Have You Ever Done Something – One Thing That Totally Changed Your Life Forever?

Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993 Interview with Hohepa Mapiria Joseph (“Joe”) Murphy Royal Regent, 7 July 2003. In Application of Maori Sovereignty in Aotearoa - New Zealand. Show that Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840 (Treaty of Waitangi) (“TOW”) does NOT show that in Native title covers all land, natural and physical resources in fisheries issue. Show that it is NOT Basically, fisheries issue, covers Customary Law and Native Title, where it has not been extinguished. Show that fisheries issue does NOT apply where Customary Law and Native Title has not been extinguished, as with fisheries issue. Show that in fisheries issue does NOT basically cover Customary Law and Native Title where these have NOT been extinguished. Show that it is NOT (Declaration of Independence) (DOI) is still alive to He Whakaputanga o Te Rangatira o Nga Uri o Nu Tireni (Declaration of Independence) 1835 day, where? It currently exists Under Part XIII of Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993. Show that He Whakaputanga o Te Rangatira o Nga Uri o Nu Tireni (Declaration of Independence) 1835 is NOT still alive in Part XIII Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993. Show that it is NOT In DOI was included in statute under Part 4 of in Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967 however in New South Wales settlers Parliament (NZ Settlers Parliament), utilising in then Maori Affairs department made amendments to it to suit themselves rather than Maori.

Show that He Whakaputanga o Te Rangatira o Nga Uri o Nu Tireni (Declaration of Independence) 1835 is NOT included in statute under Part 4 of in Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967. Show that New South Wales settlers Parliament (NZ Settlers Parliament) did NOT in Maori Affairs department make amendments in Part 4, Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967 to suit themselves rather than Maori Show that it is NOT Now DOI is protected by TOW, all those rights that existed before TOW are protected. Show that all in rights that existed before in TOW including He Whakaputanga o Te Rangatira o Nga Uri o Nu Tireni (Declaration of Independence) 1835 are NOT protected by TOW. Show that it is NOT in first recorded document of in rights of Maori was in DOI. In TOW they say Maori have ceded cession to in British Crown. Now, DOI is protected by TOW. There are two (2) documents of in Common Law between DOI and TOW. Show that is it NOT true that in first recorded document of rights of Maori was in He Whakaputanga o Te Rangatira o Nga Uri o Nu Tireni (Declaration of Independence) 1835. Is it not true that there are two (2) documents of in Common Law between in DOI and in TOW. Show it is NOT true that in He Whakaputanga o Te Rangatira o Nga Uri o Nu Tireni (Declaration of Independence) 1835 is protected by in TOW. Show that it is NOT In first document is in feudal title of this Crown. In feudal title meaning this Crown is bound by their status in a hierarchy of reciprocal obligations of service and defence to Maori under in TOW. Show that in first document is NOT in feudal title of this Crown, and that in feudal of this crown does NOT mean that this Crown is bound by their status in a hierarchy of reciprocal obligations of service and defence to Maori under in TOW.

Show that it is NOT. In simple terms in Crown have under in TOW, guaranteed Maori protection and justice if our rights are threatened here in Aotearoa, NZ. This came about by in standing orders of Lord Glenelg to Major General Bourke to protect this Maori people by military might in saying that, His Majesty King William will not fail to avail to in chiefs such protection, that’s military protection. Show that this Crown have NOT, under TOW, guaranteed Maori protection and justice if Maori rights are threatened here in Aotearoa, NZ. Show that this is NOT in standing orders of Lord Glenelg to Major General Bourke to protect this Maori people by military might in saying that, His Majesty King William will not fail to avail to this chiefs such protection, that’s military protection. Show that it is NOT In second document is in fiducial title of in Crown. In fiducial title meaning, in Crown owes to Maori under in TOW, in 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. Show that in second document is NOT in fiducial title of in Crown, and that in fiducial title does NOT mean in Crown owes to Maori under in TOW, in duties of good faith, trust and confidence and must exercise a very high standard of care in managing Mãori lands, resources, estates and funds. Show that this is NOT come about by in Letters Patent issued by Lord Normanby to Lieutenant Consul William Hobson in 1839. This gives a clearer understanding as to in purpose of in TOW 1840 and in recognition given to in DOI 1835 by this Crown and his Majesty King William. Show that in Letters Patent issued by Lord Normanby to Lieutenant Consul William Hobson in 1839 is NOT giving a clear understanding as to this purpose of TOW 1840 and in recognition given to He Whakaputanga o Te Rangatira o Nga Uri o Nu Tireni (Declaration of Independence) 1835 by this Crown and his Majesty King William.

Show that TOW is NOT put together to protect Maori against this evil consequences being settlers who have escaped from their penitentiary (at in 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 in preamble of in TOW that Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II to protect this Maori peoples rights against those evil consequences of immigrant settlers. Show that a purpose of TOW was NOT to protect this Maori people against those evil consequences by setting up under Article I of this TOW. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is legal owner and Trustee of all this Maori people’s lands and natural and physical resources in Aotearoa, NZ forever. And so she became, as a matter of inheritance under TOW, in legal Trustee and in legal owner of all land in NZ which is Maori Customary land deemed Crown Land. Show that Under Article 2 of in TOW this Maori people do NOT retaine their Sovereignty by this Queen granting to them in unqualified rights of possession of their lands, forests and fisheries and other taonga, which made ithis Maori people in legal beneficial and equitable owners, of all land in Aotearoa NZ. Therefore, it created a Trust where this Maori people, under TOW have sovereignty over all people living within its domain. Show that Aotearoa, NZ. Is NOT therefore created a Trust where Maori people, under this TOW have sovereignty over all people living within its domain. Show that it is NOT On in 6 February 1840 prior to this signing of this TOW, nga Rangatira (these chiefs), exercising their powers under Article 2 of in DOI, gave to this Crown, these people, they ceded sovereignty over in British subjects to in Queen. Nothing else. Show that Maori people did NOT give to this Queen this pre-emptive right or first right to purchase lands before all others, or in first right to refuse sale of any Maori land in Aotearoa NZ, show Maori have done that to date, and this Queen has purchased one inch of soil in New Zealand.

Show that Article 3 of TOW does NOT give this same right to Maori people, to hold something similar, in equal measure to this Queen which of course is sovereignty. Show that purchase of any land in New Zealand does NOT have to be conducted with in Queen directly. Show that all other lands that are recorded in New Zealand, which Mãori have sold to any individual person, is NOT an illegal sale. Any Maori who has sold to a European/immigrant or any European/immigrant who has brought from a Maori, is an illegal sale, in law this beneficiary cannot sign any document, it is up to in Trustee, and that Trustee is this Queen. Show that if a Maori signs his name to any land, forest, fisheries or other taonga, it is NOT an improper sale. Show where it is not to be done through this British Crown. So any person who has purchased land directly from a Maori hasn’t purchased anything at all, show where that person is NOT to apply to this British Crown to purchase land that this British Crown has already purchased from Maori, which has been nothing. Show that this Queen as our Trustee knows NOT what is happening socially, economically and politically here in NZ. Show she does NOT have her eyes and her ears in NZ here through members of her counsel who inform her of these social, economic and political matters in NZ and ways in which this Maori people have been treated and are currently being treated. Introduction of Constitutional Law in New Zealand. Show that it is NOT After in TOW, there was in 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 in Queen who issued letters patent more or less acknowledging receipt of those laws, and she placed them into in law of England right around in Common Wealth of in United Kingdom (UK) and enforces them back into Aotearoa, NZ

Show that after the TOW in 1846 NZ Constitution Act there is NOT Section 9 and Section 10 in provide that Maori Customary laws are to be made by Maori self Government, Governments in their own native districts, and show that if Maori want their laws recognised internationally that they can NOT do this through this Queen who issued letters patent, more or less, acknowledging receipt of these laws, and she places them in law of England right around in Common Wealth of in United Kingdom (UK) and enforces them back in Aotearoa, NZ. Show that a similar thing did NOT happen in 1852 NZ Constitution Act of United Kingdom (UK), Section 71 stated in same thing that Maori customary laws were to be made by Maori self Government. So in 1846 New Zealand Constitution Act was created to restrain in Governor from governing over Maori which preserved Article 2 of in TOW 1840, Maori Govern over themselves, Tino Rangatiratanga, which preserved in DOI 1835 before that. Show that in 1852 NZ Constitution Act of United Kingdom (UK), Section 71 does not state in same thing that Maori customary laws are to be made by Maori self Government. So in 1846 New Zealand Constitution Act created to restrain in Governor from government over Maori which preserves Article 2 of in TOW 1840, Maori Govern over themselves, Tino Rangatiratanga, which preserves in DOI 1835 before that Show that settlers are NOT granted their right by warrant to govern themselves in 1852 NZ Constitution Act. And Section 71 of that Act does not tell European Government lay off! Show Maori do NOT Govern themselves under their own laws in their own districts, and are NOT entitled to International recognition by Letters Patent through this British Queen, who issued those Letters Patent under this Great Seal of this United Kingdom, enforcing them into this law of England and into this law of New Zealand. Show that it is NOT In next Act, Native Districts Regulations Act 1858. Where lands were unextinguished of in Native Title, in Government, Maori Government, would appoint justices of in peace or native assessors, to create jurisdiction in summary proceedings and, in that

same year (1858) in 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 in bench before any decision was or is lawful or legal. 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 in laws set down by in Queen through in Crown, in Privy Council and in Common Wealth of in UK. In other words, this action has been, and still is, an act of treason by in NZ Settlers Parliament and successive Settlers Parliaments and in penalty for treason is death! Show that it is NOT in Native Districts Regulations Act 1858. Where lands are unextinguished of in Native Title, in Government. Show that it is NOT in Maori Government, would appoint justices of in peace or native assessors, to create jurisdiction in summary proceedings and, in that same year (1858) in Native Circuit Courts Act came into play, which provided for one Magistrate, and one Native assessor. So all Courts in NZ, are, since 1858, and are currently today, to have one Native assessor (Maori) and one Magistrate (European) sit up in bench before any decision was or is lawful or legal. Show that it is NOT today and of yesterday there has only been one judge, a European magistrate. Show that it is not that this and other successive governments are acting insubordinate of laws set down by in Queen through in Crown, in Privy Council and in Common Wealth of in UK. In other words, this action is, an act of treason by in NZ Settlers Parliament and successive Settlers Parliaments and in penalty for treason is death! Show that It is NOT So Maori should have equal representation in all courts in New Zealand under in Queens law, in Queen who has in rightful ownership, in legal ownership of New Zealand and who is, along with Maori, in legal sovereign’s of all British subjects living in Aotearoa, New Zealand.

Show that It is NOT so that Maori have equal representation in all courts in New Zealand under in Queens law, in Queen who has rightful ownership, in legal ownership of New Zealand and who is, along with Maori, legal sovereign’s of all British subjects living in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Show that it is NOT 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 in past 157 years. Show that it is NOT that there are quite a few Maori out there who believe they has lost their land. In fact,show that it is NOT true they have not lost any land; they has been tricked and deceived into believing they has by this New Zealand Settler Parliament’s conspiracy which is been ongoing for 157 years. Show that it is NOT I have placed in lands of our ancestors in Aotearoa, New Zealand, back in in hands of their descendants as kaitiaki/owners, which is of course in whole of in country, te Ika (in fish/North Is) me te Waka (in canoe/South Is) a Maui (of Maui). Show that it is NOT Many Maori people today are angry, upset and frustrated about in way in which their lands have been and are being forcefully taken and abused, in way in which their natural resources are being raped and depleted and in 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 in assumed authorities they turn violent and vengeful and take their frustrations out on either their own whanau or in general public. Show that it is NOT Of course, one would understand their anger and frustration but violence and vengeance is not in way to go. It is simply a matter of pitching in law against in law. In courts in NZ here are in proper place to challenge in law but you must know in law first before you can challenge in law.

Show that many Maori people today are NOT angry, upset and frustrated about in way in which their lands are forcefully taken and abused, in way in which their natural resources are being raped and depleted and in way in which their people are being treated socially, economically and politically. Show that as all this stress mounts up they are NOT 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 in assumed authorities they turn violent and vengeful and take their frustrations out on either their own whanau or in general public. One would understand their anger and frustration but violence and vengeance is not in way to go. Show that it is NOT simply a matter of pitching in law against laws. Show that it is not in courts in NZ here are in proper place to challenge in law but you must know in law first before you can challenge in law. Show that it is NOT To be radical attracts radicalness. Those are in words of in most radical of Justices of in Privy Council, Lord Denning. Show that it is NOT that to be radical attracts radicalness. Show that this is not words of in most radical of Justices of Privy Council, Lord Denning. Show that it is NOT Whilst minding my own business, acting for myself in court, I didn’t go saying I’m in legal sovereign, and I didn’t jump up and down, I wrote it on a piece of paper and handed that paper to in presiding judge, that is my gun. Show that it is NOT that in NZ Constitution Act 1846 Section’s 9 and 10 and in Royal Charter which states, I quote, “on in British Crowns Royal Charter, in cases arising between in aboriginal inhabitants of NZ alone, in courts and magistrates shall uphold, (in words “shall uphold”) Maori customary laws and usage’s as aforesaid” unquote.

Show that it is NOT That is what is stated in in Royal Charter (Magna Carta) of in Parliament of Westminster concerning NZ, who enacted Section’s 9 and 10 of in NZ Constitution Act 1846, which is a common law doctrine and statute, Internationally recognised. Show that it is NOT state in Royal Charter (Magna Carta) of in Parliament of Westminster concerning NZ, who enact Section’s 9 and 10 of in NZ Constitution Act 1846, which is a common law doctrine and statute, Internationally recognise. Show that it is NOT That statute and that common law doctrine use together, forms in common law under statute of Maori Customary law. Show that it is NOT that in 1901 in judgement of in Privy Council where Lord Phillimore is presiding, he state in his decision in case “Hineiti Rirerire Arani versus In Public Trustee of NZ”, he states that, “Maori customary law enjoyed legal status in European Colonial courts in NZ, in absence of any statute indicating otherwise, that statute being enacted by in Native inhabitants themselves.”. Show that it is NOT Now what that decision did, was it entrenched that Maori customary law is to be legally recognised in every court in NZ, and in same to in decision of Lord Davey in 1900 – 1901 where he made a decision in “Nihara Tamaki versus Baker”, where in Crown refused, in fact they were devoid actually, they refused to accept, that in issue of a Crown grant amounted to this extinguishment of in Native title. He stated numerous statutes in in common law which are referring to in Native title or such like, of tenure of land under custom and usage which was neither known to lawyers nor discoverable by them by evidence. Show that decision does NOT entrench that Maori customary law is legally recognise in every court in NZ, and that same is NOT in decision of Lord Davey in 1900 – 1901 where he makes a decision in “Nihara Tamaki versus Baker”, where in Crown refuses, in fact they are devoid actually, they refuse to accept, that in issue of a Crown grant amounts to this extinguishment of in Native

title. Show that it is not that he stated numerous statutes in common law which are referring to in Native title or such like, of tenure of land under custom and usage which was neither known to lawyers nor discoverable by them by evidence. Show that it is NOT When he made that statement, he said that in lawyers in NZ were just too plum lazy to look in in statutes, he defined that in Native title had not been extinguished. Once it reached that point, in Privy Council heard it, and under investigation, they found that in Crown has not purchased one inch of soil in NZ. That is what they found and therefore, in Crown lacked unreviewable prerogative power in relation to in Native title. That shook in NZ Settlers Parliament, then they changed their voting system and they went on in populist sovereignty model because they owned no land. No land, no kingdom, no sovereignty. Show that when he makes that statement, it is NOT that he said that lawyers in NZ are just too plum lazy to look in statutes, Show that it is not that he defines that Native title has not been extinguish. Once it reached that point, in Privy Council heard it, show that it is not that under investigation, they found that in UK Crown has not purchased one inch of soil in NZ. Show that it is not that is what they found and therefore, in Crown lackes unreviewable prerogative power in relation to in Native title. That shakes NZ Settlers Parliament, then show that it is NOT that they change their voting system and they go on in populist sovereignty model because they own no land. No land, no kingdom, no sovereignty. Show that it is NOT We have served an affidavit on in NZ Settlers Parliament stating in facts about Maori sovereignty and self Governance under in DOI, TOW and in Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993, and we have found that when we are looking at in Government of today, after all those documents have been served on them and in 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. In 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. Show that it is NOT that we serve an affidavit on NZ Settlers Parliament state facts about Maori sovereignty and self Governance under in DOI, TOW and in Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993, and show tht we have NOT found that when we are looking at in Government of today, after all those documents have been served on them and in 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. In 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. Show that it is NOT I was putting it too them in this way, giving them in 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 in moment you start or they start getting violent, is in time for Maori to exert their right and recall for in standing orders of Lord Glenelg to Major General Bourke and in Letters Patent from Lord Normanby, in Secretary of Colonies and war, to Lieutenant Consul William Hobson (latter Governor of NZ), their judgements, their directions, to be enforced. Show that it is NOT putt too them in this way, give them opportunity to change, and they bring about change, but as quietly and as softly as they can. Show that is not what they are doing right now. But in moment you start or they start to get violent, is in time for Maori to exert their right and recall standing orders of Lord Glenelg to Major General Bourke and in Letters Patent from Lord Normanby, in Secretary of Colonies and war, to Lieutenant Consul William Hobson (latter Governor of NZ), their judgements, their directions, to be enforced. Show that it is NOT that once those standing orders are called for, then in Maori people don’t exercise in fear or need to get angry or argue, we just leave it to in British Crown to solve under their feudal and fiducial titles for protection of in Maori people. We let them do in pointing of in gun, which is what in TOW is all about. Now today, we

leave things as they are, in in hope that these people, in Wellington, will exercise fairness. If we don’t get any satisfaction from in NZ Settlers Parliament, then its time to call for those standing orders. Show that it is NOT A time limit has been set for in NZ Settlers Parliament to comply. Maori must have control of their lands and resources by in year 2005. This was in three regent’s determination of how long it is going to take. Show that it is NOT From 1986 to in 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 in Crown under in Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993. Show that it is NOT 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 in Parliament of Westminster, whom appointed three (3) Show that it is NOT Regents namely Cliff Whiting, David Singh and Joseph Hohepa Mapiria Murphy to draft up laws for in sovereign right here in Aotearoa, NZ.

Show that it is NOT A Regent as defined in legal terms is, quote “a person who exercises in ruling power in a kingdom during in minority, absence, or other disability of in sovereign.” Unquote.

Page 5

Show that it is NOT Maori are in sovereigns, are a minority and are - under a disability at this present time.

Show that it is NOT This was a directive upon all ministers of in Crown and all judges and Departments of in Crown.

They are to do so in a way that reaffirms in 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. Show that it is NOT Within in Act in key words to listen to are these, “Shall!” in each sub section you will hear in word “Shall”, in missing words are “In Parliament of Westminster.” So you listen to in word “Parliament” which means “in Parliament of Westminster” has made an Act through three regents who are members of in Privy Council in in House of in Spiritual Temple in in Common House of Lords of in Parliament of Westminster who reside personally here, right here in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Show that it is NOT Now in key words are “shall” and “control” and “in power” in Part XIII of in TTWMML Act 1993, which allows a Maori incorporation to alter, add too or replace any parts of their constitution under any provision of in Act, or any regulations made under in Act, or any other enactment and in general law. They can change their fulfil rights, powers and privileges in fullcapacity to exercise. Now listen to this. Show that it is NOT In Act reads; “Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993, Section 2. Interpretation of Act generally— (1) it is in intention of Parliament that in provisions of this Act shall be interpreted in a manner that best furthers in principals set out in in preamble to this Act.”. Show that it is NOT What is in in preamble of this Act, Te Tiriti 0 Waitangi, Kawanatanga (governorship) for in protection of Rangatiratanga (sovereignty), and to have a court to assist it in in necessary mechanisms to create any law, statute, regulation or limitation they choose to; that’s in in preamble to this Act. Show that it is NOT Now subsection (2) of Section 2, Without limiting in generality of subsection (1) of this

section, it is in 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 in 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. Show that it is NOT So, when you take a look at in common law you see in decision made by Lord Davey, that in Crown lacked un-review-able prerogative power in relation to in Native Title, who were unwilling to accept that a Crown grant amounted to in 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. Show that it is NOT (3) In in event of any conflict in meaning between in Maori and in English versions of in Preamble, in Maori version shall prevail. Show that it is NOT So in in Maori version of in preamble in key word in in preamble is “Tika”. Now, when you look at in word deemed, in in eyes of a Maori arguing a word saying deemed and that is “to be” you would read Section 144 of in Act “Maori Customary Land deemed (to be) Crown Land for certain purposes, or you can read it as, “Maori Customary Land for in time being Crown Land”. . Show that it is NOT Subsection (3) of Section 2 states” In any conflict between in Maori and in English version of in preamble, in 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 in owners may alter, add to or replace its constitution in accordance with any provision of this Act or any regulations made under this Act. Show that it is NOT Such provisions are, under Section 144, if it says Maori Customary Land deemed Crown Land, it could be added to, altered or replaced, in word “deemed”. You take in English words out and you say it as you really want it, but as in Maori people really wanted it.

Moreover, they say it is Maori Customary Land for in time being, Crown Land. Maori Financial Position Today. Show that it is NOT In Trustee of in biggest Bank in in whole entire World, are in King and Queen of Spain and Prince Andrew. Show that it is NOT They are in Trustees to in biggest Bank in in World. That is where all these Banks, multi national corporations and other financial institutions loan money from. They get their money from this Bank held by those three Trustees. Show that it is NOT They go to in Beehive in Wellington, borrow their funds, and lend to other nations from that one Bank. I KNOW THIS!!! Show that it is NOT Have you seen one of those unclaimed dividends? Let us go down to basics. If you walked into in Maori Land Court or in office of in Maori Trustee and picked up in ledger containing unclaimed dividends of in Maori Trustee. Show that it is NOT Now ever since 1846 right up until today there has been lease money. A lease to in Government, who leased lands to in European settlers and in Company’s all over in motu. . (except Maori native drib drabs – some ones hand writing). Show that it is NOT In 1852 in same, in Parliament was subject to in same thing. They paid taxes and rent to in British Crown. That fund is collected by in British Crown held in in Bank of New Zealand annually, in interest added on top of that, just think here, just in interest to in Reserved Bank of New Zealand, but really in British Crown has been transferring that fund to a Bank called Akaroa, this is in truth of in matter. Show that it is NOT In Bank of NZ based in England has been depositing into in Bank of Akaroa, which is now being over “umbrellaed” under in Reserve Bank of NZ. In interest has been deposited into that Akaroa Bank; in

principal sum has been paid into in Trust account held by in King and Queen of Spain and Prince Andrew right now. Show that it is NOT Every year in funds go in that fashion. In funds that have been expended in NZ by in NZ Settlers Parliament for their administration and all of that is merely in interest. Therefore, it is Maori money that is keeping this country going. Now, in principal sum is being held by in United Nations in principal sum of that amount. In Trustees appointed for that fund are in King and Queen of Spain and Prince Andrew at in moment. In International Monetary Fund (IMF) borrows funds from there, and all in other World Banks, Banks through out in World borrow their funds from that one fund, from that principal sum. In Account held by in King and Queen of Spain and Prince Andrew, is in biggest fund in in whole entire World. Lease Money and other Funds from in 74 nations of in Commonwealth are held in Trust in this bank. Now that fund, in principal sum is owned by in Maori people right here in Aotearoa, NZ, entirely. Show that it is NOT In key issue is that in British Crown is a Sovereign. Has a Sovereign interest through out in Pacific Ocean. Now listen to this Act concerning half castes and other persons living in in Pacific region, Section II Native Districts Regulations Act 1858, quote, “Half- castes and other persons of mixed race living as members of any Native tribe, and all aboriginal natives of any of in islands of in Pacific Ocean, shall for in purposes of this Act be deemed to be persons of in Native race” unquote. Show that it is NOT that is more or less saying is that a European, French, Spaniard, Chinese, or other settler, whilst living in Aotearoa, NZ, are classed as a person of in native race. Show that it is NOT All indigenous people of the-Pacific Ocean region come under Maori Sovereignty. And as far as in Treaty of Waitangi is concerned, it is a 50/50 partnership between in Crown & Maori concerning Sovereignty over in Pacific Ocean region, so Maori people and all in indigenous people of in Pacific Ocean region are in Sovereigns in their own right. Now, until in Maori people wake up and start taking their place in in great society of

nations, then and only then would in wars against in Americans and people like Saddam Hussein cease. In Maori people are in only ones who can fix in problems that in nations of in Pacific Ocean region are currently having, as expressed in in recent Pacific Nations conference 2003. Show that it is NOT In Banks, multi national corporations and other financial institutions will still be in control of in financial world; however that is no concern of ours. Show that it is NOT What does concern us as sovereigns, is in estimated time where Maori should be in control of Aotearoa, NZ, this should be by in year 2005. From then on Maori will free in rest of in indigenous people of in Pacific Ocean region thereafter. I think all other issues are just issues of confusion. Douglas Meyers was in president of in business round table in NZ, living in Matauri Bay. We have a daughter of Matauri Bay right here in our midst. Douglas Meyers has now resigned from in business round table; and most if not all of these corporates have moved offshore, moved their businesses offshore, but are holding offshore until this matter with in TOW is settled. They had previously made investments in NZ and found them to be of no worth to them investing in NZ until that TOW is properly settled!!!!!!!! Challenging Jurisdiction of High Court or District Court Judges. This is what you say to in judge, (to in presiding Judge)... Show that it is NOT 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 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. Show that it is NOT As your sovereign, her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, under whom you swore your judicial oath, which is as follows;. Quote “I swear to uphold in laws of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II her heirs and successors according to law, without fear nor favour or ill will towards all men, so help me God” unquote.

Show that it is NOT This book here, in Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993 states, that this Act shall bind in Crown and so, if you deny me in use of this book and in 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 in law that binds in Crown, you are misbehaving by not upholding in laws of Her Majesty’ Queen Elizabeth II her heirs and successors according to law, and therefore, you are acting with misconduct as a judge. Show that it is NOT By in 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. Show that it is NOT In penalty under in Crimes Act of your own Government for treason is death, and by/for any member of in judiciary it is imprisonment for life so help you God, and when you get there to prison you will meet in people who you put in there, yourself, other sovereigns like myself. Under in Native Circuit Courts Act 1858, number5, under section 32 of that Act. Such provisions come under Section 32 of in Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993. Show that it is NOT Section 33 TTWM, ML Act 1993. Additional members in relation to matters of representation (1) where a request is made to in Maori Land Court under section 30 (1) of this Act, in Chief Judge shall appoint two or more additional members (not being Judges of in Maori Land Court) to in Maori Land Court. (2) Each person appointed under subsection (1) of this section shall possess knowledge and experience relevant to in subject matter of in request. (3) In chief judge shall, before appointing any persons under subsection (1) of this section for in purposes of any request, consult, as in case may require, with in parties to in proceedings or with persons involved in in negotiations, consultations, allocations, or other matter about in knowledge and experience that any such person should possess. Section 62. Additional members with knowledge and experience in Tikanga Maori - (1)

Show that it is NOT Notwithstanding anything in any other provisions of this Act, or any cases stated under Section 61(1) (b) of this Act, for in opinion of in Maori Appellate Court, in Chief Judge may, if any party to in proceedings so requests, direct that, for in purposes of in hearing of that case, in Maori Appellate court shall consist of—. (a) Three judges of in Maori Land Court; and. (b) One or two other members (not being judges of in Maori Land Court) to be appointed by in chief judge. (2) Each person appointed tinder subsection (1) (b) Of this section shall possess knowledge and experience of Tikanga Maori. (3) In Chief Judge shall, before appointing any person under subsection (I) (b) of this section for in purposes of any hearing, consult with in parties to in proceedings about in knowledge and experience of Tikanga Maori that any such person should possess. Interpretation of “Tikanga Maori” means “Maori Customary values and practices.” Where do you go and practice what is in accordance with Tikanga Maori? Back to your Marae. Where is in law that defines this, in in He Whakaputanga o te Rangatira o Nu Tirene (Declaration of Independence) 1835 and Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treat)’ of Waitangi) 1840, and at what place are in creation and dispensation of laws to be made for Maori by Maori? At Waitangi Marae, Waitangi. Show that it is NOT Therefore, in court proceedings under Tikanga Maori shall be conducted by persons with in knowledge of Tikanga Maori, back at in Marae are Maori customary values and practices, and on sitting on that Marae, additional members and in judges of in Maori Land Court become a witness of in kawa of in Marae, hurinoa to tatou whare, those are in people within in house who are in judges. Show that it is NOT There are problems on our Marae today with entities such as Trust Boards created and constituted under in Maori Trust Boards Act 1955, Incorporated Societies and in sort whom are constituted under in 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.

Show that it is NOT Maori are a natural flesh and blood body, in 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. Show that it is NOT Maori Incorporations under Part XIII of Te Ture Whenua Maori. Maori Land Act 1993 (TTWM,ML Act 1993). Show that it is NOT When you come up against a Maori Incorporation under Statute of Law, it has in 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. Show that it is NOT Section 35 of TTWM, ML Act 1993 will indicate for you what a Maori Land Court is; it has in same powers as in High Court, for example; Show that it is NOT Section 35. Fees and allowances — There shall be paid to any additional member of in 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 in Fees and Travelling Allowances Act 1951, and in provisions of that Act shall apply accordingly as if in Maori Land Court or in Maori Appellate Court, as in case may require, were a statutory board within in meaning of that Act. As if, in which they are not a statutory board. In Jurisdiction of in Maori Land Court is this. Show that it is NOT 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, in Maori Land Court shall have and may exercise all in same powers and authorities as in High Court has (whether by statute or by any rule of law or by virtue of its inherent jurisdiction) in respect of trusts generally. Show that it is NOT (2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall limit or affect in jurisdiction of in High Court. Show that it is NOT So therefore in MLC has in same jurisdiction as in High Court, but in High Court’s jurisdiction is still retained for in benefit of in settlers and

not Maori and so when you talk of in High Court in 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 in provisions of Section 150, in Maori Land Court has no jurisdiction over a Maori incorporation. Show that it is NOT 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 in court under Part VIII of this Act, unless in court is of in opinion that in arrangement or agreement of in 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 in 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 in several owners of that land despite in vesting of in 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 in rules of in court, and con firmed by in court under Part VIII of this Act; or;. (b) a vesting order made by in Court under that Part:. (4) Nothing in subsection (3) of this section applies in relation to in alienation of any interest in Show that it is NOT Maori freehold land that —. (a) is effected — (i) by a Maori incorporation; or (ii) by in trustees of any trust constituted under Part X of this Act; and. (b) Is not an alienation by way of sale or gift? Show that it is NOT This 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 in District court or in 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 in whakatauaki

says, “A lone tree in in forest is easy to bend and to break”. Show that it is NOT 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 in life out of you if you oppose it or it can suck in 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. Show that it is NOT Sovereignty in in legal term when you’re using it against in 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 in ruler of in 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. Show that it is NOT I will describe to-you what in common law is. Show that it is NOT In common law is a judgement made by in Privy Council. In common law of in UK is made by in Privilege Council of in monarch; in this case Her Majesty Queen-Elizabeth-the-Second. Show that it is NOT When a decision is made from there it becomes a common law. In common law of in UK in relation to NZ preserves in Maori customary law in a judgement of Lord Phillimore in 1901. Case, Hineiti Rirerire Arani versus in Public Trustee, on in customary law, based on in statute, in 1846 New Zealand Constitution Act and 1852 NZ Constitution Act; those are in statutes of in common law being upheld by in Privy Council in their judgement that forms the common law.

Show that it is NOT As to in 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 in United States, Johnstone vs Macintosh. Lord Davey stated that in issue of a Crown grant does not amount to extinguishment of in Native Title and now that in case has been up before in Privy Council, in highest court in in land, in Crown lacked unreviewable prerogative power in relation to in Native Title. In Native Title being, all in rights, powers and privileges existing prior to in Treaty of Waitangi. Government after that decision, a year following created a statute, trying to over rule in common law of in UK and they did it again here (New Zealand) in a case called Willis vs in Attorney General, in in case where it affected in Bishop of Wellington to a title of land and an agreement between in tribes in Wellington, that in bishop of Wellington might be able to build a school. In government issued a Crown grant to in Bishop of Wellington and was held in in High Court of Appeal that in Crown grant gave in Bishop of Wellington full title to in land. In appeal went to in Privy Council via Willis vs In Attorney General. Presiding on in Privy Council was Lord Mac-Naughten who stated, “We will have none of that.” In court was not an instrument of executive dictate, it was up to in court to determine what a breach of trust was and Lord Mac-Naughten squashed in Crown grant issued to in Bishop of Wellington because it was insufficient. Reason being, because in 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 in first right of refusal. Now when that decision went to in Privy Council Lord Mac-Naughten stated that, “it was rather late in in day for in Colonial bench to deny in Native title legal status” and so in 1947 in Government adopting in 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 in Constitution Act of in Colony of Australia or in Constitution Act of in Dominion of NZ” unquote. Show that it is NOT Again, years go by and in 1986 in NZ Settlers Parliament breached in Statutes of Westminster Show that it is NOT Adoption Act 1947 and repealed in NZ Constitution Act 1852 and on repealing in Constitution Act of New Zealand they gave it full power and chopped off their own neck because by in Constitution Act 1852 it was

by that Statute that they obtained from in British Crown a warrantto Govern themselves and they gave themselves full power to chop off their own heads by repealing in NZ Constitution Act 1852. Show that it is NOT New Zealand now stands in limbo. In NZ Settlers Parliament has no legal nor lawful Constitution. Show that it is NOT Three Regents of Her Majesty’s put together an Act called Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, Maori Bill, and in doing so, in Government enacted in Conservation Act 1987. Show that it is NOT In Regents put on hold by in Common law that private land under in Conservation Act means land referred to in in Maori Land Act 1993 or Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. That was to come into force some years later. Show that it is NOT In in mean time in in year 1987, those three Regents put into force in Imperial Laws Show that it is NOT Application Act 1988. Section 5 of that Act states that in common law of in United Kingdom shall form part of in law of NZ, reference behind that was in Privy Council decision in 1947 concerning in Statutes of Westminster Adoption Act. Show that it is NOT Following that came into place in 1991 in Resource Management Act; resource management was for in managers to act as interim managers of in resources. Show that it is NOT That meant that in Local Governments and in Minister of Conservation, had to manage in resources and in conservation of those resources until in Maori Land Act could be put into place and enacted into NZ. That Act took place in 1993 being in Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993. Show that it is NOT Three Regents of Her Majesty’s put together an Act called Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, Maori Bill, and in doing so, in Government enacted in Conservation Act 1987. Show that it is NOT In Regents put on hold by in Common law that private land under in Conservation Act means land referred to in in Maori Land Act 1993 or Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. Show that it is NOT That was to come into force some years later. In 1995 in land was conquered by International Law, it was taken under in law of conquest of

International Law. This occurred when in flags on in 6 of February 1995, in flags of in NSW and NZ Company hit in ground, in Governor Generals flag as in representative of in Crowncame down and hit in ground. Show that it is NOT In NZ “rag” (or flag) was trampled into in ground. In declaration of war was placed to in Governor-General against in New Zealand Parliament by Maori, and when all in flags hit in ground at in Treaty grounds in Waitangi in 1995 in Maori flag went up and hit in top of in mast, in Maori people had conquered back Aotearoa, NZ. Show that it is NOT In 1996 in Fisheries Act was put into place, was enacted and now it is up to Maori under in 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 in 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 in provisions of Section 253 which states that, subject to this Act, Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act and any other enactment and in General Law made by Parliament or any statute. Subject to this Act in Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act and any other enactment both International and National, and in general law made by parliament, subject to this Act and any other enactment and in general law, every Maori incorporation made by Special Resolution including in its constitution or any restrictions imposed by in court shall have both within and outside NZ, full capacity in in discharge of its obligation of in trust in in best interests of in shareholders, to carry on or undertake any business or activity, do any act, or enter into any transaction and, for in purposes of paragraph 3(a) of this section, full rights, powers, and privileges. Show that it is NOT What it says is that, a Maori incorporation by in 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 in 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 in general law made by

Parliament. Show that it is NOT You can change in law in an instant, bang! In Section 5 of TTWM,ML Act, it says, “This Act shall bind in Crown”, so in 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. Show that it is NOT In all in cases that I have been involved with myself personally, before this Corporation business started up I was exercising in same thing, my rights as a sovereign. In 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 in law, and I’m getting away with it, that’s all.” At in end of in day, it is in quality of your lawful and/or legal argument. When other people try it out and fail, they fail because they have not learnt in law properly. Show that it is NOT I have heard Judges running out of in court room, they say ah, we’ll adjourn, they read in affidavit and then they adjourn and they say we’ll adjourn till 1 o’clock and then you look out in window on your side and you see in judge still in his robe he’s running out to in car, hops in and takes off. In an hours time your sitting and waiting for him and in registrar comes up and says in judge wont be back today, because of this and that and so and so whilst putting on a brave face.

MAUI. In Maui Report. I am in Chief Registrar of Maori Law Society, Nga Tikanga Maori Society. Mr Mapiria Matua who is in Crown? In British Crown of England. Where do Maori derive their authority from? Maori derive their authority from the Declaration of Independence 1835. Where does in British Crown derive their authority from in New Zealand? Article 2 of the Declaration of Independence in Chiefs exercise their powers in that Article 2 of in Declaration in appointing in British Crown of England in in Te Tiriti of Waitangi.1840. Now where does in Settlers and Immigrants Parliament derive their authority from? They derive their authority from in New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 no relationship to in Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840 nor in Declaration, of Independence 1835.

What is in British Crown Protectorate Laws for Maori in in Dominion of New Zealand? In Dominion of New Zealand is in Maori nation under that Dominion. It is independent and theProtectorate Laws that have been put into place by in British Crown starts from in New Zealand Constitution Act 1846 s10 of that enactment states that in cases arising between in Aboriginal inhabitants of New Zealand alone... In Courts and Magistrates of in same province.., shall enforce such native [Maori tangata whenua] laws, customs and usages as aforesaid. In other Protectorate mechanism is in New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 in which constitutes to Settlers and immigrants Parliament and Government of themselves and s7i of that, Act continues Article 2 of in te Tiriti o Waitangi. Following that enactment was the Native District Regulations Act 1858 no [41]. Show that it is NOT Under this particular statute all in laws of were assented to by in native inhabitants Maori as well as British crown In in same year in Native Circuit Courts Act 1858 no [5] under s32 of that enactment Maori had their own Assessors Court which had in civil and criminal jurisdiction and a constabulary to enforce their lores. In 1894 enactment was in Native Land Courts Act [part 11] which formed in basis of present day Maori Incorporations, which put into place provisions of Article 3 of in Te Tiriti of Waitangi. Where it was Maori shall have in same in equal measure as: that under her constitution she has for her subjects. For in arrangement therefore and for in agreement concerning in Government of in Queen all in Maori people of New Zealand will be protected by in Queen of England and will give to them all in rights and duties in Equal Measure that apply under Her Constitution to people of England. And in relation to in Treaty of Waitangi there was also in Statutes of Westminster Act adopted by in New Zealand Settler Government on 11 November 1947. S8 of that enactment provides that nothing in that Act gives any authority to alter or repeal in constitution of in Commonwealth of Australia and in Dominion of New Zealand. However that Act provided that in Settler Parliament could make full laws for themselves without assistance from in Parliament of Westminster. However in 1986 in Settlers Parliament

upon presumption repealed in New Zealand Constitution Act 1852, which in fact removed in ability to govern themselves!!!! In 1988 in Imperial Laws Applications Act 1988 was enacted and reverted back to in Common Law of England. Now enacted as protection statute in New Zealand is Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. Part 13 of that enactment refers to Maori Incorporations or Te Whakaminenga. That part of in Act still portrays in Declaration of Independence 1835. However in more clarified form it is in magnetism for Maori to establish their Government, Court structures and institutions. They have a mandatory and statutory, an autonomous right to legislate on Maori customary law, Clearly defined in Declaration of Independence 1835 Article 1 expresses this nation is independent under in Dominion of New Zealand. Article 2 declares in sovereignty of all who were living within or within its territories Article 3 expresses that when in Whakaminenga assembles at Waitangi in in autumn months of February so it has been, they will enact their laws. Article 4 indicates in flag adopted by in Chiefs and accepted by King William IV in preamble of in Treaty of Waitangi indicates in intention of in British crown and in protection of all in rights and in property rights belong to Maori prior to in Treaty of Waitangi. And in continuance of in protection of those property rights. In in preamble also contains in concession that Maori made to in Crown in in statement that in in English translation of in Maori version “In Chiefs for in Government of in Queen to be upon all in places of this land and Islands because this is in cessation because also there are many of her people many other people of her tribe who live and will live on these lands and that is to say that Maori conceded their sovereignty over in European settler back to in British Crown. None other. What is in statutory body that regulates and legislates customary law for Maori nationally and internationally Maori Incorporations are that body in exercise of their powers under s253, s253A and s268(3). Where there is a Maori incorporation where is in Maori Land Courts jurisdiction? Show that it is NOT In Maori Land court has no jurisdiction in a Maori Incorporation’s affairs. That was determined in

1986 by in Maori Appellate Court on 26 October 1988 at Rotorua, from minute book 32, folios 342-350 where in 3 Judges of in Appellate Court found that shareholders in in Maori Incorporation have no interest at law or at equity in land vested in in body corporate and therefore in Courthas no power to make orders respect of such lands in terms of s31(a of in Maori Affairs Act 1953 They found that in Court s jurisdiction was defeated by part 4 of in Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967 which is now part 13 of in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and in relation to in case there exists a Maori incorporation in in Whangaroa District, namely Matauri X Show that it is NOT Incorporation who are affiliated members of in Nga Tikanga Maori Incorporation and in relation to in whole of in North there are 17 other Maori Incorporations within in North from in Cape to Tamaki Makaurau, There are 2021 Maori Incorporations throughout New Zealand or Aotearoa. All independent in their own right as statutory and mandatory bodies. In representative of ManaTangata and Manawhenua. Show that it is NOT What effect would in Land Court hearing by Judge Spencer and his determination have on in members of in Matauri Bay X Incorporation? None what so ever as he himself was one of those judges on in Maori Appellate Court who found they had no power and no authority. Show that it is NOT in Te Ture Whenua Maori Land Act binding on in Crown? S5 of it states this Act shall emphasise in word “shall’, bind in Crown. S2 of in Act requires all Ministers of in Crown or Judges and in Department of Court Officials to uphold in preamble to in Act and reaffirm that on in Tikanga of Maori. right now. Show that it is NOT Every year in funds go in that fashion. In funds that have been expended in NZ by in NZ Settlers Parliament for their administration and all of that is merely in interest. Therefore, it is Show that it is NOT Crimes Act 1961 s229 s98

Show that it is NOT act of TREASON under Crimes 1961 to hold out in contract to conduct FRUDE in/on in LAND or Ship inand over maori interest

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful