Te Kaupapa

Ki Te Kaitiaki Trust
O Nga Tikanga Maori Law Society (Inc.)

Tino Rangatiratanga
Whare Wananga
Study Course

Page 1 of 8
 INTRODUCTION

This material is intended to enlighten the student on the legal standing and
explanation of the subject of Tino Rangatiratanga, Maori Sovereignty. The basic
course gives an in-depth understanding of the constitutional documents of Aotearoa
(NZ) in the 1830 – 1840 era, the historical significances from a legal perspective both
nationally and internationally and answers some of the confusions of the past and
present pertaining to this subject. The more advanced courses gives the student the
legal understanding of the foundation, the structure, and the process of law in order to
exercise, advance and protect such rights, powers and privileges as indigenous peoples
entrenched in law today and forever more.

This more advanced research is based on the enormous knowledge and legal expertise
of Hohepa Mapira, whom we are fortunate to have known and respect. He was a
privileged member of the Privy Council and his whole life’s work had been for the
Indigenous people’s struggle for self autonomy. Although, not nearly recognised for
his work behind the scenes he has left a legacy for us to continue and make reality and
so we continue to honour him with this works.

Our Roopu, as his first students were privileged to partake of his knowledge and
infinite wisdom and with his tutelage formed Te Tii Maungaroa Incorporation and Te
Kai Tiaki Trust O Nga Tikanga Maori Law Society. His desire was to honour our
Tupuna by taking the kaupapa to the masses, it is our hope and desire to continue to
do so.

Over 20 years Hohepa and his companions were making strategic transitional steps,
the last ten years we have witnessed significant developments, many were foretold
would happen, and some we made happen. We are proud to know that even after our
matua’s death that the desire is still there within our Te Arawa, Matatua, Tainui,
Takitimu, Kurahaupo and Horouta whanui within the Waka Native Districts to
continue for nga whanau hapu o te iwi Maori.

Many other researchers, scholars and references have been used to convey the
intention of our Tupuna who laid the foundation for their tamariki. Hohepa

The iniquities of past and successive governments and their apartied laws are but an
error in our dark past, however, the protectorate mechanisms entrenched in the English
common law have not changed as the Crown (UK) continue to honour Te Tiriti. So
long as we study, understand and acknowledge the true intentions of nga Tupuna with
the Crown(UK), will we start to be free from the shackles of ignorance and live
together in peace and harmony.

Mana Te Whata.

Page 2 of 8
 PART III

SECTION I - CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION

OF THE HIGH COURT OR DISTRICT COURT JUDGES b y Hohepa Mapiria

[1] This is what you say to the judge, (to the presiding Judge)...

Sir, being a Native Indigenous Aborigine and therefore a sovereign of Aotearoa,

NZ, I reckon I’m suppose to have a Native assessor up there by (beside) you to
make sure that Me and My people get a fair deal. If you’re going to sit there by
yourself, then that’s not fair, that’s a total injustice.
As your lord and sovereign, Her Majesty Queen-Elizabeth-the-Second, under
whom You swore Your judicial oath, which is as follows;

Quote “I,..........., swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty
Queen-Elizabeth-the-Second, Her heirs and successors, according to
law, in the office of; and I will do right to all manner of people after the
laws and usages of New Zealand without fear or favour, affection or ill
will. So help me God, unquote.

This book here, the Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993 states, that
this Act shall bind the Crown and so, if you Your Honour deny me the use of
this book and the laws within it and say to me, NO I do not accept that, then
you are saying to your sovereign that you are over stepping her....... then you
are in breach of your judicial oath and you are not exercising the law that
binds the Crown, you are misbehaving by not upholding the laws of Her
Majesty Queen Elizabeth II her heirs and successors according to law, and
therefore, you are acting with misconduct as a judge.

By the power vested in Me under Section 12 of Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori

Land Act 1993, I will personally see to it that ‘your position as judge, be
removed from you, so help you God.

The penalty under the Crimes Act of your own Government for treason is death,
and by/for any member of the judiciary it is imprisonment for life so help you
God, and when you get there to prison that is - you will meet the people who
you yourself put in there, other sovereigns like myself.

[2] Under the Native Circuit Courts Act 1858, number 5, under section 32 of that
Act. Such provisions come under Section 32 of the Te Ture Whenua Maori,
Maori Land Act 1993. (“TTWMMLA”).

Section 33 TTWM, ML Act 1993.

Additional members in relation to matters of representation –

Page 3 of 8
 (1) where a request is made to the Maori Land Court under section 30 (1) of
this Act, the Chief Judge shall appoint two or more additional members (not
being Judges of the Maori Land Court) to the Maori Land Court.

(2) Each person appointed under subsection (1) of this section shall possess
knowledge and experience relevant to the subject matter of the request.

(3) The chief judge shall, before appointing any persons under subsection (1) of
this section for the purposes of any request, consult, as the case may require,
with the parties to the proceedings or with persons involved in the negotiations,
consultations, allocations, or other matter about the knowledge and experience
that any such person should possess.

Section 62. Additional members with knowledge and experience in Tikanga

Maori –

(1) Notwithstanding anything in any other provisions of this Act, or any cases
stated under Section 61(1) (b) of this Act, for the opinion of the Maori
Appellate Court, the Chief Judge may, if any party to the proceedings so
requests, direct that, for the purposes of the hearing of that case, the Maori
Appellate court shall consist of -

(a) Three judges of the Maori Land Court; and

(b) One or two other members (not being judges of the Maori Land Court) to be
appointed by the chief judge.

(2) Each person appointed under subsection (1) (b) of this section shall possess
knowledge and experience of Tikanga Maori.

(3) The Chief Judge shall, before appointing any person under subsection (1)
(b) of this section for the purposes of any hearing, consult with the parties to
the proceedings about the knowledge and experience of Tikanga Maori that any
such person should possess.

[3] Interpretation of “Tikanga Maori” means “Maori Customary values and

practices.”

Q. Where do you go and practice what is in accordance with Tikanga Maori?

Back to your Marae.

Q. Where is the law that defines this?

In the He Whakaputanga o te Rangatira o Nu Tirene (Declaration of

Independence) 1835 and Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi) 1840.

Page 4 of 8
 Q. And at what place are the creation and dispensation of laws to be made
for Maori by Maori?

At Waitangi Marae, Waitangi.

[4] Therefore, the court proceedings under Tikanga Maori shall be conducted by
persons with the knowledge of Tikanga Maori, back at the Marae are Maori
customary values and practices, and on sitting on that Marae, additional
members and the judges of the Maori Land Court become a witness of the kawa
of the Marae, hurinoa to tatou whare, those are the people within the house who
are the judges.

[5] There are problems on our Marae today with entities such as Trust Boards
created and constituted under the Maori Trust Boards Act 1955, Incorporated
Societies and the sort whom are constituted under the New Zealand Settlers
Parliament. They are however, artificial people or creatures and therefore, they
do not settle between Maori and European, they are only settling a deal with
themselves, not with Maori.

Maori are a natural flesh and blood body, the NZ Parliament and all
departments and people within those departments operating under them are
artificial bodies, corporately coloured entities or non living breathing flesh and
blood creatures/animals.

Maori Incorporations under Part XIII of Te Ture Whenua Maori. Maori Land Act 1993
(TTWM,ML Act 1993).

When you come up against a Maori Incorporation under Statute of Law, it has the
same powers as Parliament. When you’re dealing with Parliament your dealing with an
animal, when you’re dealing with a Maori Incorporation your dealing with a natural
person and a natural body,.

Section 35 of TTWMML Act 1993 will indicate for you what a Maori Land Court is; it
has the same powers as the High Court, for example;

Section 35 Fees and allowances - There shall be paid to any additional member
of the Maori Land Court or Maori Appellate Court appointed under Section
28(1) or Section 31(1) or Section 33(1) of this Act or by an order in council
made under section 27(1) of this Act, out of Public money, remuneration by way
of fees, salary, or allowances and travelling allowances and expenses in
accordance with the Fees and Travelling Allowances Act 1951, and the
provisions of that Act shall apply accordingly as if the Maori Land Court or the
Maori Appellate Court, as the case may require, were a statutory board within
the meaning of that Act. As if, in which they are not a statutory board.

Page 5 of 8
The Jurisdiction of the Maori Land Court is this.

Section 237 Jurisdiction of Court generally —

(1). Subject to express provisions of this Part of this Act, in respect of any trust
to which this section applies, the Maori Land Court shall have and may
exercise all the same powers and authorities as the High Court has (whether by
statute or by any rule of law or by virtue of its inherent jurisdiction) in respect
of trusts generally.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall limit or affect the jurisdiction
of the High Court.

So therefore the MLC has the same jurisdiction as the High Court, but the High
Court’s jurisdiction is still retained for the benefit of the settlers and not Maori and so
when you talk of the High Court the Maori Land Court and any other court for that
matter, it is not a statutory body, but a Maori incorporation is a statutory body
independent, stands alone by Section 150, under the provisions of Section 150, the
Maori Land Court has no jurisdiction over a Maori incorporation.

Section 150 TTWM Act 1993 — Manner of alienation of undivided interests —

(1) No undivided interest in any Maori freehold land may be alienated

otherwise than by vesting order made by the court under Part VIII of this Act,
unless the court is of the opinion that the arrangement or agreement of the
parties should be given affect to by memorandum of transfer, and so orders.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section applies in relation to the alienation
of -
(a) Shares in a Maori incorporation:
(b) Interests in shares in a Maori incorporation:
(c) Beneficial interests in land that, by virtue of Section 250 (2) of this
Act, remain vested in the several owners of that land despite the vesting
of the legal estate in fee simple in that land in a Maori incorporation.

(3) No other interests in any Maori freehold land may be alienated otherwise
than by;.
(a) An instrument of alienation, executed and attested in accordance
with the rules of the court, and con firmed by the court under Part VIII
of this Act; or;.
(b) a vesting order made by the Court under that Part:.

(4) Nothing in subsection (3) of this section applies in relation to the alienation
of any interest in Maori freehold land that —.

(a) is effected — (i) by a Maori incorporation; or -

Page 6 of 8
 (ii) by the trustees of any trust constituted under Part X of this
Act; and.
(b) Is not an alienation by way of sale or gift?

Which means that a Maori incorporation is totally independent from any other court.
No other court has jurisdiction over a Maori incorporation, and so when you walk into
the District court or the magistrate’s court you say, my jurisdiction, I challenge your
jurisdiction over me because I am a beneficiary of a Maori incorporation, I am tangata
whenua.

You can go through a process if you like, or you can go through by your own will. As
the whakatauaki says,

“A lone tree in the forest is easy to bend and to break”.

If you go in an incorporated way under a Maori incorporation nothing can break you,
because it is like a big animal, there are many tentacles to a Maori incorporation. It
can suck the life out of you if you oppose it or it can suck the life out of your
adversary, this is a Maori incorporation, this is a sovereign.

Q. What is sovereignty?
I will give you an understanding of what sovereignty is................

Sovereignty in the legal term when you’re using it against the settlers in a
court of law - you must be describing what sovereignty is, and according to
Vattel, an old English writer on international law, sovereignty is vested in the
ruler of the land. It is a society of people who have united together to procure
their safety and welfare. They govern themselves under their own laws, this is
sovereignty.

I will describe to-you what the common law is:

The common law is a judgement made by the Privy Council. The common law of the
UK is made by the Privilege Council of the monarch, in this case Her Majesty 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.

Page 7 of 8
Lord Davey in a case, Nireaha Tamaki vs Baker, and in the United States, Johnstone
vs Macintosh. Lord Davey stated that the issue of a Crown grant does not amount to
extinguishment of the Native Title and now that the case has been up before the Privy
Council, the highest court in the land, the Crown lacked unreviewable prerogative
power in relation to the Native Title.

The Native Title being, all the rights, powers and privileges existing prior to the
Treaty of Waitangi. Government after that decision, a year following created a statute,
trying to over rule the common law of the UK and they did it again here (New
Zealand) in a case called Willis vs the Attorney General, in the case where it affected
the Bishop of Wellington to a title of land and an agreement between the tribes in
Wellington, that the bishop of Wellington might be able to build a school.

The government issued a Crown grant to the Bishop of Wellington and was held in the
High Court of Appeal that the Crown grant gave the Bishop of Wellington full title to
the land. The appeal went to the Privy Council via Willis vs The Attorney General.
Presiding on the Privy Council was Lord Mac-naughten who stated, “We will have
none of that.” The court was not an instrument of executive dictate, it was up to the
court to determine what a breach of trust was and Lord Mac-naughten squashed the
Crown grant issued to the Bishop of Wellington because it was insufficient.

Reason being, because the Crown had not purchased one inch of soil in New Zealand
and I state an italic by way of first right of pre-emption and the first right of refusal.
Now when that decision went to the Privy Council Lord Mac-naughten stated that, “it
was rather late in the day for the Colonial bench to deny the Native title legal status”
and so in 1947 the Government adopting the Statutes of Westminster Act which gave
them full power to make laws for themselves it was subject to Section 8 which stated
this, quote “Nothing in this Act shall give any power to repeal the Constitution Act of
the Colony of Australia or the Constitution Act of the Dominion of NZ” unquote.

Again, years go by and in 1986 the New Zealand Settlers Parliament breached the
Statutes of Westminster Adoption Act 1947 and repealed the NZ Constitution Act 1852
and on repealing the Constitution Act of New Zealand they gave it full power and
chopped off their own neck because by the Constitution Act 1852 it was by that
Statute that they obtained from the British Crown a warrant to Govern themselves and
they gave themselves full power to chop off their own heads by repealing the NZ
Constitution Act 1852.

New Zealand now stands in limbo. The NZ Settlers Parliament has no legal nor lawful
constitution.

Three Regents of Her Majesty’s put together an Act called Te Ture Whenua Maori Act,
Maori Bill, and in doing so, the Government enacted the Conservation Act 1987. The
Regents put on hold by the Common law that private land under the Conservation Act
means land referred to in the Maori Land Act 1993 or Te Ture Whenua Maori Act
1993. That was to come into force some years later.

Page 8 of 8
In the mean time in the year 1987, those three Regents put into force the Imperial
Laws Application Act 1988. Section 5 of that Act states that the common law of the
United Kingdom shall form part of the law of NZ, reference behind that was the Privy
Council decision in 1947 concerning the Statutes of Westminster Adoption Act.
Following that came into place in 1991 the Resource Management Act; resource
management was for the managers to act as interim managers of the resources. That
meant that the Local Governments and the Minister of Conservation, had to manage
the resources and the conservation of those resources until the Maori Land Act could
be put into place and enacted into NZ. That Act took place in 1993 being the Te Ture
Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993.

Three Regents of Her Majesty’s put together an Act called Te Ture Whenua Maori Act,
Maori Bill, and in doing so, the Government enacted the Conservation Act 1987. The
Regents put on hold by the Common law that private land under the Conservation Act
means land referred to in the Maori Land Act 1993 or Te Ture Whenua Maori Act
1993. That was to come into force some years later.

In 1995 the land was conquered by International Law, it was taken under the law of
conquest of International Law. This occurred when the flags on the 6 of February
1995, the flags of the NSW and NZ Company hit the ground and the Governor
Generals flag as the representative of the Crown came down and hit the ground.

The NZ “rag” (or flag) was trampled into the ground. The declaration of war was
placed to the Governor-General against the New Zealand Parliament by Maori, and
when all the flags hit the ground at the Treaty grounds in Waitangi in 1995 the Maori
flag went up and hit the top of the mast, the Maori people had conquered back
Aotearoa, NZ.

In 1996 the Fisheries Act was put into place, was enacted and now it is up to Maori
under the provisions of Section 17, amending Section 268 Te Ture Whenua Maori,
Maori Land Act 1993 subsection (3) stating that, a Maori incorporation by special
resolution of the owners or shareholders may alter, add to or replace its constitution in
accordance with any provision of this Act or any regulations made under this Act.
This includes the provisions of Section 253 which states that, subject to this Act, Te
Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act and any other enactment and the General Law
made by Parliament or any statute.

Subject to this Act the Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act and any other
enactment both International and National, and the general law made by parliament,
subject to this Act and any other enactment and the general law, every Maori
incorporation made by Special Resolution including in its constitution or any
restrictions imposed by the court shall have both within and outside NZ, full capacity
in the discharge of its obligation of the trust in the best interests of the shareholders,
to carry on or undertake any business or activity, do any act, or enter into any

Page 9 of 8
transaction and, for the purposes of paragraph 3(a) of this section, full rights, powers,
and privileges.

What it says is that, a Maori incorporation by the blink of an eye in front of a court of
law in any court in NZ or in any international court, Maori by special resolution says,
meet my eye, hold on judge, we are just going outside and we are going to pass a
resolution changing the law, we think its about time we passed a resolution, we’re
going to change that law under Section 253 of TTWM,ML Act 1993, subject to this
Act and any other enactment and the general law made by Parliament.

You can change the law in an instant, bang! In Section 5 of TTWM,ML Act, it says,
“This Act shall bind the Crown”, so the Crown has said, we can change it, we can
change any law. You can add to it, alter it or replace it and we have full rights,
powers and privileges to do that.

In all the cases that I have been involved with myself personally, before this
Corporation business started up I was exercising the same thing, my rights as a
sovereign. The people were asking me, how come you’re getting away with a lot of
things that we don’t get away with. And I said “well I’m just doing my own thing,
minding my own business, applying the law, and I’m getting away with it, that’s all.”
At the end of the day, it is the quality of your lawful and/or legal argument. When
other people try it out and fail, they fail because they have not learnt the law properly.
I have heard Judges running out of the court room, they say ah, we’ll adjourn, they
read the affidavit and then they adjourn and they say we’ll adjourn till 1 o’clock and
then you look out the window on your side and you see the judge still in his robe he’s
running out to the car, hops in and takes off. In an hours time he comes back, and your
sitting and waiting for him and the registrar comes up and says the judge wont be back
today, because of this and that and so and so whilst putting on a brave face.

Page 10 of 8