is Binding on ALL OF them to uphold and everything that’s in it. That gives direction that these Maori Incorporations do their own thing is binding on them. Okay, Now we go to (Part XIII) Maon Incorporations - that who has the authority to do such things as [Rangatiratanga Legally] - (Maori Incorporations). The Crown UK is saying who I will listen to - no one else , NO ONE ELSE will listen because I have traced my pattern from the very beginning (1835) and I know where he is today. Okay, that pattern is that person who owns the Land. The Land Owner, yes, and in Terms of the (European & English - Version) who owns the shares in the Land as well . In terms of (Tikanga Maori) values & practices the people that care for the Land are the (Kaitiaki). Okay what is in Part XIII Section (246) is Interpretations. Okay, this is the English Version of what they think Maori is - a Maori Inc. by values - Maori do not have that thing called dollars in land do they? - so you ignore that and then say: “I want to be here now”. And so you go to (section ) (284) of Part XIII. (204) Regulations-(1) the Governor General may from time to time by order in Council make Regulations prescribing the form of Constitution that is to be the constitution for every Maori Incorporation. (Read it again) the Governor General is from time to time by order in Council make Regulation prescribing the form of the constitution) that is to be the Constitution for every Maori Incorporation. All right I look at the preamble and I say oh, in (subsection) (2) of the preamble so, I look at Te Tiriti 0 Waitangi and I say (Al) the Governor General (S allowed to make Regulations because my tupuna signed Te Tiriti with them to make those (Laws) - he is allowed to make regulations but he has to do that in (Council) with a (Maori Incorporation) - he has to do it in Council with Maori Incorporation : and so the Governor deliberately made some Regulations without our consent and so all he/she is doing is making some guide lines to follow. What he is saying is it up to you, Maori, to change it if you want. (Amendment Act 1994) flip it over. Read (Section) (17) (Sub) (3) Maori Amendment Act (1) July (1994) (Sect) 17 sub (3) - A Maori Inc to have a Constitution (sub) (sect) (3) a Maori Inc made by Special Resolution of the Shareholder Alter Add or Replace it ’s Constitution in accordance with any provision of this Act or any Regulation made under this Act.

All right, so you can understand that you can change Te Ture Whenua Maori Land Act because it says so, does it? Yes - that what is says so in the (Law) and it is Binding on the British Crown . The Crown UK has already given it’s royal assent to that action so you can change Te Ture Whenua any how you want to. Question? When was Royal Assent given? - in (1994)? -(1993) and again in (1997) before (That)................
(Tape Ended)............... Side (2).

(Provisions for Marae systems). Provisions for our Marae systems is (Kooti). In the preamble it means Maori customary Lore’s that is practiced at the Marae and so you have the power to insert that under that provision (284) (Sub) (17) (3) and adjust any Regulations in the Act (Te Ture) in which says that you have Regulations made by the (Governor General) controlling the (Courts) the Maori Land Court - you have regulation’s governing the Maori Appellate Courts and so Maori can change those Regulations and your own because of the Act . It’s an (Empowering Section) says every Maori Incorporation made by special Resolution of the [Alter Add to or Replace it’s constitution in accordance with any provisions of this act or any regulations made under this act . This is done in accordance with the rules at a special General Meeting. This can be regulated in our own constitution - (yes). Question? The owners are all the Land Owners, Shareholders - yes That forms the (Incorporation) - yes - that gives it the (Mana) Land (NZ). Once you became (Incorporated) you became the owner of the whole of Aotearoa not one little block that is where you begin - I am here I started from this piece of Land. Then I spread out with more people coming in to join in (Lands) (included) in Incorporation’s (Sec) (251). Inclusion in Incorporation of owners of additional (Maori Land). And so when you insert something into the act you (insert it) then you put the (Date) the (time) and then you hold that Resolution on your Incorporation records - okay? Okay, now throughout the whole of Te Ture Whenua Maori Maori Land Act every word that says (Court) Maori can change every word to what you (Interpret) to what ever you want to in the (Preamble) (Marae) (Kooti) if you want to you do away with the European words and put in your Maori Version and then the whole act changed the to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act has now changed to meaning (Court) has been replaced - and so when It say ’s the (MLC) you just change it’s name to (Marae) (Kooti) (Whenua) you are changing the whole Te Ture to suit Maon people and you have got that authority to do all of that under this act and a (Maori me) and then you have the tautoko of the British Crown it’s already given it’s royal Assent to it -ok. Now as far as (The Laws of Parliament is concerned) and t Ture Whenua (sec) (253) capacity and powers of Inc subject to this act and any other enactment and general Law. Subject to Te Ture Whenua and any other Law like enactment and the general Law, and express limitations or resolutions imposed by the - (Marae) (Kooti) every (Maori me) has both within and outside NZ in Addition to the powers expressly conferred to by this part of this act. A full capacity in the discharge of the obligations of the trust in the best interest of the Shareholders to carry on or undertake, And business or activity do An or enter into A Transaction. and; B for the purpose of paragraph A of this section Full Rights powers and privileges provision for within - outside of NZ International (1835) Declaration of Independence. That means the Shareholders can do any thing within NZ and outside of NZ. If the Shareholders want to change a Law the Shareholders can change under this (section). Question? Can the shareholder of a Maori Inc change the Land Transport Act for instance. Answer - yes. It goes like this subject to this act and the (LTAct) and the general Law - or if the shareholders want to any other enactment - lets say. - MLC -Maori Appellate Kooti - (Let here the District Courts act - 1947. Ah I’m sick of listening to them, I want the Maori Inc to have the power over them - I am the High Kooti an Incorporation gives itself that power. Under the provisions of (section) (237) of Te Ture whenua Maori Land Act 1993 (237) (jurisdiction of Court-Kooti generally) - (1) subject to the express provisions of this part of this act in respect of any trust to which this section applies the Kooti Maraé (Shall) have and may exercise all the same powers and Authorities as the (High Kooti). Ok and you have got that word (Shall) (Maori Me) is a Higher Kooti than they are because why and can change the Law right here now. By special resolution of my shareholders that are sifting in (Our Court Room) (here today) OK. A Maori Inc can pass one now and adjust the Law , and I’m the (Boss). Their is absolutely no doubt that all persons exercising powers conferred by Te Ture Whenua Maori Act - Ministers of the Crown , Judges Officials of the Departments for Courts - must do so in a way that affirms the Rangatiratanga of Maori “Embodied” in the treaty of Waitangi. This is mandatory the provision in sec(2) (1) quoted above is “ (which is not a may be). As to the Affirmation of Rangatiratanga in the preamble whilst the english versions says that it is “desirable” that Rangatiratanga be reaffirmed the Mãori Version of the preamble says that it is “tika” that it be reaffirmed Again, that is a “Must” and not a “may be”. By sec 2 (3) of the act where there is doubt between the Maori and English versions of the preamble, the Maori version prevails.

(They just have to uphold it) (everyone), because the (Queen UK) is the (Highest Parliament) in the (European System) has directed to you (Shall) those fellas understand how Te Ture Whenua works, it’s the biggest thing making sure that your own Ownership of the (Native Title) the Native Title is the Declaration of Independence (1835) and the Law you are changing it to (Derives) from (Te Tiriti o Waitangi (1840) and [between the British crown - and Maori are Kaitiaki - means guardians - in English (Maori me) are only exercising their Rangatiratanga that’s what...... It is there are no other Law that Maori need to be Accountable to if you fellas today understanding on how Te Ture works it’s our (protection) our (Korowai) it’s your (patu) but it’s (not) (Mãori Law) but it’s to get us into our (Lore’s) and (Free) ourselves. There’s things about Waitangi these Days you need not worry, about other people or other Tribes thinking if they are confused and in the Confusion they can be but it does you fellas that are here today have to be. (Keep the clear focus thinking) and just proceed keep proceeding forwards the rest of our people can catch up later , now you have a bit of understanding of Te Ture Whenua and how it works does not concern any one else but you fellas here today ok. Now when you create your (Maori Government) over your Hapu you need plenty of workers plenty of workers to work your (Maori Government) with jobs to do and so , we go to (section) (211) this is how you bring the other (shareholders) in to the (Me) to give a hand to the job of the Management Committee is to (Formulate) the (Law). Write the Laws that are (past) by the (shareholders) in these portfolios 211-1 is to be read out. (Section) (211) (sub) (1) Maori Land Kooti to have exclusive Jurisdiction. (1) The Maori Land court shall have exclusive Jurisdiction to constitute - putea - trust Whanau Trusts - Ahu Whenua Trusts - Whenua Topu and Kaitiaki Trusts in accordance with this Part of this Act. All right the (Maori Land Court) has that (Jurisdiction) No, No, No, No, No, No, It’s changed when you made that (Te Kooti Marae) the reference has changed it was taken out and Replaced and if you do not understand that the English Law provides like what Lord Dinning said on one of HB decisions he said in his life time when an (Privy Council) that the Law is Like an (Ass) it tends to contradict its self It ’s says one thing on one Hand then an other thing on the other Hand he says about (English Law) . And so - you read subsection (1) and then read subsection (2) it will show you and (Arse) - (Ass) (section) (211) of Te Ture Whenua Maori - Maori Land Act 1993. Maori Land Court to have exclusive Jurisdiction (1) the MLC. Shall have exclusive Jurisdiction to constitute putea - Trust. Whanau Trust - Ahu Whenua Trust - Whenua Topu Trust and Kaitiaki Trust in accordance with this part of this Act. (Subsection) (2) nothing in this section prevents any person - (Any Person Means A Natural Person) or a (Body corporate) in other words a (Maori me). A Natural person in the English version means a (Body Corporate) all right and so it means a body corporate can create a Trust but a Trust cannot create an (Incorporation). And so we have these fellas like the Tainui Trust Board its under the Trust Boards Act - and Incorporation Societies - they do not have any power over (Maori me) they cannot create anyone but a (Maori me) can dissolve it at the same time by the (Resolution) made by the shareholders (Special Resolution). And if the shareholders want to dissolve those (Trust Boards) for Management Committee by special resolution of the shareholders will have to know how to rewrite Te Ture Whenua and then you say (Maori Trust Boards Act) is (Hereby Repealed) its a (Maori me). By using that (section) (253) all right it says subject to this act or any other Enactments - in this case we are saying Trust Board act Is Hereby (Repealed) and therefore it Exists no longer when the Settlers Government in Wellington read your Act when they see it and there Courts Districts the Pakeha Land Courts - they have (No Adhoc). That means they have no Lawful Authority to exercise (the Trust in the people they profess to exercise it for) themselves. That is the Mana of the Maori Inc and you can see it in the Act (Maori me ’s) are accountable to there shareholders -the owners are in (Control) if the Management do not do the right thing they have that power to remove you from Office. Understand what you do inside of and Incorporation have no fear nor FAVOUR of anyone but yourself. Question? - I would like to make Legislation Binding on the schools to look after our (Children). Ok now we come to that (Section) (211) (2) (Maori me) can create Trusts - Putea Trust ok , well that involves Monies and so we want our own Tax Systems in (NZ) for your people and every body else because they have to do it he... the (me) set up their own system - and passports under your (Putea Trust you constitute it. The your Whanau Trust under that Trust portfolio and that Trust can be like something - Family Court to handle Family Affairs - instead of CYP pushing you (CYPS) around The Whanau Trusts pushes (CYPS) around but we have to constitute it first we the Boss to take back our Taonga Iho back all right that’s on the Whanau Trust. And then you can have your ordinary Family Trust to occupy any piece of Land any where around the Country that sort of thing you and your (Hapu) you can say that is my Whenua forever and have it (Recorded) of that Trust so no other Family can interfere with that you have got the (Ahika) means - [of Occupations Forever]. The Colours of our National flag of New Zealand......... This Haki was given to our Tupuna in 1834 - and on the sixth of February 1835 it’s Acknowledged by - King William IV. The Maori Declares their Independence to this Country called Aotearoa to the Soil and everyone living on it the Rights of Self Governance is put in written Form. 1) Maori have their own Flag or Haki.

2) International Recondition of our haki and our Laws - dec linde. 3) We have protection - External- Sovereignty. 4) Then will give protection to Queen - Victoria (Subjects who have resorted to these shores for the purposes of Trade - only). 5) Lore - is put into -(English Terms Law) and so the rest of the world know of the Declaration of Independence 1835 and then our just rights were put to paper and made Lore. The meaning of the Haki:. The First Four Whetu- 4 Corners of Earth. The Second Four Whetu - Nga Hau E Wha. The Eight points - Whetu - the Eight Waka That Migrated to Aotearoa. The Small Red Cross Represents - The Southern Cross. (Father or King William). The British haki. The Thick Set Union Jack Represents - King Hori. The Red going Long Ways Represents - King William. The Thick White Cross Represents - Saint Patrick. The Thin White Crosses - Saint Andrew Cross. The Blue (Sea) or for Scotland.

Explanation of the Trespass Notice. Notice of Intention under (Sec) (19) (20) (144) Te Ture Whenua Maori Land Act 1993. Notice Under (Sec) (4) sub (1) & (2) (4) of the Trespass - 1990. In accordance with the above Acts and (sections. You are hereby warned to stay off the Land and Places owned by Maori. Held as Crown Land upon Trust for certain purposes and in these cases for the purpose of Justice situated - its saying stay of my Land-OK. Under their own trespass Act (1980) they cannot go back into that building ok under Te Ture the owner will have the ownership of it until its Settles this case of you Fullas - as Settlers Maori still hold the Ownership - to Whenua. Ok they have been warned by written Notice to the Armed Forces to go and lock it up for all Maori Inc. Now there’s a Major Coup - not by Maori but by the Her Majesty Queen-Elizabeth-the-Second the Queen of the UK. The Queens Royal Armed Forces and so she cannot be like George Spates and had up for Treason because she is the Settler Sovereignty!!!!!!!

MANAGEMENT TEAM CONSTITUTION AND MARAE JUDICIAL PROCEDURE. (PART XII ‘93 TE TURE WHENUA MAORI - MAORI LAND ACT). PREAMBLE.
The hereditary Rangatira and Kaumatua I Kuia Council (Trustees) and The Management Committee. of hapuu / whaanau together with their respective hapuu / whaanau of Aotearoa set out this Constitution which embraces the Obligations and based on two Foundation Documents:. • 1835 Declaration of Independence. • 1840 Te Tiriti o Waitangi. whose obligations are entrenched forever. All other” Acts” to be adopted and constituted into the Incorporation are: • 1846 New Zealand Constitution Act, sec 10. • 1852 New Zealand Constitution Act sec71. • 1858 Native Circuit Courts Act, No.5. • 1858 Native Assessors Act. • 1858 Native District Regulations Act. • 1891 The Legislative Councils Act. • 1891 Letters Patent. • 1894 The Native Land Courts Act. Part 11. • 1988 Imperial Laws Application Act. • 1991 Resource Management Act. • 1993 Te Ture Whenua Maori, ‘Maori Land Act. Part I and Part 11. • 1957 Provisions of the Summary Proceedings Act. • 1961 Crimes Act.
WHAKAARO KOTAHI, ONE MIND TE KITENGA KOTAHI ONE VISION TE TU KOTAHI. ALL TOGETHER.

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE IN REPLY TO GILLING REPORT, AND IN REGARD TO ABORIGINAL TITLE;. THE ULTRA VIRES NATURE OF LAND LAW LEGISLATION EXTINGUISHING NATIVE CUSTOMARY TITLE. IN REGARDS TO SECTION 7 3 OF THE 1852 CONSTITUTION ACT, AND ENFORCEABILITY. IN NEW ZEALAND COURTS IN RELATION TO THE SECTION KNOWN AS WAIOTAHI 11 LOT 5. PREAMBLE. 1. Mr Gilling states the land in question was Maori Customary Land prior to the confiscation . (Paragraph 36). That is correct! He also states that the Government known as the Crown acted legally when they confiscated the land , due to the Government acting according to law. (Paragraphs 16, 24 and 26). This is incorrect; as the Crown acted illegally by initiating war with Whakatohea. They had not ever been in Breach of the New Zealand Settlements Act 1865, Sec. 2, because they had not been in rebellion against Her Majesty. As stated in Government negotiations with Whakatohea for Raupatu , if Whakatohea accepted the Governments Raupatu, that admittance and an apology would be forthcoming with the Signing. 2. In regards to Title issued 26 February 1907 (Paragraph 34), this title is illegal since that time; as any extinguishment of Native Customary Title was illegal unless coordinated with and by Her Majesty and heirs and successors in a described manner, which did not happen. We offer the following as evidence. 3. The Land in question being Maori Customary Land , was alienated by Government unlawfully through misuse of Crown prerogative, power and processes thereof in place through to 1907 . Therefore those decisions are Ultra Vires , unenforceable and null, and void; and no valid Certificate of Title exists in Fee Simple; the Land is still in Aboriginal Title, known as Native Customary Title, not Freehold Title or General Title. BACKGROUND. 4. Prior to European occupation the whole of the soil belonged to the Maori People, and there was a Maori Title to it, which had to be extinguished in some manner before the Land could be owned by the Crown who was the Sovereign, in Law. Once acquired by the Crown it could then be Crown-granted to Settlers. Such Land in Native Title was not Freehold Land , but was governed by the rules of Maori Customary Law and alienable only to the Crown (Sovereign). Crown pre-emption was set out in Gipps and Hobson’s Proclamation of January 1840, enshrined in Article II of Te Tiriti 0 Waitangi, Gipps Land Ordinances of August 1840, New Zealand Ordinances of 1841 and given Statutory effect as soon as possible. i.e. 1846 - 1852 (Sec. 73) Imperial Acts including 1846 Land Purchase Ordinance. 5.. The Native Land Acts of 1862 and especially 1865 initiated a Nature of Inquiry to investigate titles. The Legislation had three core features which still remain central at the present time. A waiver of pre-emption was contained in the preamble to the 1862 Act. “... AND WHEREAS.. Her Majesty may be pleased to waive in favour of the Natives so much of the said Treaty of Waitangi as reserves to Her Majesty the right of pre-emption of their Lands...” N at i ve Land s Act 1 86 2 . This was obviously not permanent as it was re-introduced in Rotorua - Taupo 1881, King Country 1884, and Te Urewera 1896 and the whole country in 1894 Sec. 117 Land Court Act. Maori then had to obtain a Certificate of Title to their Land and a Crown grant . This ensured sale could take place, as Land was converted from Customary Title to Crown-granted Freehold Title. To facilitate this a Native Land Court was set up. 6. The Native Land Court was set up under the 1865 Act instead of the Native Territorials Act 1858 which was disallowed in the General Assembly, in which resident magistrates with Maori juries would investigate titles and issue grants. 7. The backgrounds to these Land Acts was the difficulties the Colony had got itself into, and the need to obtain more Maori Land for settlement. 8. Section 81 of the 1865 Act empowered the Governor in Council to Order re-hearings to be heard by way of a De Novo rehearing before a Judge of the Court. No appeal could be heard after 6 months expiry from the date of the decision . No Appellate Court was established until 1894. 9. In the Courts first years of operation it investigated 778, 649 acres and made titles to 791, 988 acres between July 1868 and June 1909. 1869-1870 the amount was 916, 280 acres. By June 1872 title had been issued to 5, 013, 839 acres. This information refutes Dr Gillings assertion that the Crown purchased half the country between 1846 and 1862. 10. In the Land Act of 1894 Section 117, restored pre-emption to the entire Country to the Crown i.e. Government. 11. The 1909 Land Act amendment permitted the resumption of private purchasing of Land , thus revising the re-imposition of Crown (Government) pre-emption. Sections 84-100 extinguished Maori Customary Title as against the Crown. Crown purchasing continued to the 1930’s. 12. All functions hereto described were only possible through the waiver of pre-emption of the Sovereign to the Governor and Colonial Assembly from then on to be known as the ‘Crown’. The New Zealand Government from this time had full control over extinguishment of Maori Land Titles. LEGAL AND CONSTIFUTIONAL STATUS. 13. Aboriginal or Native Title is part of New Zealand and English Common Law and recognizable and enforceable in the ordinary Courts. Native Title is protected by Common Law. 14. Common Law is entrenched in New Zealand Statute Law and Courts. 15. The basis for Government to exist in New Zealand , and to Legislate and make Laws is the 1852 Constitution Act, led up to by the 1840 Constitution Act and Instructions, 1846 New Zealand Government Act, 1846 Charter and Instructions, which were the legal basis for interim Government. The 1852 Act made Governance in New Zealand lawful. The reasons for that were to promote civilisation, and bring good order and peace, as outlined in Lord Normanby’s Instructions to Governor Hobson. 16. A ‘Constitution’ has been variously defined as:.. a document having a special legal sanctity which sets out the framework and the principal functions of the organs of Government of a State, and declares the principles, the operation of those organs.. ( Wa de a nd Ph i l l i p s C o n st ituti o n a l L aw ); those principles being Common Law of England, Common Law and Statute Law,... By Constitution, we mean, whenever we speak with propriety... (i.e.. rightness, correctness of behaviour, or morals, details of correct conduct {ownership, peculiarity] - Oxford Dictionary)... and exactness, that assembly of Laws Institutions and Customs,

derived from certain fixed principles of reason... that compose the general system, according to which the Community, fiat/i agreed to be governed...’ (Bolinbroke Dissertation on Parties 1733) . Fixed principles of Reason being contained in Common Law. That assemblage of Laws was originally contained in the 1852 Act, and meant over time to be expanded upon according “... to which tile Community was agreed... Therefore the 1852 Act is to be considered as a form of Constitution which provided the framework to pursue a complete Constitution when a long established stable Society developed i.e. flexible and incremental. 17 A Constitution will usually seek to maintain a balance of power as between different sections in Society. A Constitution in a long-established stable Society should tend to uphold the rights of any minority group while at the same time maintaining the general tenets of Democratic Government which the 1852 Act did, on behalf of the long established Westminster Law system and Sovereign. (Therefore the Laws in this case being upheld as Ultra Vires should not be an anathema to New Zealand Politics and Society). This case is not about Constitutional issues or the Governments rights to exist , but is about Questions of Law, so therefore this case is justiciable in Law.
anathema: abh orren ce abomination denouncing a doctrine – excomm unicating a person .

18. Most of the Tenets of the New Zealand Constitution were uplifted from the English Constitution including values and norms as well as Institutions including Common Law Doctrine. The dictates or Authoritative Instructions (Oxford Dictionary) , are usually regarded as being ‘Superior Law’ which stands above all other Law however and by whom passed , and all sectors of Society including the elected Assembly, Executive and Courts would be subject to the Constitution. This Entrenchment could place substantial restraint on future Governments to Legislate and has not been made part of New Zealand Statute Law , though it remains a convention and Tenet of Common Law.
tenet: a doctrine held by some one - principle - precept - belief -.

The manner of entrenchment will usually be included within the Constitution itself i .e. Sec. 73 dictates, this differs from entrenched provisions in a normal Statute, because Parliament could not legislate to repeal the entrenched constitutional provisions as would be the case if they were contained in a Statute which could itself be repealed. Having a written Constitution could have also led to any or all Legislation being passed by Parliament made Ultra Vires by the Courts. New Zealand has therefore maintained a Constitution which is unwritten. Being unwritten does not mean that all its provisions are merely residing in Common. Law or verbal form. It is possible to have aspects which are in the form of Legislation or an executive decree (e.g. Sec. 73). Where the Constitution is unwritten it can be a matter of doubt whether or not a specific document, Act of Parliament, or aspect of Common Law is of Constitutional status (i.e. 1986 Act, preamble and Sec. 26 in relation to Sec. 73). While being unwritten it is well defined! Prior to the 1986 Constitution Act, ‘Superior Law’ in New Zealand was Entrenched in the 1852 Act, passed by Westminster Parliament. Therefore the dictates contained therein are to be considered Superior Law and any breach capable of being Judged Ultra Vires. Otherwise why was there a need to reform the 1852 Act with the 1986 Constitution Act? 19. Section 53 of the 1852 Act gave the General Assembly the power to make Laws for the “... peace, order and good Government of New Zealand provided that no such Laws be repugnant to the Laws of Englan d ... and such Laws... by the Genera/Assembly and thereto any Provincial Council and made or ordained by any Provincial Council being repugnant or inconsistent with any Act passed by the General Assembly shall be null and void . ‘ this includes Dr Gillings analysis of the 1860 Settlements Amendment Act in paragraph 21. These restrictions relating to repugnancy to English Law were removed when New Zealand adopted the Statute of Westminster 1931 with the Statute of Westminster Act 1947, which was an Act of New Zealand Parliament (now repealed by 1986 Act). While this took place, doubt remained as to the New Zealand Parliaments Legislative competence in that it could only make Laws for the “peace, order and good Government of New Zealand” making it possible for a New Zealand Court to declare an Act of the New Zealand Parliament Ultra Vires; in that it was not for the “peace, order and good Government of New Zealand ”. This being so until the 1973 New Zealand Constitution Amendment Act was passed attempting to rectify that situation . The 1973 Amendment debate conceded that the Statute of Westminster and 1947 Amendment Act gave New Zealand Parliament complete Sovereignty and therefore could alter or repeal the whole of the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 . Obviously this was still not completed or the case, as the final attempt took place with the 1986 New Zealand Constitution Act , brought about partly by political issues in regard to the handing over of power in the 1984 Election. 20. Section 26 of the 1986 Act is an important provision which provides that three traditional planks of our Constitution were to cease to have effect in New Zealand. These were the 1852 Act, the 1931 Statute of Westminster Act and the 1947 Constitution Amendment Act. These being Acts of UK Parliament however could not be repealed by New Zealand Parliament . The question is how could the New Zealand Government Legislate an enactment for Laws to cease to have effect as part of the Law of New Zealand, when they can not be removed by repealing: The difference between the two being in actual fact an exercise in semantics! They mean the same thing therefore Sec. 26 is Null and Void!.
semantics: the branch of philogy concerned with the meaning meaning connotations interpretations of symbols i.e. road signs etc other than words. philogy ; th e study esp ecially historical and comparative of language the study of literature love of learning of literature.

Use of the 1931 Westminster Act provide: “Nothing in this Act shall give any power to repeal tile Constitution Act of the Colony of Australia or the Constitution Act of the Dominion of New Zealand ” As the Law relating to extinguishment of Native Title is part of the Common Law of England as well as Superior Law, in Laws relating to the establishment of Colonial Government in New Zealand, then Sec. 73 of the 1852 Act can not have ceased to have effect as per Sec . 26-1986 Act. And must have always been and still be in place, as per the Law e.g. Landon and Whitaker Claims Act 1871 “The Crown is bound, both by the Common Law of England and its own solemn engagements, to a full recognition of the Native Proprietary right i.e. Aboriginal Title. Whatever the extent of that right by established Native Custom appears to be, the Crown is bound to respect it”, and through Statute such as Sec. 145 TTWMMLA. 21. As parts of the 1852 Act applied to a Sovereign Nation i.e. Maori, they, under Common Law doctrine could not be altered or repealed as they were outside the scope of another Sovereignty to touch. They were in regards to agreements between the Crown of England and Maori and under Sections 71, 72, and 73 Dictates, the General Assembly had no Prerogative Power unless conducted and authorised in a certain manner and legality. 22. If, for arguments sake it being the case that such Laws can cease to have effect, as part of the Law of New Zealand, post the 1986 Act; then that implicitly implies that they were part of the Laws of New Zealand prior to 1986 , and were of a ‘Superior Law’ nature, as they are authoritative Instructions or Dictates. They have been addressed over time as to the possible nature of all New Zealand Parliament’s Acts being Ultra Vires!

If the 1852 Constitution Act is not a form of entrenched Superior Law , then the New Zealand Colonial Assembly known as the Government or the Crown would have no legality whatsoever in this Country!
implicitly : implied though not expressed absolute unquestioning to show a person to be concerned to lead as to consequence or inference.

23. Ultra Vires rests on the principle that a power given to a person to do something extends only to that thing i.e. “goo4 order and governance law”. Thus if a particular provision contained in delegated Legislation (i.e. 1862-1909 Land Act Sec. 84-100) goes beyond the scope of the powers conferred (either expressly or impliedly) on the delegate (i .e. Governor and General Assembly) by the enabling Act (i.e. 1852 Sec. 73), the provision is said to be Ultra Vires (beyond powers of the delegate) and is unenforceable. The principle still applies even if the delegated legislation has been sanctioned by a confirming Authority (General Assembly). The provision can not be treated as invalid and unenforceable until it has been declared to be so by a Court of Competent Jurisdiction! While the provision is declared by the Privy Council, arguably the Judicial Committee is not a Court, hence the requirement of this case to be heard in this Court under TTWMMLA Part 1 Sec.18 1) (h) and Part VI Sec 131 1) or the High Court under TTWMMLA Part I Sec. 18 2), Part 111 Sec. 721) or Part VI Sec. 131 3). All provisions of the 1852 Act were Law in New Zealand and provided to be upheld by the General Assembly in the described manner or be null and void.
prerogative: a right or privilege exclusive to an individual or class.

24. While Section 53 of that Act was (arguably) removed by the 1973 Act, which was to do with the General Assembly’s ability and prerogative to make general Laws, the sections relating to Aboriginal Native Inhabitants and their Land provided for Prerogative Power to be maintained by the Sovereign, heirs and descendants, and were proscribed unless certain Instructions were forwarded in a certain manner. These provisions, were as stated contained in Sec. 71, 72 and 73. Sec. 72 being Instructions as to the Demesrre Lands of the Crown and Sec. 73 being Instructions as to Land Acquisition and extinguishment of Aboriginal Native Land Rights. proscribed: to forbid by law to denounce as dangerous to put person outside of the protection of the law to banish to exile. 25. These sections being in regard to Sovereign People as recognised by the Crown of England and the Common Law of England , and being enshrined in a document pertaining to those rights, called Te Tiriti 0- Waitangi, could therefore not be repealed by New Zealand Parliament or cease to have effect. (Refer Imperial Laws Applications Act 1988 , Sec. 3.1, Sec. 5 and 1st and 2nd Schedule). The 1986 Act itself proclaims the Sovereign to be the Head of State of New Zealand, therefore the Royal styles, privileges and functions still apply, even post 1986 and must be considered to be in place. This must include all agreements made with a Sovereign Nation. The Maori Nation being such a Nation, can not have Law which was enacted to protect such a Nation removed by another or declared to cease to exist when such Law is part of the Common Law of England is declared by the Imperial Law Applications Act to still be the Law in New Zealand! and enshrined in Statute Law, e.g. Sec. 145 TTWMMLA. ABORIGIINAL TITLE - PROTECTION AND LEGALITY. 26. In regards to Land Acquisition and extinguishment, Sec. 73 states:. “... Saving as to the lands of Aboriginal Native Tribes. It shall not be lawful for any person other than her Majesty, her heirs or successors, to purchase, or in anyway acquire or accept, from the aboriginal natives land of or belonging to, or used or occupied by them in common as tribes or communities, or to accept any release or extinguishment of the rights of such aboriginal natives in any such land as afore- said; and no conveyance or transfer, or agreement for the conveyance or transfer of any such land, either absolutely or conditionally, and either in property, or by way of lease or occupancy, and no such release or extinguishment, as aforesaid, shall be of any validity or effect, unless the same be made to, or entered into with, and accepted by, her Majesty, her heirs or successors: PROVIDED ALWAYS, That it shall be lawful for her Majesty, her heirs and successors, by instructions under the Signet and Royal Sign Manual or signified through one of her Majesty’s principal Secretaries of State, to delegate her powers of accepting such conveyances or agreements, releases or relinquishments. to the Governor of New Zealand, or the Superintendent of any province within the limits of such province, and to prescribe or regulate the terms on which such conveyances or agreements, releases, or extinguishments, shall be accepted...”. 27. The Sovereign heirs and successors have not entered into any of those provisions, for lease, occupancy or extinguishment on this Land, nor have they provided Signet, Sign Manual Instructions or signification through the Principal Secretary of State for delegation of those Prerogative Powers. Therefore according to Law, all such conveyances are null and void!
conveyance: a means of transport a vehicle the transfer of property a deed effecting this. prerogative: a right exclusive to an individual or class.

28. Prerogative Power, pre-1986, could be exercised by the Government, through the Governor, only if Law Dictate were adhered to, which they were not, as the Provisions of Sec. 73 were not fulfilled. A Court of competent jurisdiction has the power to determine whether Prerogative Powers have been exercised properly! While Parliament has unfettered Law making powers and can abrogate Common Law by passing more Legislation , this can not apply to Sovereign agreements with a recognised Nation , and Law enactment’s in place to protect such rights including the Common Law of England, can not be removed without being illegal..
abrogate: to repeal to cancel.

This was upheld in 1847 by Privy Council Decisions such as R. vs Symonds 1847 NZPCC 387n where it was held that Maori Customary Title could not be extinguished otherwise than by Legislation or the free consent of the people i.e. Maori Nation. This free consent being through Maori Tikanga outside of any Body controlled by Government Legislation! This free consent has never been given The Sovereignty of the Crown did not automatically mean extinguishment of Maori Customary Title. The Court also found that the correct method described by Te Tiriti 0 Waitangi was to sell to the Crown (Sovereign) which could give Title to the new purchasers (Sec. 72 and 73, 1852 Act). Only the Crown (Sovereign) could extinguish Customary Title of Maori (Sec. 73, 1852), therefore Maori held their Land under a valid Customary Title. 29. Prior to 1840 the Maori People were the Sovereign People of New Zealand and had full Sovereign capacity, albeit without central Government, as recognised by Europeans. International Law has long held that as long as a territory was occupied by a People then the Sovereignty of territory resided with the people resident in the territory. In the Western Sahara case the International Court of Justice noted by the 19th Century: “All territories inhabited by tribes or peoples having a Social and Political organisation were not regarded as Terrae Nullius. In the case of such territories the acquisition of Sovereignty was concluded through agreements with local rulers]’: Note: Article 1, Tiriti 0 Waitangi. 30. The decisions in regard to Indigenous Ownership rights over Land were not based on Te Tiriti provisions, which were an agreement to pursue a particular course of action, but on the Common Law principle of Aboriginal Title. Article II, can be seen in that light and confirms the concept of that Common Law Dictate. Maori did not have to rely on Te Tiriti in order for the

Courts to uphold their interest in their Lands and so long as the Crown (Sovereign) had not extinguished Aboriginal Rights, then Maori could enforce their Title to their Land through the Municipal Courts , provided the Municipal Courts in New Zealand were prepared to recognise the doctrine of Aboriginal Title. As the Sovereign has not extinguished Aboriginal Rights and the NewZealand Municipal Courts uphold Common Law and International. Law, e.g. Bill Of Rights Act 1990, Imperial Law Applications Act 1988, TTWMMLA and others, the Court of Appeal has upheld the right for Land Court to investigate Native Title, the Common Law of England is still part of the Laws in New Zealand, and as Aboriginal Title is upheld in Common and International Law then the Court has acknowledged Aboriginal Title and this case is valid and justiciable. 31. New Zealand attitudes to Te Tiriti and the Instructions of the Crown in 1852 and other Acts, as well as Privvy Council Decision in R. vs Symonds were demonstrated by the WI Parata vs Bishop of Wellington case where the Court at the time (1877) declared Te Tiriti a nullity, as Maori were incapable of performing civilised duties. This prejudice was upheld again in the Wallis vs Solicitor General Decision of local Courts in 1903 . Both Decisions of the New Zealand Courts were incorrect and Ultra Vires, and ignored evidence such as communications between Chiefs and the Crown on Legislation up to 1860 , e.g. Instructions of 1846 Chapter XIV, Sec. 6 being repealed by Sign Manual 14th July 1848 and the passing of 1858 Legislation Native Districts Regulations Act and Circuits Court Act, none of which was possible without the ‘ body politic assuming the rights of a civilised Community)’.. “and communicating those rights and duties to its equitable partner”. In Wallis vs Solicitor General 1903 the Privvy Council reminded New Zealand Courts and Legislators of the importance of recognising the rights of Indigenous People and the legality that Aboriginal Title was part of the body of Common Law applicable in New Zealand (i.e. 1852 Act). The response was to ignore the reminder, and to pass specific Legislation in 1909 , by Amendment to the Land Act, extinguishing Customary Title in relation to Maori Land i.e. extinguishment of Aboriginal Title. Thus ignoring the fact that Aboriginal Title had legal force as recognised by English Common Law (applied after Sovereignty transferred to the Colonial Power) and other Common Law Jurisdictions including USA, Canada and Africa and International Law. SUMMARY. 32. As the occupiers of Customary Lands could exert that Title against any person , the only means for the Government to extinguish Aboriginal Title was Legislative action. 33. We claim that action was unlawful. The fact being that though the New Zealand General Assembly had Sovereignty to pass and make Laws, they were only for the “peace, order and good Government of New- Zealand ” as empowered by the Common Law of England through the 1852 Act: Prerogative Power to extinguish Aboriginal Title was specifically delegated to take place in a described and proscribed manner; which did not happen! The passing of such legislation was not for the “good order and peace” as a large section of the population was disenfranchised, rendered landless without the means to pursue their Customs and Usages: so therefore was and must be unlawful! The extinguishment of Native Title was unlawful as it was a misuse of Crown Prerogative Power: Therefore all decisions and transactions taking place from the Native Land Acts provisions relating to extinguishment of Native Title, are to be declared Ultra Vires, unlawful and null and void. 34. Whether or not Sec. 73 of the 1852 Act was removed by the 1986 Act ; it was in place prior to 1986 and must be considered Superior entrenched Law as it was Dictates or Authoritative Instructions . Therefore unless there is QtP that in 1862 the Sovereign, Her Majesty Queen Victoria, gave her Signet and Sign Manual through her Principal Secretary of State in the described manner of Sec. 73, then the removal of Crown pre-emption was illegal and all subsequent legislation and judgements regarding Maori Land through such legislation Null and Void, and Ultra Vires. RELIEF. 35. We seek Judgement of the Court as to the Ultra Vires and unlawful nature of the alienation decisions on this Land , and seek orders to the same in regard to invalidity of Fee Simple General Title, and a Judgement recognising that the Land is still in Native Title and therefore Ownership! 36. If jurisdiction is not found in the Maori Land Court we seek orders transferring the case to High Court Judicial Review by the Administrative Division regarding the misuse of Prerogative Power. 1. The Land in question was alienated by the Crown through confiscation. 2. The title was changed to General Land in 1907. 3. That transaction was illegal as it entailed a misuse of Crown Prerogative Power. 4. That transaction was Ultra Vires and is unenforceable and Null and Void. 5. Therefore the Land is still in valid Maori Customary Title. 6. We seek orders recognising those facts contained herein.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->