A compilation of evidence that

:
1. The founding documents of the country commonly known as New Zealand are null and void, therefore the Settler Government and the courts are committing high treason and fraud. 2. That those who Colonised and brought statutory legislation into the country were unable to, being infants themselves, by their own laws. 3. Statutory laws of insolvency were introduced in the 1840’s – allowing the banking cartels to enter the country – (null and void from the outset). 4. That the people of the land were deemed infants and all their inheritances held under trust (cestui que) by statutory law (however, this is inferior law and null and void from the outset) In compiling this knowledge for it to be shared globally, awareness is present that any action that comes out of it needs to now come from a place of maturity. We urge people to maintain an attitude of forgiveness to all whose associated actions have oppressed, imprisoned and controlled the people (becoming known now as the 99%). There is great need for redemption for everyone and for those who had maintained the systems of control that are now crumbling. It is a cast the first stone scenario. Unless we as human beings ourselves have some ancient, recent or present memory of what it is to murder, to rape and plunder, etc., we could not have reached a point in our lives now that would desire true harmony, abundance and peace to prevail on our mother, Earth, so it is up to us to remember that we carry the memories, whether through past lives or through our DNA of hurts, harms and atrocities as well as love, compassion and service to others, of being both the perpetrator and the victim. We have the opportunity to end this duality now, with maturity, love and response-ability.

Perfect love is to feeling what perfect white is to color. Many think that white is the absence of color. It is not. It is the inclusion of all color. White is every other color that exists, combined. So, too, is love not the absence of an emotion (hatred, anger, lust, jealousy, covetousness), but the summation of all feeling. It is the sum total. The aggregate amount. The everything.
Neale Donald Walsch, from Conversations with God

Page 1 of 14

From: http://www.scribd.com/doc/72102929/Evidence-That-Founding-Documents-Are-Null-and-Void

Evidence that the founding documents of the country commonly known as New Zealand are null and void.
Page 1 NEW SOUTH WALES VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, DURING THE SESSION 1840 WITH THE VARIOS DOCUMENTS CONNECTED THEREWITH. SYDNEY: PRINTED BY JAMES TEGG, GEORGE STREET. Page 25- 27 1. Council met pursuant to adjournment; His Excellency the Governor took the Chair, and laid upon the Table, “A Return of Convictions before the Supreme Court during the “February and May Sessions in the year 1840,” designating the Offences, the Statutes or Acts under which those offences were tried, and the Sentences of the Court thereupon; to be printed. 2. Mr. H. H. Macarthur presented a Petition from Henry Croasdaile Wilson, Esq., representing, that he is a proprietor of about ten thousand acres of Land in New Zealand, and is very desirous that the Island in which his land is situated, should be ceded to the British Crown, and be under the protection of British Laws, by which the value of his property would be increased; but he fears the Native and other Land-holders in New Zealand will have the desire, as well as the influence, to prevent such cession being made, if the proposed Bill to empower the Governor of New South Wales to appoint Commissioners to examine and report on Claims to Grants of land in New Zealand should become a Law; and representing further, that the proposed Bill is in many other respects inexpedient; and praying that it may not be further proceeded with. Petition read, and received; to lie on the Table. 3. Claims to Grants to Land in the New Zealand bill; the Colonial Secretary having moved the Order of the Day for the Gentlemen being heard who had been allowed to address the Council in opposition to the Bill, Mr. James Busby, and Mr. Wm. Charles Wentworth, and also Mr. A Beckett and Mr. Darvel, Barristers at Law, and Mr. Unwin Solicitor were introduces: Mr Busby addressed the Council at great length; the purport of his address may be shortly stated as follows: He respectfully submitted, that the Council would be assuming a very arbitrary power, and one at variance with the principles of the British Constitution, were they to proceed in the confiscation of property at New Zealand which seemed to be contemplated by the provisions of the proposed Bill; be felt bound to oppose the measure as well on account of its inevitable effect upon his own pecuniary interests, as an act of justice towards those who had purchased from him; he felt conscious that his Land had been justly acquired, and he would not shrink from the strictest inquiry into his transactions; but there was one clause in the proposed Bill which would despoil him of all his possessions; the clause he alluded to was the Fifth, by which it was declared that no claims to Land would be allowed, which comprehended the Sea Coast, the Banks of Navigable Rivers, or any Promontory or Headland; part of his land he had been compelled to purchase with own private funds, for the purpose of building upon it a residence, shortly after his arrival at New Zealand as the Representative of the British Government in that Country; and that land having become almost the only inheritance of himself and his family, he should consider it a grievous hardship were he now to be deprived of it; many Aboriginal families who held lands under grants from him, would also Page 2 of 14

become sufferers by such an act of oppression, and is such an event, he conceived it would be impossible to convince them that he and they were not despoiled by the hand of power; and he would suggest to the Council, whether such an impression might not be wholly destructive of that confidence in the British Government which the Natives had hitherto evinced; for one tract of land at the Bay of Islands, comprising about 300 acres, he had given little short of £146; and for another, about £1,000; he would admit that there were many claims which would not bear investigation; still there were many worthy possessors of land on the banks of the various Harbours and Rivers, who would suffer greatly if the proposed Bill, in its present form, became law; no attempt had been made on the part of the Government to prevent British Subjects from acquiring property in New Zealand; such was not the case with the enterprising Settlers from Van Diemen’s land who originated from the now flourishing Colony of Port Phillip; no sooner was it known that they had purchased large tracts of land from the Natives of that District, than a Proclamation was published declaring the illegality of their proceedings; another proof of injustice of the proposed measure was, that up to the time that New Zealand was taken under the protection of the British Crown, the Sovereignty of the Chiefs as ruling over an Independent People had been admitted, and their Flag acknowledge in such Ports as their Vessels had visited; and Declaration of Independence made by the Confederated Chiefs had been approved, and ordered to be printed as a State Paper, by the House Government; that in the recent Instructions to Captain Hobson, much anxiety was manifested to conciliate the New Zealanders; and in the Treaty between Captain Hobson and the Assembled Chiefs of New Zealand, the latter agreed to forego their right of selling Land to any but the British Government, thus giving to Her Majesty the right of pre-emption; but if, as assumed by the Bill, the Chiefs never had that right, why he would ask, were they called upon by that Treaty to relinquish that which they had never possessed. After replying to sundry interrogatories by His Excellency, and several Members of the Council, Mr Busby withdrew. Mr. Wentworth next addressed the Council, in a speech of very great length, and abounding in quotations from Legal, and other authorities; the purport of what he said may be stated shortly as follows: He was a proprietor of Land, in both the Northern and Southern Islands of New Zealand; some of his possessions in the latter, had been acquired since the publication of His Excellency’s and Captain Hobson’s Proclamations, which proved that in his opinion at least, those Proclamations were a perfect nullity, and such being his opinion he would dispose of them at once by referring the Council to the Law of the case as laid down by Blackstone* (see next article) vol. 1. Chap. 7. Page 270; in accordance with the doctrine there laid down, it was clear that a Proclamation to be binding, must be founded upon some Law previously existent; if the Proclamations in question were founded on any Law, it was for those who had issued them to shew what that law was; having shewn that the Proclamations were not founded in Law, that they were issued without Legal authority, and that they were therefore not binding, he would next advert to the principle contained in the Preamble of the Bill; if that principle were true, the Bill might be sustained, but if otherwise, it must become a nullity; the principle was, that no Chiefs or other Individuals of Tribes of Uncivilised Savages had any right to dispose of the Lands occupied by them:-a principle at variance with Lord Normanby’s Despatches which proceeding on the assumption that the Natives of New Zealand had an indisputable right to the soil, authorised the Government to treat with them for the cession of the Sovereignty, and for the purchase of the soil; if the principle of the preamble were true, and that of the instructions false, the self evident consequence would be, that if the British Government; and thus while Britain would be “estopped” (as the lawyers would say) by her own Law, New Zealand would be open to the French, to the Americans, and to all other Nations: it had been said that the preamble was not intended to be declaratory of a new principle, but of an old law; he would defy the Learned Gentleman whom he was bound to consider as the framer of the Bill, to put his finger on any part of the British Law, or of the Law of Nations, on which it was founded; it might be a law of America, but then it should have been introduced as such and not under false colours; in order to ascertain how far the declaration of the disability of the New Zealanders to sell their Lands was justified by the Law of Nations, he would call the attention of the Council to the state of the New Zealanders as compared with that of the North American Indians, whose Territories it would be Page 3 of 14

admitted had been acquired by right of conquest, and parcelled out by the Government into immense Grants, yet the right of the Natives to the soil remained undisturbed, and he could point out numerous instances of purchases from the both by Individuals and by Government; he would refer the Council to Abiel Holmes Annals of America at pages 247 and 248 and elsewhere; he would mention the cases of John Davenport, Theophilus Eaton, and others in the year 1639; of Richard Smith in 1641; of John Wenthrop in 1659 and others: In 1633, 1648, and 1662, the State of Massachusets, the Colony of Plymouth, and the State of Virginia respectively passed Laws prohibiting the purchase of Lands from the Indians by Individuals: those Acts did not annul past, but prohibited future purchases,; they were all prospective and did not interfere with any man’s rights or possessions. The grand difference between those laws and the Bill now before the Council was, that they interfered with no man’s rights whilst that bill was intended to sweep away all Property acquired before the Bill was even thought of. Those Laws shewed that not only were the Indians considered capable of holding and dealing in lands, but that their right to do so was exercised even within the limits of the Kings Patents’ and if it was considered competent for those American Savages to deal in Land why should the like competency be denied to the New Zealanders? The New Zealanders were not less civilized than were the Americans – the latter did not cultivate their land – they had no fixed habitation, but lived together solely for the purposes of the chase and war – whilst the New Zealanders had fixed habitations, cultivated their land, reared domestic animals – had a national flag, and many of them had been converted to the Christian Religion and had learnt the rudiments of a common education; they knew the value of their property, and exacted it from those who dealt with them – They could not then be inferior to those American Savages to whom the rights of soil had been ceded by British subjects and the British Crown. There was another great difference too between the position of those Indians and the New Zealanders – The Indians inhabited a Country which had been conquered, inhabited, and planted, by British subjects, and to which the Commissions of the Crown extended; whilst as regards New Zealand, if the Crown ever had any power, it had entirely divested itself of it, and yet an attempt was made to deprive the New Zealanders of their rights, in limine, before Britain had even obtained a footing in the soil, or knew that she ever would. The proposition was therefore the more unjust, as it was advanced when Britain had scarcely a footing on the soil, before any of the soil had been ceded, and before it was known whether it or the Sovereignty ever would be ceded to Her Majesty. He cared not whether the New Zealanders were an Independent Nation or only a few Independent Tribes or Families scattered over the Country – they still possessed the Demense or soil of that Country, and had a right to use it as they thought proper, and those who had bought from them only acted in accordance with the natural rights of the Natives and the law of Nations, as would be seen on reference to Vattel, whom he had heard the late Mr. Canning refer to as a standing authority. The deduction from all the authorities to which he had referred was that until the Council passed a restrictive law, the New Zealanders had a right to dispose of their land in whatever quantities and manner they pleased – The Council had no power whatever to examine into titles – All the Council could do was to establish Courts of Law to which the New Zealanders could appeal if they felt aggrieved – He would not object to such a measure, but he did object to an ex post facto enactment like the one proposed, founded on a fiction, under which it was intended to sweep away all land whether acquired justly or not. It had been said that British subjects had no right to form Colonies without the previous sanction or authority of the Crown; whether they had a right to form Colonies was one proposition, and whether they had a right to buy land in an Independent Country was another; with the former he had nothing to do; but he imagined that he could shew that both propositions were true – As to the first he would again refer to Vattel, according to whom Individuals landing in an uninhabited Country might not lonely establish Colonies, but also erect a Government and an Empire; and if that might be done in an uninhabited Country, it resulted a fortiori, that it might be done in a Country that was peopled, if the Natives of that Country gave their consent thereto; and he would instance, in support of that position, the first settlement of New England in 1620 under Davenport and others, which was conclusive that British Subjects, without the pale of a

Page 4 of 14

Royal Charter, might form Colonies and erect Governments, as had been done in Connecticut, where the Government so established had continued unmolested for upwards of two centuries. The further hearing of Mr Wentworth was then deferred until to-morrow; and the Council adjourned at Half-past Five o’Clock, until to-morrow, at Twelve o’Clock.

Further evidence that the founding documents are null and void can be found at this link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/72112700/Further-Evidence-That-Founding-Documents-Are-Null-and-Void

The following article shows how the Crown took everyone’s property into trust and as long as people are receiving a benefit from it, it creates an infant relationship, labelling people as infants, idiots and lunatics. The people who wrote the founding documents were also beneficiaries with no capacity under the tuition of the church of the parishes, therefore adding the nullity and fraud of the documents and the illegitimacy of the whole process of colonisation.

Extracts from William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England 1765-1769
Blackstone on the English Constitution Book One, Chapter 8: Of the King's Revenue: Branch 18 I proceed therefore to the eighteenth and last branch of the king's ordinary revenue; which consists in the custody of idiots, from whence we shall be naturally led to consider also the custody of lunatics. An idiot, or natural fool, is one that has had no understanding from his nativity; and therefore is by law presumed never likely to attain any. For which reason the custody of him and of his lands was formerly vested in the lord of the see; (and therefore still, by special custom, in some manors the lord shall have the ordering of idiot and lunatic copyholders) but, by reason of the manifold abuses of this power by subjects, it was at last provided by common consent, that it should be given to the king, as the general conservator of his people, in order to prevent the idiot from wasting his estate, and reducing himself and his heirs to poverty and distress: This fiscal prerogative of the king is declared in parliament by statute 17 Edw. II. c. 9. which directs (in affirmance of the common law) that the king shall have ward of the lands of natural fools, taking the profits without waste or destruction, and shall find them necessaries; and after the death of such idiots he shall render the estate to the heirs; in order to prevent such idiots from aligning their lands, and their heirs from being disherited. By the old common law there is a writ de idiota inquirendo, to enquire whether a man be an idiot or not: which must be tried by a jury of twelve men; and if they find him purus idiota, the profits of his lands, and the custody of his person may be granted by the king to some subject, who has interest enough to obtain them. This branch of the revenue has been long considered as a hardship upon private families; and so long ago as in the 8 Jac. I. it was under the consideration of parliament, to vest this custody in the relations of the Page 5 of 14

party, and to settle an equivalent on the crown in lieu of it; it being then proposed to share the same fate with the slavery [?] of the feodal tenures, which has been since abolished. Yet few instances can be given of the oppressive exertion of it, since it seldom happens that a jury finds a man an idiot a nativitate, but only non compos mentis from some particular time; which has an operation very different in point of law. A man is not an idiot, if he has any glimmering of reason, so that he can tell his parents, his age, or the like common matters. But a man who is born deaf, dumb, and blind, is looked upon by the law as in the same state with an idiot; he being supposed incapable of understanding, as wanting those senses which furnish the human mind with ideas. A lunatic, or non compos mentis, is one who has had understanding, but by disease, grief, or other accident has lost the use of his reason. A lunatic is indeed properly one that has lucid intervals; sometimes enjoying his senses, and sometimes not, and that frequently depending upon the change of the moon. But under the general name of non compos mentis (which Sir Edward Coke says is the most legal name) are comprised not only lunatics, but persons under frenzies; or who lose their intellects by disease; those that grow deaf, dumb, and blind, not being born so; or such, in short, as are by any means rendered incapable of conducting their own affairs. To these also, as well as idiots, the king is guardian, but to a very different purpose. For the law always imagines, that these accidental misfortunes may be removed; and therefore only constitutes the crown a trustee for the unfortunate persons, to protect their property, and to account to them for all profits received, if they recover, or after their decease to their representatives. And therefore it is declared by the statute 17 Edw. II. c. 10 that the king shall provide for the custody and suftentation of lunatics, and preserve their lands and the profits of them, for their use, when they come to their right mind: and the king shall take nothing to his own use; and if the parties die in such estate, the residue shall be distributed for their souls by the advice of the ordinary, and of course (by the subsequent amendments of the law of administrations) shall now go to their executors or administrators. The method of proving a person non compos is very similar to that of proving him an idiot. The Lord Chancellor, to whom, by special authority from the king, the custody of idiots and lunatics is intrusted, upon petition or information, grants a commission in nature of the writ de idiota inquirendo, to enquire into the party's state of mind; and if he be found non compos, he usually commits the care of his person, with a suitable allowance for his maintenance, to some friend, who is then called his committee. However, to prevent sinister practices, the next heir is never permitted to be this committee of the person; because it is his interest that the party should die. But, it has been said, there lies not the same objection against his next of kin, provided he be not his heir, for it is his interest to preserve the lunatic's life, in order to increase the personal estate by savings, which he or his family may hereafter be entitled to enjoy. The heir is generally made the manager or committee of the estate, it being clearly his interest by good management to keep it in condition; accountable however to the court of chancery, and to the non compos himself, if he recovers; or otherwise, to his administrators. Source: http://studymore.org.uk/2s.htm

The introduction of laws of Insolvency, 1840
From document: 1840-X-LC-XX-PROCEEDINGS-0000-0154.pdf, pages 10, 11 and 17 (paragraph 4) and 18 (paragraph 4, 5). Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/72101598/1840-X-LC-XX-PROCEEDINGS-0000-0154

No. 2.

Page 6 of 14

VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS
OF

THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
TUESDAY, 2 JUNE, 1840. 1. Council met pursuant to adjournment; His Excellency the Governor in the Chair, New Member sworn, James Macarthur, Esquire. 2. His Excellency the Governor then read the following Minute on the question of an Insolvent Law. I again feel it my duty to ask the attention of the Council to the Insolvent Law of the Colony. In year 1838, on the recommendation of the Judges, I presented a Bill to the Council, which had been drawn up by Mr. Justice Burton on the Model of the Insolvent Law of the Cape of Good Hope: The Bill having been referred to a Committee, evidence was taken on it, the effect of which went to shew that though the principle of the Bill was approved by a great majority of the Witnesses examine, the method of proceeding under it was objected to, on account of the apparent complexity of its details. The Committee did not report until late in the Session, and consequently nothing was done in that year, save the re-enactment for two years (with slight alterations) of the Law of 1832, then about to expire. In 1839, the same Bill was again presented by me, and again referred to a Committee, principally for the purpose of obtaining of Mr. Justice Stephen, then recently arrived from Van Diemen’s Land, where the subject of Insolvency had engaged much of his attention. This Committee reported on the 17th of September last, and recommended that the Bill presented by me in 1838, should be withdrawn, and that another founded on the same principles, but altered in its details, should be brought forward in the present Session. Before however I undertake to prepare such a Bill, I am anxious to ascertain the extent to which the Council will adhere to the views of their Committee, as otherwise much loss of labour and of time may be occasioned, which will be the more inconvenient as the temporary law of 1838, will expire on the first of October next. The Resolution on which I propose to take the sense of the Council, will simply express the adherence of the Council to the recommendations of the Committee, but it will of course be competent to the Council, so to alter the Resolution, as to fix in any other manner the principle of the Bill, or if an Insolvent Law be deemed necessary, to dispense with the Bill altogether. The great objects of either a Bankrupt or an Insolvent Law, are to rescue the person of a Debtor from Imprisonment, unless he shall be found guilty of fraud or concealment, and to secure to his Creditors the equal, or rateable division of the whole of his property. The present Law of the Colony does not answer either of these purposes; it does not secure the person of a debtor from successive imprisonments, neither does it ensure the equitable division of his property among his creditors. – It gives to the harsh or unmerciful creditor an undue advantage over the mild or merciful one, and it subjects the insolvent to successive imprisonments at the successive suits of his creditors, there being no process by which they can be forced all to come forward at the same time; and with respect to insolvents absent from the Colony, or not in custody, it is altogether inoperative – the consequence of which was, in a late notorious case, that instead of one process being instituted for the equal benefit of all the creditors, a vast number of separate proceedings, (I believe more than fifty) by foreign attachment or otherwise, were entered in the Supreme Court, and no dividend has as yet I believe been paid to the Creditors. Page 7 of 14

In England, as in New South Wales, under the law as it now stands, imprisonment is a necessary preliminary to the benefit of the Insolvent Act, whilst on the contrary, no imprisonment is necessary to entitle a person to the benefit of the Bankrupt Laws – which Laws moreover apply only to Traders; another difference is, that property acquired in any after period of life, may be taken in satisfaction of debts incurred prior to insolvency, whilst property acquired by a person who has been a Bankrupt, and obtained his certificate, cannot be so taken. There is perhaps little reason for either of these distinctions between Insolvency and Bankruptcy, especially in a country like New South Wales, where with few exceptions almost every person is engaged in some sort of traffick; and it is also worthy of remark, that Commissioners have recently been appointed in England, to consider how the two sets of Laws, and Separate Courts, which at present exist for Bankruptcy, and Insolvency may be united, and a System established to comprehend all cases. The leading principles of the bill, prepared by Mr. Justice Burton, and recommended by the Judges in 1838, were. (1.)-That any person, whether a Trader or not, might on finding himself in difficulties voluntarily declare himself Insolvent; and that any person having the management of the estate of another, might do the same in respect to it. (2.)-That any person, whether present in, or absent from the Colony, might under circumstances of apparent inability to meet the demands against him, be declared insolvent by a process, analogous to that by which in England, a man is made a Bankrupt. (3.)-That in either case the personal liberty of the Insolvent should not be invaded, except by way of punishment for fraud or concealment; but that the whole of his property should be got at, and divided equally or rateably among his Creditors. (4.)-That property acquired in after life should not be answerable for debts incurred before Insolvency, provided a certain majority of his Creditors, both in number and value, concur in granting a Certificate similar to the Certificate of Conformity granted to a Bankrupt in England. These principles are also fully adopted by the Committee of 1839, the alterations recommended by that Committee, at the suggestion of Mr. Justice Stephen, having reference only to the working out of these principles, or to the modus operandi of the measure, The chief objections which have been urged against the principles of the Bill, may, I believe, be summed up as follows. (1.)-That the dread of the severities to which an Insolvent is now exposed, being removed, many persons will be induced to declare themselves insolvent, who might otherwise struggle on, and ultimately overcome their difficulties. (2.)-That in the same way many Creditors will compel their Debtors to become insolvent, though they might refrain from doing so, if obliged, as at present, to have recourse to the harsh measure of incarceration. (3.)-That Insolvencies being thus rendered more common than they are now are, the apprehension of loss through the insolvencies of others, will become more general than it now is; and that as a natural consequence, the disposition to give credit will be diminished, and Commercial enterprize be cramped in proportion. (4.)-That a practice of Surrender or cession bonorum, by private agreement, exists in the Colony, under which Insolvencies are frequently arranged in satisfactory manner, though not strictly according to legal forms, and perhaps on this very account, less expensively than they could be, if the parties were forced to go into Court. (5.)-And lastly, that an Insolvent Law somewhat similar to that which is now proposed was in force in the Colony (II Geo. IV. No. 7.) for two years from April 1830 to April 1832, but was abandoned, partly in

Page 8 of 14

consequence of the expense which is occasioned in Law proceedings, and partly from the increased number of insolvencies which occurred under it. That credit is necessary to Commerce, is an axiom too well established to be denied; but at the same time there must be a point beyond which it ceases to be advantageous; and without attempting to decide where this point is to be fixed, it may perhaps be considered than in the present state of our Community, any thing which tends to produce caution in the giving of credit, is advisable rather than otherwise. A relaxation in the seventies to which Debtors are now exposed may perhaps be reasonably expected to have the effect of inducing such caution; but on the other hand, if it fail to do so, it will encourage, rather than repress hazardous enterprizes, by diminishing the apprehension of personal disgrace or suffering, consequent upon failure. The question to be decided by the Council, is a very grave as well as a very wide one, for it is not to be concealed, that either a sudden contraction of credit in the Colony, or a great prevalence of avowed insolvency, would greatly check its forward movement, and by diminishing the Revenue derived from Sale of Crown Lands, might stop the course of Immigration, to which we all look as the chief means of our prosperity; whilst on the other hand a System of Credit so extensive as to give birth to schemes and speculations, incommensurate with our real Capital or strength, though productive for the moment of a great seeming prosperity, may only lay the foundation of reverses, such as of late years have been experienced in America, and have at different epochs seriously affected Great Britain. I will only in conclusion observe, that an Insolvent Law cannot create Insolvencies though it may unmask a good many, GEORGE GIPPS. Government House, June 2, 1840 From pages 17 and 18 (16 June 1840) 4. Insolvent Bill of 1839: the following proposed Resolution taken under consideration: “That this council does adhere to , and adopt the recommendations of the Committee to which the Insolvent Bill presented by His Excellency the Governor on the 11th of June 1839, was referred; and that His Excellency be consequently requested by this Council to cause the said Bill to be so modified in its details, as to meet the recommendation of the Committee.” After a long debate, the further consideration of the foregoing proposed Resolution deferred until Tuesday next, June 23. Motion made and Question put, That His Excellency the Governor be respectfully requested to lay before the Council, a Return of the number of persons taken in execution for debt, and for what amount, since the first of January 1838, shewing the full time any such person has been confined, and under what executions; Passed.

5.

The Cestiu Que (Infant) link to early New Zealand Statute.
Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/71677928/The-Statutes-of-NZ-Cestui-Que-Trust-Connection

STATUTES OF NEW ZEALAND
Page 9 of 14

PASSED IN THE THIRTY-FIRST YEAR OF THE REIGN OF HER MAJESTY

QUEEN VICTORIÆ,
THE SECOND SESSION OF THE FOURTH PARLIAMENT OF NEW ZEALAND. Begun and holden at Wellington, on the Ninth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-seven. HIS EXCELLENCY SIR GEORGE GREY, KNIGHT COMMANDER OF THE BATH, GOVERNOR. WELLINGTON 1867. Page 463 New Zealand. ANNO TRICESIMO PRIMO VICTORIÆ REGINAÆ. No. 40.

An ACT to provide for the management of Title.
Real Estate belonging to infants and Others of the Maori race under disability. [10th October 1867.]

BE IT ENACTED by the General Assembly of New Zealand in Parliament assembled
and by the authority of the same as follows1. The Short Title of this Act shall be “The Maori Real Estate Management Act 1867.” 2. In the construction of this Act the word “Maori” shall mean Aboriginal Native of New Zealand and shall include half-castes and their descendants by Natives the word “trustees” shall mean trustees appointed pursuant to this Act whether original or substituted and shall include the survivor of them and the term “hereditaments” shall mean land the subject of tenure or held under title derived from the Crown or any estate or interest therein or arising thereout. 3. If any title to or interest in any hereditaments shall accrue to any Maoris who or
Short Title. Interpretation.

Trustees in care of

Page 10 of 14

any of whom shall be infants lunatics or under legal disability it shall be lawful for the Governor in Council if he think fit to order that such hereditaments or any part thereof or interest therein as shall to the Governor in Council be shewn to belong to such infant lunatic or other person under legal disability shall be vested in trustees as the Governor in Council shall think fit and in and by such Order in Council such trustees thereof shall be named as the Governor shall think fit and such trustees shall have the powers and be subject to the legal incidents hereinafter set forth Provided always that none of the powers or incidents hereby conferred or annexed to the said office or to the circumstances hereinafter stated shall take effect or be exercisable if it is declared in the Order in Council appointing the trustees that they shall not take effect and where there is no such declaration then if any variations or limitations of any of the powers or incidents hereby conferred or annexed are contained in such Order in Council such powers or incidents shall be exercisable and take effect only subject to such variations and limitations Provided further that such variations may be made by reference to the numbers of the sections and subsections of sections of this Act. 4. For the purposes of this Act and subject to the provisions thereof the trustees managing or taking possession of such hereditaments or the income or proceeds thereof shall have and may exercise the same rights and powers as the owner or owners might if not under disability. 5. The trustees may from time to time let all or any part of such hereditaments with the appurtenances to such person for such period not exceeding a tenancy from year to year and subject to such rent covenants and conditions as they shall think fit. 6. The trustees may with the consent of the Governor first obtained let all or any part of such hereditaments upon lease for any term not exceeding twenty-one years and subject to such rent covenants and conditions as they may think fit. 7. The trustees out of the rent and proceeds received under this Act in respect of any hereditaments so taken possession of or managed by them may expend money for the following purposes with respect to the hereditaments from whence the same shall arise and may exercise the following powers that is to say(1.) May keep any building and fences in good repair and may maintain the same with the appurtenances in good order and condition. (2.) May erect any such fence as the owner or occupier of such land is by law required to make. (3.) May cut and gather crops growing thereon (4.) May insure any buildings thereon from loss of fire (5.) May pay any rates by law due and payable (6.) May contribute towards the formation of any road footway or improvement projected under the authority of any law by which the Government or any municipal provincial or local government body make any contribution With the sanction of the Supreme Court or a judge thereof sitting within the judicial district within which such hereditaments are situate previously obtained the trustees may do any other act necessary or desirable for the preservation maintenance or improvement of the land with its buildings and appurtenances. A remedy is described below… 8. The trustees for the time being do the following things(1.) They may pay and discharge all costs and expenses incurred by or on behalf of their cestui-que trust in appearing before any court or other

infants lunatics.

Powers of trustees. No. 56 of 1865 Interstate Estates s. 38. Trustees may let. Ib. s. 30.

Trustees with consent of Governor may lease. Further powers to trustees. No. 56 of 1865 Interstate Estates s. 29.

Further powers of trustees To pay costs. 29 Vic. No. 25 s. 4.

Page 11 of 14

(2.)

(3.)

(4.)

(5.)

(6.)

(7.)

judicature for the purpose of establishing their title to such hereditaments or consequent or attending thereon or for any other purpose which the judge of such court or other judicial authority shall certify to have been necessary or beneficial to the parties. They may pay such portion of the rents and money in their hands as the Governor shall sanction to any widow of a deceased owner of the said hereditaments or person entitled under the certificate of such judge or other judicial authority and may also pay to such widow an annuity of such an amount as to them may seem just for her maintenance. They may with the consent of the Governor pay any portion of such rents and money to or divide such portion amongst any members of the aboriginal tribe whom they may think entitled thereto according to the Native custom applicable to the land from whence or respecting which the fund arose. They may in their own names invest the rents and money in their hands in bonds or debentures issued by the Government of New Zealand hereinafter called Government securities or on mortgage of land and hereditaments or other real securities within the Colony and also from time to time may vary any such investments. If the said estate is held in trust for infants the trustees shall stand possessed of the same for the benefit of all and every such infants to be equally divided among them share and share alike the shares of such infants to be paid assigned or transferred as and when they shall respectively attain the age of twenty-one years but if there shall be only on such infant cestui-que trust who shall attain the age of twenty-one years then the whole of such real estate shall be paid transferred and assigned to such one subject however in all cases to any annuity payable under the foregoing provisions Provided that if any infant cestui-que trust shall die before his or her rents and money shall become vested as aforesaid leaving children such children shall succeed to their deceased parents’ rents and money or share and be entitled thereto in manner aforesaid. In all cases where the property is held in trust for infants the trustees may at their discretion pay to or apply for or towards the maintenance or education of such infants the whole or any part of the income to which such infants the whole or any part of the income to which such infants may be entitled in respect of such property whether there be any other fund applicable to the same purpose or any other person bound to provide for such maintenance and education or not and the trustees shall accumulate all the residue of such income by way of compound interest by investing the same and the resulting income thereof from time to time in Government securities or on mortgage of land and hereditaments or other real securities or on mortgage of land and hereditaments or other real securities within the Colony or in the purchase of hereditaments for the benefit of the person who shall ultimately become entitled to the property from which such accumulation shall have arisen. Provided always that it shall be lawful for the trustees at any time if it shall appear to them expedient to apply the whole or any part of such accumulations as if the same were part of the income arising in the then current year. They may at their discretion apply the whole or any part of the accumulations of income or share of an infant if a male in placing him in any business profession or engagement or otherwise for his preferment

To pay annuity &c. to widow.

To distribute part of money to tribe.

To invest.

To hold property in trust for infants.

To apply money for maintenance &c. of infants.

Or the advancement.

Page 12 of 14

or advancement in life and if a female may settle her accumulations of income or share on her and her children on her marriage or pay over the same to trustees for her or to her for her absolute use on her marriage as they may think fit. (8.) When all the surviving cestui-que trusts shall have come of age the trustees shall wind up the trust estate and shall divide the residue of the trust property among them subject to any annuity as aforesaid if any such there be (for the regular payment of which thereafter they may make such arrangements as they think fit) share and share alike. (9.) They may give to make and execute all notices agreements deeds and other instruments and things necessary for carrying into effect the objects of their trust. (10.) They may out of the trust fund reimburse themselves all costs charges and expenses which they may lawfully incur or be reasonably put to in carrying this Act into execution. (11.) They may pay to themselves or to such one of them as they shall fix upon to undertake the administration of the affairs of their trust and the management of the education advancement and maintenance of the cestui-que trusts an annual remuneration of five per cent. on the income. (12.) And they may with the consent of the Governor first obtained do all such other things as they may think necessary or beneficial for the advantageous administration of the trust estate and the good of their cestui-que trusts. 9. Whenever any trustee either original or substituted shall die or desire to be discharged from or refuse or become unfit or incapable to act in the trusts or powers in him reposed before the same shall be fully discharged and performed it shall be lawful for the surviving or continuing trustees or trustee for the time being or the acting executors or administrators of the last surviving and continuing trustee or for the last retiring trustee by writing to appoint any person or persons to be a trustee or trustees in the place of the trustee or trustees so dying or desiring to be discharge or refusing or becoming unfit or incapable as aforesaid all the trust property which for the time being shall be vested in the surviving or continuing trustees or trustee or in the heirs executors administrators of any trustee shall immediately thereupon without any further deed become by virtue of the Act illegally conveyed assigned and transferred to and effectually vested in such new trustee or trustees either solely or jointly with the surviving or continuing trustee or trustees as the case may require And every new trustee to be appointed as aforesaid in all respects acts as if he had been originally appointed a trustee by the Order in Council. 10. The receipt in writing of any trustees or trustee for any rents and money payable to them or him by reason or in exercise of the trusts or powers reposed or vested in them or him shall be a sufficient discharge for the rents and money therein expressed to be received and shall effectually exonerate the persons paying such rents and money from seeing to the application thereof or from being answerable for any loss or misapplication thereof. 11. Every trustee shall be chargeable for such rents and moneys only as he shall actually have received although he shall have joined in any receipt for rents and moneys received by any co-trustee and shall not be answerable for the act of any co-trustee or for any loss which may arise by reason of any trust moneys being deposited in the hands of any banker or agent for from the insufficiency or deficiency of any security upon which the trust moneys or any part thereof may be invested nor for any loss in the execution of the trust unless the same shall

To divide trust funds.

To execute deeds.

To reimburse themselves expenses.

To remunerate themselves.

To do anything else advantageous to trust estate.

Appointment of new trustees. 29 Vic. No. 25. s. 7.

Receipts of trustees. Ib. s. 7.

Limitation of liability of trustees. Ib. s. 8.

Page 13 of 14

happen through his own wilful neglect or default. 12. Upon the application by petition to the Supreme Court or any judge thereof of an person making claim to the trust hereditaments estate or property or any part thereof or the rents interest and proceeds thereof or to the securities whereon any such rents interest or proceeds shall be invested or any part thereof or to any estate or interest therein the Supreme Court or such judge may in a summary way make such order for the vesting of the said hereditaments or for the distribution of the trust funds or for the investment thereof or payment of the interest and proceeds thereof or any part thereof or any such other order relating thereto or the rights or interests of the several parties thereto or therein as the Supreme Court or such judge thereof shall seem fit.

Application to Supreme Court. Ib. s. 9.

WELLINGTON, NEW ZEALAND: Printed under the authority of the New Zealand Government by GEORGE DIDSBURY, Government Printer

Please share this information far and wide. Although the research is based mostly upon the colonising of New Zealand, many of the strategies have commonalities with other countries. Everyone who is ready can claim their titles to their estates when they have come of age (21) and have full capacity, competency and the opportunity is given through Waitangi Tribunal Hearings and everyone can claim because they have all been labelled as infants and all people have been named Maori through the Te Ture Whenua Maori/Maori Land Act which is the global incorporation. By waiving the summary proceedings (statutory/mandatory law) which only relate to persons (Crown Proceedings Act), you are now standing on your sovereignty, i.e. your person , as the de jure crown. See http://www.scribd.com/doc/72363532/Hetangata1835-Gmail for more.

Page 14 of 14

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful