This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Tino Rangatiratanga Whare Wananga Study Course
Page 1 of 8
This material is intended to enlighten the student on the legal standing and explanation of the subject of Tino Rangatiratanga, Maori Sovereignty. The basic course gives an in-depth understanding of the constitutional documents of Aotearoa (NZ) in the 1830 – 1840 era, the historical significances from a legal perspective both nationally and internationally and answers some of the confusions of the past and present pertaining to this subject. The more advanced courses gives the student the legal understanding of the foundation, the structure, and the process of law in order to exercise, advance and protect such rights, powers and privileges as indigenous peoples entrenched in law today and forever more. This more advanced research is based on the enormous knowledge and legal expertise of Hohepa Mapira, whom we are fortunate to have known and respect. He was a privileged member of the Privy Council and his whole life’s work had been for the Indigenous people’s struggle for self autonomy. Although, not nearly recognised for his work behind the scenes he has left a legacy for us to continue and make reality and so we continue to honour him with this works. Our Roopu, as his first students were privileged to partake of his knowledge and infinite wisdom and with his tutelage formed Te Tii Maungaroa Incorporation and Te Kai Tiaki Trust O Nga Tikanga Maori Law Society. His desire was to honour our Tupuna by taking the kaupapa to the masses, it is our hope and desire to continue to do so. Over 20 years Hohepa and his companions were making strategic transitional steps, the last ten years we have witnessed significant developments, many were foretold would happen, and some we made happen. We are proud to know that even after our matua’s death that the desire is still there within our Te Arawa, Matatua, Tainui, Takitimu, Kurahaupo and Horouta whanui within the Waka Native Districts to continue for nga whanau hapu o te iwi Maori. Many other researchers, scholars and references have been used to convey the intention of our Tupuna who laid the foundation for their tamariki. Hohepa The iniquities of past and successive governments and their apartied laws are but an error in our dark past, however, the protectorate mechanisms entrenched in the English common law have not changed as the Crown (UK) continue to honour Te Tiriti. So long as we study, understand and acknowledge the true intentions of nga Tupuna with the Crown(UK), will we start to be free from the shackles of ignorance and live together in peace and harmony. Mana Te Whata.
Page 2 of 8
PART III SECTION I - CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT OR DISTRICT COURT JUDGES b y Hohepa Mapiria
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, 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 member 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 myself.
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 members in relation to matters of representation –
Page 3 of 8
(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 members (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 members 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 members (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” means “Maori Customary values and practices.” Q. Where do you go and practice what is in accordance with Tikanga Maori? Back to your Marae. Q. 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.
Page 4 of 8
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 members 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 TTWMML 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.
Page 5 of 8
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 Page 6 of 8
(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. Q. 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 QueenElizabeth-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.
Page 7 of 8
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 Mac-naughten 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.
Page 8 of 8
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
Page 9 of 8
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, minding 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.
Page 10 of 8
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.