Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The DOI was included in statute under Part 4 of the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967 however the New South
Wales settlers Parliament (NZ Settlers Parliament), utilising the then Maori Affairs department made amendments
to it to suit themselves rather than Maori.
Now, the DOI is protected by the TOW, all those rights that existed before the TOW are protected.
The first recorded document of the rights of Maori was the DOI.
In the TOW they say Maori have ceded cession to the British Crown . Therefore now, the DOI is protected by the
TOW.
There are two (2) documents of the Common Law between the DOI and the TOW.
The first document is the feudal title of the Crown. The feudal title meaning the Crown are bound by their status in
a hierarchy of reciprocal obligations of service and defence to Maori under the TOW. In simple terms the Crown
have under the TOW, guaranteed Maori protection and justice if our rights are threatened here in Aotearoa, NZ.
This came about by the standing orders of Lord Glenelg to Major General Bourke to protect the Maori people by
military might in saying that, His Majesty King William IV will not fail to avail to the chiefs such protection ,
(that’s military protection).
The second document is the fiducial title of the Crown. The fiducial title meaning, the Crown owes to Maori under
the TOW, the duties of good faith, trust and confidence and must exercise a very high standard of care in managing
our Mãori lands, resources, estates and funds. This came about by the Letters Patent issued by Lord Normanby to
Lieutenant Consul William Hobson in 1839. That gives you a clearer understanding as to the purpose of the TOW
1840 and the recognition given to the DOI 1835 by the Crown and his Majesty King William IV.
And so the TOW was put together to protect us against the evil consequences being the settlers who have escaped
from their penitentiary (at the Prison colony in Australia) and were coming here, and who are still coming here to
live on these lands, and so it was necessary under the preamble of the TOW that Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II
(as her ancestors before her) intended to protect the Maori peoples rights against those evil consequences of the
immigrant settlers.
So the purpose of the TOW was to protect the Maori people against those evil consequences by setting up under
Article I of the TOW. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is now the legal owner and Trustee of all the Maori people ’s
lands and natural and physical resources in Aotearoa, New Zealand forever... And so she became, as a matter of
inheritance under the TOW, the legal Trustee and the legal owner of all land in New Zealand - which is Maori
Customary land deemed Crown Land.
Under Article 2 of the TOW the Maori people retained their Sovereignty by the Queen granting to them the
unqualified rights of possession of their lands, forests and fisheries and other taonga, which made the Maori people
the legal beneficial and equitable owners, of all land in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Therefore, it created a Trust where
the Maori people, under the TOW had sovereignty over all people living within its domain.
On the 6 February 1840 prior to the signing of the TOW, nga Rangatira (the chiefs), exercising their powers under
Article 2 of the DOI, gave to the Crown, these people, whom they ceded sovereignty over the British subjects to the
Queen. Nothing else.
The Maori people gave to the Queen the pre-emptive right (or first right) to purchase lands before all others , or the
first right to refuse, to the sale of any Maori land in Aotearoa, NZ however, Maori have not done that to date, and
the Queen has not purchased one inch of soil in Aotearoa New Zealand.
PRE-EMP’TION, n. [L. proe, before, and emptio, a buying; emo, to buy.] The act of purchasing before others.
1. The right of purchasing before others. Prior discovery of unoccupied land gives the discoverer the prior right of occupancy. Prior
discovery of land inhabited by savages is held to give the discoverer the pre-emption, or right of purchase before others.
2. Formerly, in England, the privilege or prerogative enjoyed by the king, of buying provisions for his household in preference to others,
abolished by statute 19. Charles II. We b s ters 1 82 8 N ew Internati on a l D i cti on ary.
Article 3 of the TOW gives the same right to the Maori people, to hold something similar, in equal measure to the
Queen which of course is sovereignty.
Therefore, the purchase of any land in New Zealand has to be conducted with the Queen directly.
All other lands that are recorded in New Zealand, that Mãori have sold to any individual person, is an illegal sale.
Any Maori who has sold to a European/immigrant or any European/immigrant who has brought from a Maori , it is
not a legal sale. In law the beneficiary cannot sign any document , it is up to the Trustee, and that Trustee is the
Queen.
If a Maori signs his name to any land, forest, fisheries or other taonga, it is an improper sale. It is to be done
through the British Crown. So any person who has purchased land directly from a Maori hasn’t purchased anything
at all, that person was to apply to the British Crown to purchase land that the British Crown had already purchased
from Maori, which has been nothing.
The Queen as our Trustee knows what is happening socially, economically and politically here in NZ. She has eyes
her ears in New Zealand here through members of her counsel who inform her of the social , economic and political
matters affecting New Zealand and the way in which the Maori people have been treated and are currently being
treated.
*****Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993, (TTWMML Act). - Sovereign Law. *****
Within the Act the key words to listen to are these, “Shall!” in each sub section you will hear the word “Shall”, the
missing words are “The Parliament of Westminster.” So you listen to the word “Parliament” which means “the
Parliament of Westminster” has made an Act through three regents who are members of the Privy Council in the
House of the Spiritual Temple in the Common House of Lords of the Parliament of Westminster who reside
personally here, right here in Aotearoa, New Zealand.
Now the key words are “shall” and “control” and “the power” in Part XIII of the TTWMML Act 1993, which
allows a Maori incorporation to alter, add too or replace any parts of their constitution under any provision of the
Act, or any regulations made under the Act, or any other enactment and the general law. They can change their
fulfil rights, powers and privileges in full capacity to exercise. Now listen to this.............
The Act reads; “Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993, Section 2.
Interpretation of Act generally— (1) it is the intention of Parliament that the provisions of this Act shall be
interpreted in a manner that best furthers the principals set out in the preamble to this Act.”.
What is in the preamble of this Act, Te Tiriti 0 Waitangi, Kawanatanga (governorship) for the protection of
Rangatiratanga (sovereignty), and to have a court to assist it in the necessary mechanisms to create any law, statute,
regulation or limitation they choose to; that’s in the preamble to this Act.
Now subsection (2) of Section 2, - Without limiting the generality of subsection (1) of this section, it is the
intention of Parliament that powers, duties, and discretion’s conferred by this Act shall be exercised, as far as
possible, in a manner that facilitates and promotes the retention, use, development, and control of Maori land as
taonga tuku iho (forests, fisheries and other taonga) by Maori owners, their whanau, their hapu, and their
descendants.
So, when you take a look at the common law you see the decision made by Lord Davey, that the Crown lacked
unreviewable prerogative power in relation to the Native Title , who were unwilling to accept that a Crown grant
amounted to the extinguishment of that Native Title and so, there is no land in NZ that is not Maori customary
land, it is only deemed Crown land for certain purposes.
(3) In the event of any conflict in meaning between the Maori and the English versions of the Preamble , the Maori
version shall prevail.
So in the Maori version of the preamble the key word in the preamble is “Tika”. Now, when you look at the word
deemed, in the eyes of a Maori arguing a word saying deemed and that is “to be” you would read Section 144 of the
Act “Maori Customary Land deemed (to be) Crown Land for certain purposes, or you can read it as, “Maori
Customary Land for the time being Crown Land”..
Subsection (3) of Section 2 states” In any conflict between the Maori and the English version of the preamble , the
Maori version shall prevail. Alright, now I go to Section 17 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Act 1994 , sub
Section (3) states that” A Maori incorporation made by special resolution of the owners may alter , add to or replace
its constitution in accordance with any provision of this Act or any regulations made under this Act.
Such provisions are, under Section 144, if it says Maori Customary Land deemed Crown Land, it could be added to,
altered or replaced, the word “deemed”.
You take the English words out and you say it as you really want it, but as the Maori people really wanted it.
Moreover, they say it is Maori Customary Land for the time being, Crown Land.
Sir, being a Native Indigenous Aborigine and therefore a sovereign of Aotearoa, NZ, I reckon I’m suppose to
have a Native assessor up there by (beside) you to make sure that Me and My people get a fair deal. If you’re
going to sit there by yourself, then that’s not fair, that’s a total injustice.
As your lord and sovereign, Her Majesty Queen-Elizabeth-the-Second, under whom You swore Your judicial
oath, which is as follows;
Quote “I,..........., swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen-Elizabeth-the-Second, Her heirs
and successors, according to law, in the office of; and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and
usages of New Zealand without fear or favour, affection or ill will. So help me God. Cf 1908 No 151 s 4 ”
unquote.
This book here, the Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993 states, that this Act shall bind the Crown and
so, if you Your Honour deny me the use of this book and the laws within it and say to me, NO I do not accept
that, then you are saying to your sovereign that you are over stepping her....... then you are in breach of your
judicial oath and you are not exercising the law that binds the Crown, you are misbehaving by not upholding
the laws of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II her heirs and successors according to law, and therefore, you are
acting with misconduct as a judge.
By the power vested in Me under Section 12 of Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993, I will personally
see to it that ‘your position as judge, be removed from you, so help you God.
The penalty under the Crimes Act of your own Government for treason is death, and by/for any m ember of the
judiciary it is imprisonment for life so help you God, and when you get there to prison that is - you will meet
the people who you yourself put in there, other sovereigns like m yself.
Under the Native Circuit Courts Act 1858, number 5, under section 32 of that Act. Such provisions come under
Section 32 of the Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993. (“TTWMMLA”).
Section 33 TTWM, ML Act 1993. Additional me mbers in relation to matters of representation - (1) where a
request is made to the Maori Land Court under section 30 (1) of this Act, the Chief Judge shall appoint two or
more additional me mbers (not being Judges of the Maori Land Court) to the Maori Land Court.
(2) Each person appointed under subsection (1) of this section shall possess knowledge and experience relevant
to the subject matter of the request.
(3) The chief judge shall, before appointing any persons under subsection (1) of this section for the purposes of
any request, consult, as the case may require, with the parties to the proceedings or with persons involved in
the negotiations, consultations, allocations, or other matter about the knowledge and experience that any such
person should possess.
Section 62. Additional m embers with knowledge and experience in Tikanga Maori - (1) Notwithstanding
anything in any other provisions of this Act, or any cases stated under Section 61(1) (b) of this Act, for the
opinion of the Maori Appellate Court, the Chief Judge may, if any party to the proceedings so requests, direct
that, for the purposes of the hearing of that case, the Maori Appellate court shall consist of -
(a) Three judges of the Maori Land Court; and
(b) One or two other m embers (not being judges of the Maori Land Court) to be appointed by the chief judge.
(2) Each person appointed under subsection (1) (b) of this section shall possess knowledge and experience of
Tikanga Maori.
(3) The Chief Judge shall, before appointing any person under subsection (1) (b) of this section for the
purposes of any hearing, consult with the parties to the proceedings about the knowledge and experience of
Tikanga Maori that any such person should possess.
Interpretation of “Tikanga Maori” m eans “Maori Customary values and practices.” Where do you go and
practice what is in accordance with Tikanga Maori? Back to your Marae. Where is the law that defines this, in
the He Whakaputanga o te Rangatira o Nu Tirene (Declaration of Independence) 1835 and Te Tiriti o Waitangi
(Treaty of Waitangi) 1840, and at what place are the creation and dispensation of laws to be made for Maori by
Maori? At Waitangi Marae, Waitangi.
Therefore, the court proceedings under Tikanga Maori shall be conducted by persons with the knowledge of
Tikanga Maori, back at the Marae are Maori customary values and practices, and on sitting on that Marae,
additional m embers and the judges of the Maori Land Court become a witness of the kawa of the Marae,
hurinoa to tatou whare, those are the people within the house who are the judges.
There are problems on our Marae today with entities such as Trust Boards created and constituted under the
Maori Trust Boards Act 1955, Incorporated Societies and the sort whom are constituted under the New Zealand
Settlers Parliament. They are however, artificial people or creatures and therefore , they do not settle between
Maori and European, they are only settling a deal with themselves, not with Maori.
Maori are a natural flesh and blood body, the NZ Parliament and all departments and people within those
departments operating under them are artificial bodies, corporately coloured entities or non living breathing
flesh and blood creatures/animals.
Maori Incorporations under Part XIII of Te Ture Whenua Maori. Maori Land Act 1993 (TTWM,ML Act 1993).
When you come up against a Maori Incorporation under Statute of Law , it has the same powers as Parliament. ]
When you’re dealing with Parliament your dealing with an animal , when you’re dealing with a Maori Incorporation
your dealing with a natural person and a natural body,.
Section 35 of TTWM, ML Act 1993 will indicate for you what a Maori Land Court is ; it has the same powers as the
High Court, for example;
Section 35 Fees and allowances - There shall be paid to any additional member of the Maori Land Court or Maori
Appellate Court appointed under Section 28(1) or Section 31(1) or Section 33(1) of this Act or by an order in
council made under section 27(1) of this Act, out of Public money, remuneration by way of fees, salary, or
allowances and travelling allowances and expenses in accordance with the Fees and Travelling Allowances Act
1951, and the provisions of that Act shall apply accordingly as if the Maori Land Court or the Maori Appellate
Court, as the case may require, were a statutory board within the meaning of that Act . As if, in which they are not a
statutory board.
The Jurisdiction of the Maori Land Court is this.
Section 237 Jurisdiction of Court generally — (1). Subject to express provisions of this Part of this Act , in respect
of any trust to which this section applies, the Maori Land Court shall have and may exercise all the same powers
and authorities as the High Court has (whether by statute or by any rule of law or by virtue of its inherent
jurisdiction) in respect of trusts generally.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall limit or affect the jurisdiction of the High Court.
So therefore the MLC has the same jurisdiction as the High Court, but the High Court’s jurisdiction is still retained
for the benefit of the settlers and not Maori and so when you talk of the High Court the Maori Land Court and any
other court for that matter, it is not a statutory body, but a Maori incorporation is a statutory body independent,
stands alone by Section 150, under the provisions of Section 150, the Maori Land Court has no jurisdiction over a
Maori incorporation.
Section 150 TTWM Act 1993 — Manner of alienation of undivided interests — (1) No undivided interest in any
Maori freehold land may be alienated otherwise than by vesting order made by the court under Part VIII of this Act ,
unless the court is of the opinion that the arrangement or agreement of the parties should be given affect to by
memorandum of transfer, and so orders.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section applies in relation to the alienation of -
(a) Shares in a Maori incorporation:
(b) Interests in shares in a Maori incorporation:
(c) Beneficial interests in land that, by virtue of Section 250 (2) of this Act, remain vested in the several
owners of that land despite the vesting of the legal estate in fee simple in that land in a Maori incorporation.
(3) No other interests in any Maori freehold land may be alienated otherwise than by;.
(a) An instrument of alienation, executed and attested in accordance with the rules of the court, and con
firmed by the court under Part VIII of this Act; or;.
(b) a vesting order made by the Court under that Part:.
(4) Nothing in subsection (3) of this section applies in relation to the alienation of any interest in Maori freehold
land that —.
(a) is effected — (i) by a Maori incorporation; or -
(ii) by the trustees of any trust constituted under Part X of this Act; and.
(b) Is not an alienation by way of sale or gift?
Which means that a Maori incorporation is totally independent from any other court. No other court has jurisdiction
over a Maori incorporation, and so when you walk into the District court or the magistrate ’s court you say, my
jurisdiction, I challenge your jurisdiction over me because I am a beneficiary of a Maori incorporation, I am tangata
whenua.
You can go through a process if you like, or you can go through by your own will . As the whakatauaki says, “A
lone tree in the forest is easy to bend and to break”.
If you go in an incorporated way under a Maori incorporation nothing can break you , because it is like a big animal,
there are many tentacles to a Maori incorporation. It can suck the life out of you if you oppose it or it can suck the
life out of your adversary, this is a Maori incorporation, this is a sovereign. What is sovereignty; I will give you an
understanding of what sovereignty is................
Sovereignty in the legal term when you’re using it against the settlers in a court of law - you must be describing
what sovereignty is, and according to Vattel, an old English writer on international law , sovereignty is vested in the
ruler of the land. It is a society of people who have united together to procure their safety and welfare. They govern
themselves under their own laws, this is sovereignty.
I will describe to-you what the common law is.
The common law is a judgement made by the Privy Council. The common law of the UK is made by the Privilege
Council of the monarch, in this case Her Majesty Queen-Elizabeth-the-Second. When a decision is made from there
it becomes a common law. The common law of the UK in relation to NZ preserves the Maori customary law in a
judgement of Lord Phillimore in 1901.
Case, Hineiti Rirerire Arani versus the Public Trustee, on the customary law, based on the statute, the 1846 New
Zealand Constitution Act and 1852 NZ Constitution Act, those are the statutes of the common law being upheld by
the Privy Council in their judgement that forms the common law.
As to the extinguishment of our customary rights in our lands , forests, fisheries and other taonga which includes
human resources.
Lord Davey in a case, Nireaha Tamaki vs Baker, and in the United States, Johnstone vs Macintosh. Lord Davey
stated that the issue of a Crown grant does not amount to extinguishment of the Native Title and now that the case
has been up before the Privy Council, the highest court in the land, the Crown lacked unreviewable prerogative
power in relation to the Native Title.
The Native Title being, all the rights, powers and privileges existing prior to the Treaty of Waitangi. Government
after that decision, a year following created a statute, trying to over rule the common law of the UK and they did it
again here (New Zealand) in a case called Willis vs the Attorney General, in the case where it affected the Bishop
of Wellington to a title of land and an agreement between the tribes in Wellington , that the bishop of Wellington
might be able to build a school.
The government issued a Crown grant to the Bishop of Wellington and was held in the High Court of Appeal that
the Crown grant gave the Bishop of Wellington full title to the land . The appeal went to the Privy Council via
Willis vs The Attorney General.
Presiding on the Privy Council was Lord Mac-naughten who stated, “We will have none of that.” The court was
not an instrument of executive dictate, it was up to the court to determine what a breach of trust was and Lord Mac-
naughten squashed the Crown grant issued to the Bishop of Wellington because it was insufficient.
Reason being, because the Crown had not purchased one inch of soil in New Zealand and I state an italic by way of
first right of pre-emption and the first right of refusal. Now when that decision went to the Privy Council Lord
Mac-naughten stated that, “it was rather late in the day for the Colonial bench to deny the Native title legal
status” and so in 1947 the Government adopting the Statutes of Westminster Act which gave them full power to
make laws for themselves it was subject to Section 8 which stated this , quote “Nothing in this Act shall give any
power to repeal the Constitution Act of the Colony of Australia or the Constitution Act of the Dominion of NZ”
unquote.
Again, years go by and in 1986 the New Zealand Settlers Parliament breached the Statutes of Westminster Adoption
Act 1947 and repealed the NZ Constitution Act 1852 and on repealing the Constitution Act of New Zealand they
gave it full power and chopped off their own neck because by the Constitution Act 1852 it was by that Statute that
they obtained from the British Crown a warrant to Govern themselves and they gave themselves full power to chop
off their own heads by repealing the NZ Constitution Act 1852.
New Zealand now stands in limbo. The NZ Settlers Parliament has no legal nor lawful constitution.
Three Regents of Her Majesty’s put together an Act called Te Ture Whenua Maori Act , Maori Bill, and in doing so,
the Government enacted the Conservation Act 1987. The Regents put on hold by the Common law that private land
under the Conservation Act means land referred to in the Maori Land Act 1993 or Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 .
That was to come into force some years later.
In the mean time in the year 1987, those three Regents put into force the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988.
Section 5 of that Act states that the common law of the United Kingdom shall form part of the law of NZ , reference
behind that was the Privy Council decision in 1947 concerning the Statutes of Westminster Adoption Act.
Following that came into place in 1991 the Resource Management Act ; resource management was for the managers
to act as interim managers of the resources. That meant that the Local Governments and the Minister of
Conservation, had to manage the resources and the conservation of those resources until the Maori Land Act could
be put into place and enacted into NZ. That Act took place in 1993 being the Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land
Act 1993.
Three Regents of Her Majesty’s put together an Act called Te Ture Whenua Maori Act , Maori Bill, and in doing so,
the Government enacted the Conservation Act 1987. The Regents put on hold by the Common law that private land
under the Conservation Act means land referred to in the Maori Land Act 1993 or Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 .
That was to come into force some years later.
In 1995 the land was conquered by International Law, it was taken under the law of conquest of International Law.
This occurred when the flags on the 6 of February 1995 , the flags of the NSW and NZ Company hit the ground and
the Governor Generals flag as the representative of the Crown came down and hit the ground.
The NZ “rag” (or flag) was trampled into the ground. The declaration of war was placed to the Governor-General
against the New Zealand Parliament by Maori, and when all the flags hit the ground at the Treaty grounds in
Waitangi in 1995 the Maori flag went up and hit the top of the mast , the Maori people had conquered back
Aotearoa, NZ.
In 1996 the Fisheries Act was put into place, was enacted and now it is up to Maori under the provisions of Section
17, amending Section 268 Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993 subsection (3) stating that, a Maori
incorporation by special resolution of the owners or shareholders may alter, add to or replace its constitution in
accordance with any provision of this Act or any regulations made under this Act. This includes the provisions of
Section 253 which states that, subject to this Act, Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act and any other enactment
and the General Law made by Parliament or any statute.
Subject to this Act the Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act and any other enactment both International and
National, and the general law made by parliament, subject to this Act and any other enactment and the general law,
every Maori incorporation made by Special Resolution including in its constitution or any restrictions imposed by
the court shall have both within and outside NZ, full capacity in the discharge of its obligation of the trust in the
best interests of the shareholders, to carry on or undertake any business or activity, do any act, or enter into any
transaction and, for the purposes of paragraph 3(a) of this section, full rights, powers, and privileges.
What it says is that, a Maori incorporation by the blink of an eye in front of a court of law in any court in NZ or in
any international court, Maori by special resolution says, meet my eye, hold on judge, we are just going outside and
we are going to pass a resolution changing the law, we think its about time we passed a resolution, we’re going to
change that law under Section 253 of TTWM,ML Act 1993, subject to this Act and any other enactment and the
general law made by Parliament.
You can change the law in an instant, bang! In Section 5 of TTWM,ML Act, it says, “This Act shall bind the
Crown”, so the Crown has said , we can change it, we can change any law. You can add to it, alter it or replace it
and we have full rights, powers and privileges to do that.
In all the cases that I have been involved with myself personally, before this Corporation business started up I was
exercising the same thing, my rights as a sovereign. The people were asking me, how come you’re getting away
with a lot of things that we don’t get away with. And I said “well I’m just doing my own thing, m inding my own
business, applying the law, and I’m getting away with it, that’s all.” At the end of the day, it is the quality of your
lawful and/or legal argument. When other people try it out and fail , they fail because they have not learnt the law
properly.
I have heard Judges running out of the court room, they say ah, we’ll adjourn, they read the affidavit and then they
adjourn and they say we’ll adjourn till 1 o’clock and then you look out the window on your side and you see the
judge still in his robe he’s running out to the car, hops in and takes off. In an hours time he comes back, and your
sitting and waiting for him and the registrar comes up and says the judge wont be back today, because of this and
that and so and so whilst putting on a brave face.
But the Ture... [is there for us all to use]... because we have a challenge put on our plate... to get back our
Whenua... it’s not so much of a challenge... it’s our way... we just need to do it... but in order to do that we got to
mahi [tangata kotahi!]... that’s a Law for you to use... when you are in great trouble.
First of all... we have a Partner in this Country... all right?... If that Partner does not exercise the Crown’s
[prerogative] then you come to me... What I am saying is the Governor-General first must give him , or her the first
opportunity... the Royal Regent can not intervene, until he’s been... until he or she has been acknowledged...
But with... [All] our Rangatahi invite you... we will be at some stage, we’re going to be... training people... because
I have been training a few up [ the North and they’re doing pretty well for themselves].., they are going and getting
other people out now...
(Lecture On Law) from Hohepa Mapiria Joseph (“Joe”) Murphy Royal Regent.
Recorded on 18/03/2002.
It is not Maori Customary Law but The (British Crown Law) the (British Crown) reaffirms the Tiro rangatiratanga
of Maori and then they give them a (MANDATE) and not quite a (mandate) in that the (British Crown) does not
have any powers to make (Laws) for Maori but they can make Laws for (Her People) and therefore Te Ture Whenua
Maori Act is Binding on the British Crown and upon ALL European Institutions such like its Courts and the
Ministers of the British Crown AND ALL its Departments. It’s an Act that is binding on all the European
Institutions to this - Law that effects Maori. Maori are not bound by any other Law either and so, Te Ture is referred
to by (Tika).
TIKA - There he is, starting from the (preamble) of every Act. (Legislated) by (Parliament) of (NZ), (or Parliament
of England). In this case Act was legislated by the (Parliaments) (of England) (Westminster). You would find that
their (Parliament of Westminster) are giving instructions to (Parliament of N Z and all its Courts) giving (Directors)
and so, when we look at the (preamble), The Preamble in any Act is The Intention of the Act in Te Ture . We have the
Maori version - and the European-version) Now it’s up to you fellas to choose.
(Refer) to (Sec) (2) (Subsection) (1) Without limiting the generality of (Subsection) (1) of this Section. It is the
intention of Parliament that the powers, duties and discretion’s conferred by this Act possible in a manner that
facilitates and promotes the retention use, development and control of Maori owners, their whanau, their Hapu and
their descendants.
(Section)(2) Interpretation of Act Generally - (1) It is the intention of parliament that the provisions of this Act.
Interpretation of Maori Terms - In this Act unless the Context otherwise requires...
Ahi Ka – Ahi means the Fires of Occupation Ka - means Guardians.
Tikanga Maori - means Customary Values and Practices Tupuna - means Ancestor.
Whanaunga - means a person related by blood.
Whangai - means a person related by adoption in accordance with Tikanga Maori.
Okay, those are the things we can (Legislate from). Okay [Parliament knows about that]. That is why we stuck all
those words, they’re all right. They do not know - everything (Westminster Parliament) that’s what they have
picked up okay and then they have put it into (Section)(3). What they think it means the (UK). It’s not necessary
exactly to the Maori but it’s up to the Maori to say “Oh, That Teka does not mean that, it means this (Okay?) and
so, in order to create something that is going to (Bind) [Court - Kooti in the Land NZ and even Parliament - in
New Zealand] You have got to have the power. Maori incorporation’s have that power. There is no mistake but
where to find it? I will show you later.
But first we are going to find out what is this [What is the name of it? [Te Ture Whenua Maori Maon Land Act] and
so, What does this Act relate to? [is the Law of Maori for their Land and Maori People] All right, that is why
(Two) Maori) (Maori) - it says it twice (one) is Te Ture Whenua Maori and then it goes [Land Act] . We know that
the [Title is unextinguished] and so it is the WHOLE OF (AOTEAROA) and then the (intention). In (Section)(2)
(Westminster Parliament) is that we take control - every whanau , every hapu, every descendant. We [retain the
ownership of Aotearoa and (Maori)(retain) the rights of control. That is what the Law is saying and it’s not a
maybe. It’s not a maybe and the Courts in NZ and where the (Minister) of (Parliament of NZ) are concerned it’s a
[because it’s a Directive by the [[You [reaffirm all right. You listen to the words in Subsection (1) of Sub (2) as he
reads through and I go with the words There and There etc.
Those are the important words in that [Subsection (1) of Section (2) Interpretation of the Act generally it is the
Intention of [that the provision of this [Shall].
There be interpreted in a manner that best furthers the principles set out in the Preamble to this Act.
2 (sub) Sect (2) Without Limiting the generality of (Subsection)(1) of. this Section it is the Intention of (Parliament)
that the powers, duties and discretion conferred by this [Shall] be exercised as far as possible in a manner that
facilitates and promotes the retention use Development and control of Maori Land as Taonga Tuku Iho by Maori
owners, their whanau, their hapu and their Descendants.
All right to have [CONTROL] 3 (sub) Sect (3) In any event of any conflict in meaning between the Maori and the
[English Version] of the (preamble) [Maori Version Shall Prevail].
Now you go up to the top of the preamble and you see [in the Maori Version and [now what is your Interpretation of
that session at the Marae. That our (Maori Parliament) is at the Marae and your (Kooti) and so you insert the word
in (section) (3) down below where you have got [Ka] (Marae) (Kooti) or (Court) or Kooti Marae mean Maori
(Customary Kooti or Court) or (Parliament) Kooti. Interpretation of Kooti means Maori Customary values and
practices held on the Marae and so you add it in that section as Marae, as meaning to you okay.
Now, the power to do that is by a (Maori Incorporation) exercised by its owner. These are the (sections) that give
the [the Tautoko to do all this to the Laws,’ the [Law] [All right now you go to the High authority in NZ. Remember
who we were looking for this year at Waitangi, it was (The Governor General) and it is Binding on the (Crown UK).
Maori do not need their signature, all you need is the tools at the Marae - a (Maori Incorporation putting their
(Seal) to it, okay? You have the (British Crown Mandate) by the Te Ture Whenua Maori - Maori Land Act (This Act
Shall Bind the Crown UK) (section) (5) - bind them to it)(okay?) Now we go to section (5) Act to bind the Crown -
every thing in it that (Maori me) exercise in it is binding on (Parliament of Westminster UK) (Parliament of NZ) the
(Settler Government) the Ministers of the Crown UK., Judges and Officials and all Departments - Government
Departments. This Act is Binding on ALL OF them to uphold and everything that’s in it. That gives direction that
these Maori Incorporations do their own thing is binding on them.
Okay, Now we go to (Part XIII) Maon Incorporations - that who has the authority to do such things as
[Rangatiratanga Legally] - (Maori Incorporations). The Crown UK is saying who I will listen to - no one else , NO
ONE ELSE will listen because I have traced my pattern from the very beginning (1835) and I know where he is
today. Okay, that pattern is that person who owns the Land. The Land Owner, yes, and in Terms of the (European
& English - Version) who owns the shares in the Land as well . In terms of (Tikanga Maori) values & practices the
people that care for the Land are the (Kaitiaki). Okay what is in Part XIII Section (246) is Interpretations.
Okay, this is the English Version of what they think Maori is - a Maori Inc. by values - Maori do not have that thing
called dollars in land do they? - so you ignore that and then say: “I want to be here now”.
And so you go to (section ) (284) of Part XIII.
(204) Regulations-(1) the Governor General may from time to time by order in Council make Regulations
prescribing the form of Constitution that is to be the constitution for every Maori Incorporation.
(Read it again) the Governor General is from time to time by order in Council make Regulation prescribing the form
of the constitution) that is to be the Constitution for every Maori Incorporation.
All right I look at the preamble and I say oh, in (subsection) (2) of the preamble so, I look at Te Tiriti 0 Waitangi
and I say (Al) the Governor General (S allowed to make Regulations because my tupuna signed Te Tiriti with them
to make those (Laws) - he is allowed to make regulations but he has to do that in (Council) with a (Maori
Incorporation) - he has to do it in Council with Maori Incorporation : and so the Governor deliberately made some
Regulations without our consent and so all he/she is doing is making some guide lines to follow. What he is saying
is it up to you, Maori, to change it if you want.
(Amendment Act 1994) flip it over.
Read (Section) (17) (Sub) (3) Maori Amendment Act (1) July (1994) (Sect) 17 sub (3) - A Maori Inc to have a
Constitution (sub) (sect) (3) a Maori Inc made by Special Resolution of the Shareholder Alter Add or Replace it ’s
Constitution in accordance with any provision of this Act or any Regulation made under this Act.
All right, so you can understand that you can change Te Ture Whenua Maori Land Act because it says so, does it?
Yes - that what is says so in the (Law) and it is Binding on the British Crown . The Crown UK has already given it’s
royal assent to that action so you can change Te Ture Whenua any how you want to.
Question? -
When was Royal Assent given? - in (1994)? -(1993) and again in (1997) before (That)................
(Tape Ended)...............
Side (2).
(Provisions for Marae systems).
Provisions for our Marae systems is (Kooti). In the preamble it means Maori customary Lore’s that is practiced at
the Marae and so you have the power to insert that under that provision (284) (Sub) (17) (3) and adjust any
Regulations in the Act (Te Ture) in which says that you have Regulations made by the (Governor General)
controlling the (Courts) the Maori Land Court - you have regulation’s governing the Maori Appellate Courts and so
Maori can change those Regulations and your own because of the Act . It’s an (Empowering Section) says every
Maori Incorporation made by special Resolution of the [Alter Add to or Replace it’s constitution in accordance with
any provisions of this act or any regulations made under this act . This is done in accordance with the rules at a
special General Meeting. This can be regulated in our own constitution - (yes).
Question? -
The owners are all the Land Owners, Shareholders - yes -
That forms the (Incorporation) - yes - that gives it the (Mana) Land (NZ).
Once you became (Incorporated) you became the owner of the whole of Aotearoa not one little block that is where
you begin - I am here I started from this piece of Land. Then I spread out with more people coming in to join in
(Lands) (included) in Incorporation’s (Sec) (251). Inclusion in Incorporation of owners of additional (Maori Land).
And so when you insert something into the act you (insert it) then you put the (Date) the (time) and then you hold
that Resolution on your Incorporation records - okay?
Okay, now throughout the whole of Te Ture Whenua Maori Maori Land Act every word that says (Court) Maori can
change every word to what you (Interpret) to what ever you want to in the (Preamble) (Marae) (Kooti) if you want to
you do away with the European words and put in your Maori Version and then the whole act changed the to Te Ture
Whenua Maori Act has now changed to meaning (Court) has been replaced - and so when It say ’s the (MLC) you
just change it’s name to (Marae) (Kooti) (Whenua) you are changing the whole Te Ture to suit Maon people and you
have got that authority to do all of that under this act and a (Maori me) and then you have the tautoko of the British
Crown it’s already given it’s royal Assent to it -ok.
Now as far as (The Laws of Parliament is concerned) and t Ture Whenua (sec) (253) capacity and powers of Inc
subject to this act and any other enactment and general Law.
Subject to Te Ture Whenua and any other Law like enactment and the general Law, and express limitations or
resolutions imposed by the - (Marae) (Kooti) every (Maori me) has both within and outside NZ in Addition to the
powers expressly conferred to by this part of this act.
A full capacity in the discharge of the obligations of the trust in the best interest of the Shareholders to carry on or
undertake, And business or activity do An or enter into A Transaction. and;
B for the purpose of paragraph A of this section Full Rights powers and privileges provision for within - outside of
NZ International (1835) Declaration of Independence.
That means the Shareholders can do any thing within NZ and outside of NZ. If the Shareholders want to change a
Law the Shareholders can change under this (section).
Question? Can the shareholder of a Maori Inc change the Land Transport Act for instance.
Answer - yes.
It goes like this subject to this act and the (LTAct) and the general Law - or if the shareholders want to any other
enactment - lets say.
- MLC -Maori Appellate Kooti - (Let here the District Courts act - 1947. Ah I’m sick of listening to them, I want
the Maori Inc to have the power over them - I am the High Kooti an Incorporation gives itself that power.
Under the provisions of (section) (237) of Te Ture whenua Maori Land Act 1993 (237) (jurisdiction of Court-Kooti
generally) - (1) subject to the express provisions of this part of this act in respect of any trust to which this section
applies the Kooti Maraé (Shall) have and may exercise all the same powers and Authorities as the (High Kooti).
Ok and you have got that word (Shall) (Maori Me) is a Higher Kooti than they are because why and can change the
Law right here now.
By special resolution of my shareholders that are sifting in (Our Court Room) (here today) OK.
A Maori Inc can pass one now and adjust the Law , and I’m the (Boss). Their is absolutely no doubt that all persons
exercising powers conferred by Te Ture Whenua Maori Act - Ministers of the Crown , Judges Officials of the
Departments for Courts - must do so in a way that affirms the Rangatiratanga of Maori “Embodied” in the treaty of
Waitangi. This is mandatory the provision in sec(2) (1) quoted above is “ (which is not a may be). As to the
Affirmation of Rangatiratanga in the preamble whilst the english versions says that it is “desirable” that
Rangatiratanga be reaffirmed the Mãori Version of the preamble says that it is “tika” that it be reaffirmed Again,
that is a “Must” and not a “may be”. By sec 2 (3) of the act where there is doubt between the Maori and English
versions of the preamble, the Maori version prevails.
(They just have to uphold it) (everyone), because the (Queen UK) is the (Highest Parliament) in the (European
System) has directed to you (Shall) those fellas understand how Te Ture Whenua works, it’s the biggest thing
making sure that your own Ownership of the (Native Title) the Native Title is the Declaration of Independence
(1835) and the Law you are changing it to (Derives) from (Te Tiriti o Waitangi (1840) and [between the British
crown - and Maori are Kaitiaki - means guardians - in English (Maori me) are only exercising their Rangatiratanga
that’s what...... It is there are no other Law that Maori need to be Accountable to if you fellas today understanding
on how Te Ture works it’s our (protection) our (Korowai) it’s your (patu) but it’s (not) (Mãori Law) but it’s to get
us into our (Lore’s) and (Free) ourselves.
There’s things about Waitangi these Days you need not worry, about other people or other Tribes thinking if they are
confused and in the Confusion they can be but it does you fellas that are here today have to be.
(Keep the clear focus thinking) and just proceed keep proceeding forwards the rest of our people can catch up later ,
now you have a bit of understanding of Te Ture Whenua and how it works does not concern any one else but you
fellas here today ok.
Now when you create your (Maori Government) over your Hapu you need plenty of workers plenty of workers to
work your (Maori Government) with jobs to do and so , we go to (section) (211) this is how you bring the other
(shareholders) in to the (Me) to give a hand to the job of the Management Committee is to (Formulate) the (Law).
Write the Laws that are (past) by the (shareholders) in these portfolios 211-1 is to be read out.
(Section) (211) (sub) (1) Maori Land Kooti to have exclusive Jurisdiction.
(1) The Maori Land court shall have exclusive Jurisdiction to constitute - putea - trust Whanau Trusts - Ahu
Whenua Trusts - Whenua Topu and Kaitiaki Trusts in accordance with this Part of this Act.
All right the (Maori Land Court) has that (Jurisdiction) No, No, No, No, No, No, It’s changed when you made that
(Te Kooti Marae) the reference has changed it was taken out and Replaced and if you do not understand that the
English Law provides like what Lord Dinning said on one of HB decisions he said in his life time when an (Privy
Council) that the Law is Like an (Ass) it tends to contradict its self It ’s says one thing on one Hand then an other
thing on the other Hand he says about (English Law) . And so - you read subsection (1) and then read subsection (2)
it will show you and (Arse) - (Ass) (section) (211) of Te Ture Whenua Maori - Maori Land Act 1993.
Maori Land Court to have exclusive Jurisdiction (1) the MLC.
Shall have exclusive Jurisdiction to constitute putea - Trust.
Whanau Trust - Ahu Whenua Trust - Whenua Topu Trust and Kaitiaki Trust in accordance with this part of
this Act.
(Subsection) (2) nothing in this section prevents any person - (Any Person Means A Natural Person) or a (Body
corporate) in other words a (Maori me).
A Natural person in the English version means a (Body Corporate) all right and so it means a body corporate can
create a Trust but a Trust cannot create an (Incorporation).
And so we have these fellas like the Tainui Trust Board its under the Trust Boards Act - and Incorporation Societies
- they do not have any power over (Maori me) they cannot create anyone but a (Maori me) can dissolve it at the
same time by the (Resolution) made by the shareholders (Special Resolution).
And if the shareholders want to dissolve those (Trust Boards) for Management Committee by special resolution of
the shareholders will have to know how to rewrite Te Ture Whenua and then you say (Maori Trust Boards Act) is
(Hereby Repealed) its a (Maori me).
By using that (section) (253) all right it says subject to this act or any other Enactments - in this case we are saying
Trust Board act Is Hereby (Repealed) and therefore it Exists no longer when the Settlers Government in Wellington
read your Act when they see it and there Courts Districts the Pakeha Land Courts - they have (No Adhoc).
That means they have no Lawful Authority to exercise (the Trust in the people they profess to exercise it for)
themselves. That is the Mana of the Maori Inc and you can see it in the Act (Maori me ’s) are accountable to there
shareholders -the owners are in (Control) if the Management do not do the right thing they have that power to
remove you from Office.
Understand what you do inside of and Incorporation have no fear nor FAVOUR of anyone but yourself.
Question? - I would like to make Legislation Binding on the schools to look after our (Children).
Ok now we come to that (Section) (211) (2) (Maori me) can create Trusts - Putea Trust ok , well that involves
Monies and so we want our own Tax Systems in (NZ) for your people and every body else because they have to do it
he... the (me) set up their own system - and passports under your (Putea Trust you constitute it.
The your Whanau Trust under that Trust portfolio and that Trust can be like something - Family Court to handle
Family Affairs - instead of CYP pushing you (CYPS) around The Whanau Trusts pushes (CYPS) around but we have
to constitute it first we the Boss to take back our Taonga Iho back all right that’s on the Whanau Trust.
And then you can have your ordinary Family Trust to occupy any piece of Land any where around the Country that
sort of thing you and your (Hapu) you can say that is my Whenua forever and have it (Recorded) of that Trust so no
other Family can interfere with that you have got the (Ahika) means - [of Occupations Forever].
The Colours of our National flag of New Zealand......... This Haki was given to our Tupuna in 1834 - and on the
sixth of February 1835 it’s Acknowledged by - King William IV.
The Maori Declares their Independence to this Country called Aotearoa to the Soil and everyone living on it the
Rights of Self Governance is put in written Form.
1) Maori have their own Flag or Haki.
2) International Recondition of our haki and our Laws - dec linde.
3) We have protection - External- Sovereignty.
4) Then will give protection to Queen - Victoria (Subjects who have resorted to these shores for the purposes of
Trade - only).
5) Lore - is put into -(English Terms Law) and so the rest of the world know of the Declaration of Independence
1835 and then our just rights were put to paper and made Lore.
The meaning of the Haki:.
The First Four Whetu- 4 Corners of Earth.
The Second Four Whetu - Nga Hau E Wha.
The Eight points - Whetu - the Eight Waka That Migrated to Aotearoa.
The Small Red Cross Represents - The Southern Cross.
(Father or King William).
The British haki.
The Thick Set Union Jack Represents - King Hori.
The Red going Long Ways Represents - King William.
The Thick White Cross Represents - Saint Patrick.
The Thin White Crosses - Saint Andrew Cross.
The Blue (Sea) or for Scotland.
18. Most of the Tenets of the New Zealand Constitution were uplifted from the English Constitution including values and norms
as well as Institutions including Common Law Doctrine. The dictates or Authoritative Instructions (Oxford Dictionary) , are
usually regarded as being ‘Superior Law’ which stands above all other Law however and by whom passed , and all sectors of
Society including the elected Assembly, Executive and Courts would be subject to the Constitution. This Entrenchment could
place substantial restraint on future Governments to Legislate and has not been made part of New Zealand Statute Law , though
it remains a convention and Tenet of Common Law.
tenet: a doctrine held by some one - principle - precept - belief -.
The manner of entrenchment will usually be included within the Constitution itself i .e. Sec. 73 dictates, this differs from
entrenched provisions in a normal Statute, because Parliament could not legislate to repeal the entrenched constitutional
provisions as would be the case if they were contained in a Statute which could itself be repealed.
Having a written Constitution could have also led to any or all Legislation being passed by Parliament made Ultra Vires by the
Courts. New Zealand has therefore maintained a Constitution which is unwritten. Being unwritten does not mean that all its
provisions are merely residing in Common. Law or verbal form. It is possible to have aspects which are in the form of
Legislation or an executive decree (e.g. Sec. 73). Where the Constitution is unwritten it can be a matter of doubt whether or not
a specific document, Act of Parliament, or aspect of Common Law is of Constitutional status (i.e. 1986 Act, preamble and Sec.
26 in relation to Sec. 73). While being unwritten it is well defined!
Prior to the 1986 Constitution Act, ‘Superior Law’ in New Zealand was Entrenched in the 1852 Act, passed by Westminster
Parliament. Therefore the dictates contained therein are to be considered Superior Law and any breach capable of being Judged
Ultra Vires. Otherwise why was there a need to reform the 1852 Act with the 1986 Constitution Act?
19. Section 53 of the 1852 Act gave the General Assembly the power to make Laws for the “... peace, order and good
Government of New Zealand provided that no such Laws be repugnant to the Laws of Englan d ... and such Laws... by the
Genera/Assembly and thereto any Provincial Council and made or ordained by any Provincial Council being repugnant or
inconsistent with any Act passed by the General Assembly shall be null and void . ‘ this includes Dr Gillings analysis of the
1860 Settlements Amendment Act in paragraph 21.
These restrictions relating to repugnancy to English Law were removed when New Zealand adopted the Statute of Westminster
1931 with the Statute of Westminster Act 1947, which was an Act of New Zealand Parliament (now repealed by 1986 Act). While
this took place, doubt remained as to the New Zealand Parliaments Legislative competence in that it could only make Laws for
the “peace, order and good Government of New Zealand” making it possible for a New Zealand Court to declare an Act of the
New Zealand Parliament Ultra Vires; in that it was not for the “peace, order and good Government of New Zealand ”. This being
so until the 1973 New Zealand Constitution Amendment Act was passed attempting to rectify that situation . The 1973
Amendment debate conceded that the Statute of Westminster and 1947 Amendment Act gave New Zealand Parliament complete
Sovereignty and therefore could alter or repeal the whole of the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 . Obviously this was still not
completed or the case, as the final attempt took place with the 1986 New Zealand Constitution Act , brought about partly by
political issues in regard to the handing over of power in the 1984 Election.
20. Section 26 of the 1986 Act is an important provision which provides that three traditional planks of our Constitution were to
cease to have effect in New Zealand. These were the 1852 Act, the 1931 Statute of Westminster Act and the 1947 Constitution
Amendment Act. These being Acts of UK Parliament however could not be repealed by New Zealand Parliament . The question is
how could the New Zealand Government Legislate an enactment for Laws to cease to have effect as part of the Law of New
Zealand, when they can not be removed by repealing: The difference between the two being in actual fact an exercise in
semantics! They mean the same thing therefore Sec. 26 is Null and Void!.
semantics: the branch of philogy concerned with the meaning meaning connotations interpretations of symbols i.e. road signs etc other than words.
philogy ; th e study esp ecially historical and comparative of language the study of literature love of learning of literature.
Use of the 1931 Westminster Act provide: “Nothing in this Act shall give any power to repeal tile Constitution Act of the Colony
of Australia or the Constitution Act of the Dominion of New Zealand ” As the Law relating to extinguishment of Native Title is
part of the Common Law of England as well as Superior Law, in Laws relating to the establishment of Colonial Government in
New Zealand, then Sec. 73 of the 1852 Act can not have ceased to have effect as per Sec . 26-1986 Act. And must have always
been and still be in place, as per the Law e.g. Landon and Whitaker Claims Act 1871 “The Crown is bound, both by the
Common Law of England and its own solemn engagements, to a full recognition of the Native Proprietary right i.e. Aboriginal
Title. Whatever the extent of that right by established Native Custom appears to be, the Crown is bound to respect it”, and
through Statute such as Sec. 145 TTWMMLA.
21. As parts of the 1852 Act applied to a Sovereign Nation i.e. Maori, they, under Common Law doctrine could not be altered or
repealed as they were outside the scope of another Sovereignty to touch. They were in regards to agreements between the Crown
of England and Maori and under Sections 71, 72, and 73 Dictates, the General Assembly had no Prerogative Power unless
conducted and authorised in a certain manner and legality.
22. If, for arguments sake it being the case that such Laws can cease to have effect, as part of the Law of New Zealand, post the
1986 Act; then that implicitly implies that they were part of the Laws of New Zealand prior to 1986 , and were of a ‘Superior
Law’ nature, as they are authoritative Instructions or Dictates. They have been addressed over time as to the possible nature of
all New Zealand Parliament’s Acts being Ultra Vires!
If the 1852 Constitution Act is not a form of entrenched Superior Law , then the New Zealand Colonial Assembly
known as the Government or the Crown would have no legality whatsoever in this Country!
implicitly : implied though not expressed absolute unquestioning to show a person to be concerned to lead as to consequence or inference.
23. Ultra Vires rests on the principle that a power given to a person to do something extends only to that thing i.e. “goo4 order
and governance law”. Thus if a particular provision contained in delegated Legislation (i.e. 1862-1909 Land Act Sec. 84-100)
goes beyond the scope of the powers conferred (either expressly or impliedly) on the delegate (i .e. Governor and General
Assembly) by the enabling Act (i.e. 1852 Sec. 73), the provision is said to be Ultra Vires (beyond powers of the delegate) and is
unenforceable. The principle still applies even if the delegated legislation has been sanctioned by a confirming Authority
(General Assembly). The provision can not be treated as invalid and unenforceable until it has been declared to be so by a Court
of Competent Jurisdiction! While the provision is declared by the Privy Council, arguably the Judicial Committee is not a Court,
hence the requirement of this case to be heard in this Court under TTWMMLA Part 1 Sec.18 1) (h) and Part VI Sec 131 1) or the
High Court under TTWMMLA Part I Sec. 18 2), Part 111 Sec. 721) or Part VI Sec. 131 3). All provisions of the 1852 Act were
Law in New Zealand and provided to be upheld by the General Assembly in the described manner or be null and void.
prerogative: a right or privilege exclusive to an individual or class.
24. While Section 53 of that Act was (arguably) removed by the 1973 Act, which was to do with the General Assembly’s ability
and prerogative to make general Laws, the sections relating to Aboriginal Native Inhabitants and their Land provided for
Prerogative Power to be maintained by the Sovereign, heirs and descendants, and were proscribed unless certain Instructions
were forwarded in a certain manner. These provisions, were as stated contained in Sec. 71, 72 and 73. Sec. 72 being Instructions
as to the Demesrre Lands of the Crown and Sec. 73 being Instructions as to Land Acquisition and extinguishment of Aboriginal
Native Land Rights.
proscribed: to forbid by law to denounce as dangerous to put person outside of the protection of the law to banish to exile.
25. These sections being in regard to Sovereign People as recognised by the Crown of England and the Common Law of England ,
and being enshrined in a document pertaining to those rights, called Te Tiriti 0- Waitangi, could therefore not be repealed by
New Zealand Parliament or cease to have effect. (Refer Imperial Laws Applications Act 1988 , Sec. 3.1, Sec. 5 and 1st and 2nd
Schedule). The 1986 Act itself proclaims the Sovereign to be the Head of State of New Zealand, therefore the Royal styles,
privileges and functions still apply, even post 1986 and must be considered to be in place. This must include all agreements
made with a Sovereign Nation. The Maori Nation being such a Nation, can not have Law which was enacted to protect such a
Nation removed by another or declared to cease to exist when such Law is part of the Common Law of England is declared by
the Imperial Law Applications Act to still be the Law in New Zealand! and enshrined in Statute Law, e.g. Sec. 145 TTWMMLA.
ABORIGIINAL TITLE - PROTECTION AND LEGALITY.
26. In regards to Land Acquisition and extinguishment, Sec. 73 states:.
“... Saving as to the lands of Aboriginal Native Tribes. It shall not be lawful for any person other than her Majesty, her heirs or
successors, to purchase, or in anyway acquire or accept, from the aboriginal natives land of or belonging to, or used or occupied
by them in common as tribes or communities, or to accept any release or extinguishment of the rights of such aboriginal natives
in any such land as afore- said; and no conveyance or transfer, or agreement for the conveyance or transfer of any such land,
either absolutely or conditionally, and either in property, or by way of lease or occupancy, and no such release or
extinguishment, as aforesaid, shall be of any validity or effect, unless the same be made to, or entered into with, and accepted
by, her Majesty, her heirs or successors: PROVIDED ALWAYS, That it shall be lawful for her Majesty, her heirs and successors,
by instructions under the Signet and Royal Sign Manual or signified through one of her Majesty’s principal Secretaries of State,
to delegate her powers of accepting such conveyances or agreements, releases or relinquishments. to the Governor of New
Zealand, or the Superintendent of any province within the limits of such province, and to prescribe or regulate the terms on
which such conveyances or agreements, releases, or extinguishments, shall be accepted...”.
27. The Sovereign heirs and successors have not entered into any of those provisions, for lease, occupancy or extinguishment on
this Land, nor have they provided Signet, Sign Manual Instructions or signification through the Principal Secretary of State for
delegation of those Prerogative Powers. Therefore according to Law, all such conveyances are null and void!
conveyance: a means of transport a vehicle the transfer of property a deed effecting this.
prerogative: a right exclusive to an individual or class.
28. Prerogative Power, pre-1986, could be exercised by the Government, through the Governor, only if Law Dictate were
adhered to, which they were not, as the Provisions of Sec. 73 were not fulfilled. A Court of competent jurisdiction has the power
to determine whether Prerogative Powers have been exercised properly! While Parliament has unfettered Law making powers and
can abrogate Common Law by passing more Legislation , this can not apply to Sovereign agreements with a recognised Nation ,
and Law enactment’s in place to protect such rights including the Common Law of England, can not be removed without being
illegal..
abrogate: to repeal to cancel.
This was upheld in 1847 by Privy Council Decisions such as R. vs Symonds 1847 NZPCC 387n where it was held that Maori
Customary Title could not be extinguished otherwise than by Legislation or the free consent of the people i.e. Maori Nation. This
free consent being through Maori Tikanga outside of any Body controlled by Government Legislation! This free consent has
never been given The Sovereignty of the Crown did not automatically mean extinguishment of Maori Customary Title. The Court
also found that the correct method described by Te Tiriti 0 Waitangi was to sell to the Crown (Sovereign) which could give Title
to the new purchasers (Sec. 72 and 73, 1852 Act). Only the Crown (Sovereign) could extinguish Customary Title of Maori (Sec.
73, 1852), therefore Maori held their Land under a valid Customary Title.
29. Prior to 1840 the Maori People were the Sovereign People of New Zealand and had full Sovereign capacity, albeit without
central Government, as recognised by Europeans. International Law has long held that as long as a territory was occupied by a
People then the Sovereignty of territory resided with the people resident in the territory. In the Western Sahara case the
International Court of Justice noted by the 19th Century: “All territories inhabited by tribes or peoples having a Social and
Political organisation were not regarded as Terrae Nullius. In the case of such territories the acquisition of Sovereignty
was concluded through agreements with local rulers]’: Note: Article 1, Tiriti 0 Waitangi.
30. The decisions in regard to Indigenous Ownership rights over Land were not based on Te Tiriti provisions, which were an
agreement to pursue a particular course of action, but on the Common Law principle of Aboriginal Title. Article II, can be seen
in that light and confirms the concept of that Common Law Dictate. Maori did not have to rely on Te Tiriti in order for the
Courts to uphold their interest in their Lands and so long as the Crown (Sovereign) had not extinguished Aboriginal Rights, then
Maori could enforce their Title to their Land through the Municipal Courts , provided the Municipal Courts in New Zealand were
prepared to recognise the doctrine of Aboriginal Title. As the Sovereign has not extinguished Aboriginal Rights and the New-
Zealand Municipal Courts uphold Common Law and International. Law, e.g. Bill Of Rights Act 1990, Imperial Law Applications
Act 1988, TTWMMLA and others, the Court of Appeal has upheld the right for Land Court to investigate Native Title, the
Common Law of England is still part of the Laws in New Zealand, and as Aboriginal Title is upheld in Common and
International Law then the Court has acknowledged Aboriginal Title and this case is valid and justiciable.
31. New Zealand attitudes to Te Tiriti and the Instructions of the Crown in 1852 and other Acts, as well as Privvy Council
Decision in R. vs Symonds were demonstrated by the WI Parata vs Bishop of Wellington case where the Court at the time (1877)
declared Te Tiriti a nullity, as Maori were incapable of performing civilised duties. This prejudice was upheld again in the Wallis
vs Solicitor General Decision of local Courts in 1903 . Both Decisions of the New Zealand Courts were incorrect and Ultra Vires,
and ignored evidence such as communications between Chiefs and the Crown on Legislation up to 1860 , e.g. Instructions of
1846 Chapter XIV, Sec. 6 being repealed by Sign Manual 14th July 1848 and the passing of 1858 Legislation Native Districts
Regulations Act and Circuits Court Act, none of which was possible without the ‘ body politic assuming the rights of a civilised
Community)’.. “and communicating those rights and duties to its equitable partner”.
In Wallis vs Solicitor General 1903 the Privvy Council reminded New Zealand Courts and Legislators of the importance of
recognising the rights of Indigenous People and the legality that Aboriginal Title was part of the body of Common Law
applicable in New Zealand (i.e. 1852 Act). The response was to ignore the reminder, and to pass specific Legislation in 1909 , by
Amendment to the Land Act, extinguishing Customary Title in relation to Maori Land i.e. extinguishment of Aboriginal Title.
Thus ignoring the fact that Aboriginal Title had legal force as recognised by English Common Law (applied after Sovereignty
transferred to the Colonial Power) and other Common Law Jurisdictions including USA, Canada and Africa and International
Law.
SUMMARY.
32. As the occupiers of Customary Lands could exert that Title against any person , the only means for the Government to
extinguish Aboriginal Title was Legislative action.
33. We claim that action was unlawful. The fact being that though the New Zealand General Assembly had Sovereignty to pass
and make Laws, they were only for the “peace, order and good Government of New- Zealand ” as empowered by the Common
Law of England through the 1852 Act: Prerogative Power to extinguish Aboriginal Title was specifically delegated to take place
in a described and proscribed manner; which did not happen! The passing of such legislation was not for the “good order and
peace” as a large section of the population was disenfranchised, rendered landless without the means to pursue their Customs
and Usages: so therefore was and must be unlawful! The extinguishment of Native Title was unlawful as it was a misuse of
Crown Prerogative Power: Therefore all decisions and transactions taking place from the Native Land Acts provisions relating to
extinguishment of Native Title, are to be declared Ultra Vires, unlawful and null and void.
34. Whether or not Sec. 73 of the 1852 Act was removed by the 1986 Act ; it was in place prior to 1986 and must be considered
Superior entrenched Law as it was Dictates or Authoritative Instructions . Therefore unless there is QtP that in 1862 the
Sovereign, Her Majesty Queen Victoria, gave her Signet and Sign Manual through her Principal Secretary of State in the
described manner of Sec. 73, then the removal of Crown pre-emption was illegal and all subsequent legislation and judgements
regarding Maori Land through such legislation Null and Void, and Ultra Vires.
RELIEF.
35. We seek Judgement of the Court as to the Ultra Vires and unlawful nature of the alienation decisions on this Land , and seek
orders to the same in regard to invalidity of Fee Simple General Title, and a Judgement recognising that the Land is still in
Native Title and therefore Ownership!
36. If jurisdiction is not found in the Maori Land Court we seek orders transferring the case to High Court Judicial Review by
the Administrative Division regarding the misuse of Prerogative Power.
1. The Land in question was alienated by the Crown through confiscation. 2. The title was changed to General Land in 1907.
3. That transaction was illegal as it entailed a misuse of Crown Prerogative Power. 4. That transaction was Ultra Vires and is
unenforceable and Null and Void. 5. Therefore the Land is still in valid Maori Customary Title. 6. We seek orders recognising
those facts contained herein.