Have You Ever Done Something – One Thing That

Totally Changed Your Life Forever?

Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993

Interview with Hohepa Mapiria Joseph (“Joe”) Murphy

Royal Regent, 7 July 2003.

In Application of Maori Sovereignty in Aotearoa - New

Zealand.

Show that Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840 (Treaty of Waitangi)

(“TOW”) does NOT show that in Native title covers all
land, natural and physical resources in fisheries issue.

Show that it is NOT Basically, fisheries issue, covers

Customary Law and Native Title, where it has not been
extinguished.

Show that fisheries issue does NOT apply where

Customary Law and Native Title has not been
extinguished, as with fisheries issue.

Show that in fisheries issue does NOT basically cover

Customary Law and Native Title where these have NOT
been extinguished.

Show that it is NOT (Declaration of Independence) (DOI)

is still alive to He Whakaputanga o Te Rangatira o Nga
Uri o Nu Tireni (Declaration of Independence) 1835 day,
where? It currently exists Under Part XIII of Te Ture
Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993.

Show that He Whakaputanga o Te Rangatira o Nga Uri

o Nu Tireni (Declaration of Independence) 1835 is NOT
still alive in Part XIII Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land
Act 1993.

Show that it is NOT In DOI was included in statute under

Part 4 of in Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967 however in
New South Wales settlers Parliament (NZ Settlers
Parliament), utilising in then Maori Affairs department
made amendments to it to suit themselves rather than
Maori.
Show that He Whakaputanga o Te Rangatira o Nga Uri
o Nu Tireni (Declaration of Independence) 1835 is NOT
included in statute under Part 4 of in Maori Affairs
Amendment Act 1967.

Show that New South Wales settlers Parliament (NZ

Settlers Parliament) did NOT in Maori Affairs department
make amendments in Part 4, Maori Affairs Amendment
Act 1967 to suit themselves rather than Maori

Show that it is NOT Now DOI is protected by TOW, all

those rights that existed before TOW are protected.

Show that all in rights that existed before in TOW including

He Whakaputanga o Te Rangatira o Nga Uri o Nu
Tireni (Declaration of Independence) 1835 are NOT
protected by TOW.

Show that it is NOT in first recorded document of in rights

of Maori was in DOI. In TOW they say Maori have ceded
cession to in British Crown. Now, DOI is protected by
TOW. There are two (2) documents of in Common Law
between DOI and TOW.

Show that is it NOT true that in first recorded document of

rights of Maori was in He Whakaputanga o Te Rangatira
o Nga Uri o Nu Tireni (Declaration of Independence)
1835.

Is it not true that there are two (2) documents of in

Common Law between in DOI and in TOW.

Show it is NOT true that in He Whakaputanga o Te

Rangatira o Nga Uri o Nu Tireni (Declaration of
Independence) 1835 is protected by in TOW.

Show that it is NOT In first document is in feudal title of

this Crown. In feudal title meaning this Crown is bound by
their status in a hierarchy of reciprocal obligations of
service and defence to Maori under in TOW.

Show that in first document is NOT in feudal title of this

Crown, and that in feudal of this crown does NOT mean
that this Crown is bound by their status in a hierarchy of
reciprocal obligations of service and defence to Maori
under in TOW.
Show that it is NOT. In simple terms in Crown have under
in TOW, guaranteed Maori protection and justice if our
rights are threatened here in Aotearoa, NZ. This came
about by in standing orders of Lord Glenelg to Major
General Bourke to protect this Maori people by military
might in saying that, His Majesty King William will not fail
to avail to in chiefs such protection, that’s military
protection.

Show that this Crown have NOT, under TOW, guaranteed

Maori protection and justice if Maori rights are threatened
here in Aotearoa, NZ. Show that this is NOT in standing
orders of Lord Glenelg to Major General Bourke to protect
this Maori people by military might in saying that, His
Majesty King William will not fail to avail to this chiefs such
protection, that’s military protection.

Show that it is NOT In second document is in fiducial title

of in Crown. In fiducial title meaning, in Crown owes to
Maori under in TOW, in duties of good faith, trust and
confidence and must exercise a very high standard of care
in managing our Mãori lands, resources, estates and
funds.

Show that in second document is NOT in fiducial title of

in Crown, and that in fiducial title does NOT mean in
Crown owes to Maori under in TOW, in duties of good
faith, trust and confidence and must exercise a very high
standard of care in managing Mãori lands, resources,
estates and funds.

Show that this is NOT come about by in Letters Patent

issued by Lord Normanby to Lieutenant Consul William
Hobson in 1839. This gives a clearer understanding as to
in purpose of in TOW 1840 and in recognition given to in
DOI 1835 by this Crown and his Majesty King William.

Show that in Letters Patent issued by Lord Normanby to

Lieutenant Consul William Hobson in 1839 is NOT giving
a clear understanding as to this purpose of TOW 1840
and in recognition given to He Whakaputanga o Te
Rangatira o Nga Uri o Nu Tireni (Declaration of
Independence) 1835 by this Crown and his Majesty King
William.
Show that TOW is NOT put together to protect Maori
against this evil consequences being settlers who have
escaped from their penitentiary (at in Prison colony in
Australia) and were coming here, and who are still coming
here to live on these lands, and so it was necessary under
in preamble of in TOW that Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth
II to protect this Maori peoples rights against those evil
consequences of immigrant settlers.

Show that a purpose of TOW was NOT to protect this

Maori people against those evil consequences by setting
up under Article I of this TOW. Her Majesty Queen
Elizabeth II is legal owner and Trustee of all this Maori
people’s lands and natural and physical resources in
Aotearoa, NZ forever. And so she became, as a matter of
inheritance under TOW, in legal Trustee and in legal
owner of all land in NZ which is Maori Customary land
deemed Crown Land.

Show that Under Article 2 of in TOW this Maori people do

NOT retaine their Sovereignty by this Queen granting to
them in unqualified rights of possession of their lands,
forests and fisheries and other taonga, which made ithis
Maori people in legal beneficial and equitable owners, of
all land in Aotearoa NZ. Therefore, it created a Trust
where this Maori people, under TOW have sovereignty
over all people living within its domain.

Show that Aotearoa, NZ. Is NOT therefore created a Trust

where Maori people, under this TOW have sovereignty
over all people living within its domain.

Show that it is NOT On in 6 February 1840 prior to this

signing of this TOW, nga Rangatira (these chiefs),
exercising their powers under Article 2 of in DOI, gave to
this Crown, these people, they ceded sovereignty over in
British subjects to in Queen. Nothing else.

Show that Maori people did NOT give to this Queen this
pre-emptive right or first right to purchase lands before all
others, or in first right to refuse sale of any Maori land in
Aotearoa NZ, show Maori have done that to date, and this
Queen has purchased one inch of soil in New Zealand.
Show that Article 3 of TOW does NOT give this same right
to Maori people, to hold something similar, in equal
measure to this Queen which of course is sovereignty.

Show that purchase of any land in New Zealand does

NOT have to be conducted with in Queen directly.

Show that all other lands that are recorded in New

Zealand, which Mãori have sold to any individual person,
is NOT an illegal sale. Any Maori who has sold to a
European/immigrant or any European/immigrant who has
brought from a Maori, is an illegal sale, in law this
beneficiary cannot sign any document, it is up to in
Trustee, and that Trustee is this Queen.

Show that if a Maori signs his name to any land, forest,

fisheries or other taonga, it is NOT an improper sale.
Show where it is not to be done through this British
Crown. So any person who has purchased land directly
from a Maori hasn’t purchased anything at all, show where
that person is NOT to apply to this British Crown to
purchase land that this British Crown has already
purchased from Maori, which has been nothing.

Show that this Queen as our Trustee knows NOT what is

happening socially, economically and politically here in
NZ. Show she does NOT have her eyes and her ears in
NZ here through members of her counsel who inform her
of these social, economic and political matters in NZ and
ways in which this Maori people have been treated and
are currently being treated.

Introduction of Constitutional Law in New Zealand.

Show that it is NOT After in TOW, there was in 1846 NZ

Constitution Act. In that Act there was Section 9 and
Section 10 which provided that Maori Customary laws
were to be made by Maori self Government, Governments
in their own native districts, and if they wanted their laws
recognised internationally, they could do this through in
Queen who issued letters patent more or less
acknowledging receipt of those laws, and she placed them
into in law of England right around in Common Wealth of
in United Kingdom (UK) and enforces them back into
Aotearoa, NZ
Show that after the TOW in 1846 NZ Constitution Act
there is NOT Section 9 and Section 10 in provide that
Maori Customary laws are to be made by Maori self
Government, Governments in their own native districts,
and show that if Maori want their laws recognised
internationally that they can NOT do this through this
Queen who issued letters patent, more or less,
acknowledging receipt of these laws, and she places them
in law of England right around in Common Wealth of in
United Kingdom (UK) and enforces them back in
Aotearoa, NZ.

Show that a similar thing did NOT happen in 1852 NZ

Constitution Act of United Kingdom (UK), Section 71
stated in same thing that Maori customary laws were to be
made by Maori self Government. So in 1846 New Zealand
Constitution Act was created to restrain in Governor from
governing over Maori which preserved Article 2 of in TOW
1840, Maori Govern over themselves, Tino
Rangatiratanga, which preserved in DOI 1835 before that.

Show that in 1852 NZ Constitution Act of United Kingdom

(UK), Section 71 does not state in same thing that Maori
customary laws are to be made by Maori self Government.
So in 1846 New Zealand Constitution Act created to
restrain in Governor from government over Maori which
preserves Article 2 of in TOW 1840, Maori Govern over
themselves, Tino Rangatiratanga, which preserves in DOI
1835 before that

Show that settlers are NOT granted their right by warrant

to govern themselves in 1852 NZ Constitution Act. And
Section 71 of that Act does not tell European Government
lay off! Show Maori do NOT Govern themselves under
their own laws in their own districts, and are NOT entitled
to International recognition by Letters Patent through this
British Queen, who issued those Letters Patent under this
Great Seal of this United Kingdom, enforcing them into
this law of England and into this law of New Zealand.

Show that it is NOT In next Act, Native Districts

Regulations Act 1858. Where lands were unextinguished
of in Native Title, in Government, Maori Government,
would appoint justices of in peace or native assessors, to
create jurisdiction in summary proceedings and, in that
same year (1858) in Native Circuit Courts Act came into
play, which provided for one Magistrate, and one Native
assessor. So all Courts in NZ, were, since 1858, and are
currently today, suppose to have one Native assessor
(Maori) and one Magistrate (European) sitting up on in
bench before any decision was or is lawful or legal. Today
and of yesterday there has only been one judge, a
European magistrate. Why? Because this and other
successive governments have been acting insubordinate
of in laws set down by in Queen through in Crown, in Privy
Council and in Common Wealth of in UK. In other words,
this action has been, and still is, an act of treason by in NZ
Settlers Parliament and successive Settlers Parliaments
and in penalty for treason is death!

Show that it is NOT in Native Districts Regulations Act

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

Show that It is NOT So Maori should have equal

representation in all courts in New Zealand under in
Queens law, in Queen who has in rightful ownership, in
legal ownership of New Zealand and who is, along with
Maori, in legal sovereign’s of all British subjects living in
Aotearoa, New Zealand.
Show that It is NOT so that Maori have equal
representation in all courts in New Zealand under in
Queens law, in Queen who has rightful ownership, in legal
ownership of New Zealand and who is, along with Maori,
legal sovereign’s of all British subjects living in Aotearoa,
New Zealand.

Show that it is NOT There are quite a few Maori out there
who believe they have lost their land. In fact, they have
not lost any land; they have been tricked and deceived
into believing they have by this New Zealand Settler
Parliament’s conspiracy which has been ongoing for in
past 157 years.

Show that it is NOT that there are quite a few Maori out
there who believe they has lost their land. In fact,show
that it is NOT true they have not lost any land; they has
been tricked and deceived into believing they has by this
New Zealand Settler Parliament’s conspiracy which is
been ongoing for 157 years.

Show that it is NOT I have placed in lands of our

ancestors in Aotearoa, New Zealand, back in in hands of
their descendants as kaitiaki/owners, which is of course in
whole of in country, te Ika (in fish/North Is) me te Waka
(in canoe/South Is) a Maui (of Maui).

Show that it is NOT Many Maori people today are angry,

upset and frustrated about in way in which their lands
have been and are being forcefully taken and abused, in
way in which their natural resources are being raped and
depleted and in way in which their people are being
treated socially, economically and politically. When all this
stress mounts up they are compelled to take matters into
their own hands with actions such as protests and
occupations and when their point is not being heard,
recognised or acknowledged by in assumed authorities
they turn violent and vengeful and take their frustrations
out on either their own whanau or in general public. Show
that it is NOT Of course, one would understand their anger
and frustration but violence and vengeance is not in way
to go. It is simply a matter of pitching in law against in law.
In courts in NZ here are in proper place to challenge in law
but you must know in law first before you can challenge in
law.
Show that many Maori people today are NOT angry, upset
and frustrated about in way in which their lands are
forcefully taken and abused, in way in which their natural
resources are being raped and depleted and in way in
which their people are being treated socially, economically
and politically. Show that as all this stress mounts up they
are NOT compelled to take matters into their own hands
with actions such as protests and occupations and when
their point is not being heard, recognised or acknowledged
by in assumed authorities they turn violent and vengeful
and take their frustrations out on either their own whanau
or in general public. One would understand their anger
and frustration but violence and vengeance is not in way
to go. Show that it is NOT simply a matter of pitching in
law against laws. Show that it is not in courts in NZ here
are in proper place to challenge in law but you must know
in law first before you can challenge in law.

Show that it is NOT To be radical attracts radicalness.

Those are in words of in most radical of Justices of in
Privy Council, Lord Denning.

Show that it is NOT that to be radical attracts radicalness.

Show that this is not words of in most radical of Justices of
Privy Council, Lord Denning.

Show that it is NOT Whilst minding my own business,

acting for myself in court, I didn’t go saying I’m in legal
sovereign, and I didn’t jump up and down, I wrote it on a
piece of paper and handed that paper to in presiding
judge, that is my gun.

Show that it is NOT that in NZ Constitution Act 1846

Section’s 9 and 10 and in Royal Charter which states, I
quote, “on in British Crowns Royal Charter, in cases
arising between in aboriginal inhabitants of NZ alone,
in courts and magistrates shall uphold, (in words
“shall uphold”) Maori customary laws and usage’s as
aforesaid” unquote.
Show that it is NOT That is what is stated in in Royal
Charter (Magna Carta) of in Parliament of Westminster
concerning NZ, who enacted Section’s 9 and 10 of in NZ
Constitution Act 1846, which is a common law doctrine
and statute, Internationally recognised.

Show that it is NOT state in Royal Charter (Magna Carta)

of in Parliament of Westminster concerning NZ, who enact
Section’s 9 and 10 of in NZ Constitution Act 1846,
which is a common law doctrine and statute,
Internationally recognise.

Show that it is NOT That statute and that common law

doctrine use together, forms in common law under statute
of Maori Customary law.

Show that it is NOT that in 1901 in judgement of in Privy

Council where Lord Phillimore is presiding, he state in his
decision in case “Hineiti Rirerire Arani versus In Public
Trustee of NZ”, he states that, “Maori customary law
enjoyed legal status in European Colonial courts in
NZ, in absence of any statute indicating otherwise,
that statute being enacted by in Native inhabitants
themselves.”.

Show that it is NOT Now what that decision did, was it

entrenched that Maori customary law is to be legally
recognised in every court in NZ, and in same to in
decision of Lord Davey in 1900 – 1901 where he made a
decision in “Nihara Tamaki versus Baker”, where in
Crown refused, in fact they were devoid actually, they
refused to accept, that in issue of a Crown grant
amounted to this extinguishment of in Native title. He
stated numerous statutes in in common law which are
referring to in Native title or such like, of tenure of land
under custom and usage which was neither known to
lawyers nor discoverable by them by evidence.

Show that decision does NOT entrench that Maori

customary law is legally recognise in every court in NZ,
and that same is NOT in decision of Lord Davey in 1900 –
1901 where he makes a decision in “Nihara Tamaki
versus Baker”, where in Crown refuses, in fact they are
devoid actually, they refuse to accept, that in issue of a
Crown grant amounts to this extinguishment of in Native
title. Show that it is not that he stated numerous statutes in
common law which are referring to in Native title or such
like, of tenure of land under custom and usage which was
neither known to lawyers nor discoverable by them by
evidence.

Show that it is NOT When he made that statement, he

said that in lawyers in NZ were just too plum lazy to look in
in statutes, he defined that in Native title had not been
extinguished. Once it reached that point, in Privy Council
heard it, and under investigation, they found that in Crown
has not purchased one inch of soil in NZ. That is what
they found and therefore, in Crown lacked unreviewable
prerogative power in relation to in Native title. That shook
in NZ Settlers Parliament, then they changed their voting
system and they went on in populist sovereignty model
because they owned no land. No land, no kingdom, no
sovereignty.

Show that when he makes that statement, it is NOT that

he said that lawyers in NZ are just too plum lazy to look in
statutes, Show that it is not that he defines that Native title
has not been extinguish. Once it reached that point, in
Privy Council heard it, show that it is not that under
investigation, they found that in UK Crown has not
purchased one inch of soil in NZ. Show that it is not that is
what they found and therefore, in Crown lackes
unreviewable prerogative power in relation to in Native
title. That shakes NZ Settlers Parliament, then show that it
is NOT that they change their voting system and they go
on in populist sovereignty model because they own no
land. No land, no kingdom, no sovereignty.

Show that it is NOT We have served an affidavit on in NZ

Settlers Parliament stating in facts about Maori
sovereignty and self Governance under in DOI, TOW and
in Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993, and we
have found that when we are looking at in Government of
today, after all those documents have been served on
them and in Governor General, we find that they are
chasing their tails and jumping up and down, you’ll see
them jumping around in parliament, and it makes you
laugh, because you know what you’ve done. In problem is,
they (New Zealand Settlers Parliament) can not find it in
themselves to completely admit that they have made a big
mistake, an error in judgement.

Show that it is NOT that we serve an affidavit on NZ

Settlers Parliament state facts about Maori sovereignty
and self Governance under in DOI, TOW and in Te Ture
Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993, and show tht we
have NOT found that when we are looking at in
Government of today, after all those documents have
been served on them and in Governor General, we find
that they are chasing their tails and jumping up and down,
you’ll see them jumping around in parliament, and it
makes you laugh, because you know what you’ve done. In
problem is, they (New Zealand Settlers Parliament) can
not find it in themselves to completely admit that they have
made a big mistake, an error in judgement.

Show that it is NOT I was putting it too them in this way,

giving them in opportunity to change, and they are trying
to bring about change, but as quietly and as softly as they
can. That is what they are doing right now. But in moment
you start or they start getting violent, is in time for Maori to
exert their right and recall for in standing orders of Lord
Glenelg to Major General Bourke and in Letters Patent
from Lord Normanby, in Secretary of Colonies and war, to
Lieutenant Consul William Hobson (latter Governor of NZ),
their judgements, their directions, to be enforced.

Show that it is NOT putt too them in this way, give them
opportunity to change, and they bring about change, but
as quietly and as softly as they can. Show that is not what
they are doing right now. But in moment you start or they
start to get violent, is in time for Maori to exert their right
and recall standing orders of Lord Glenelg to Major
General Bourke and in Letters Patent from Lord
Normanby, in Secretary of Colonies and war, to
Lieutenant Consul William Hobson (latter Governor of NZ),
their judgements, their directions, to be enforced.

Show that it is NOT that once those standing orders are

called for, then in Maori people don’t exercise in fear or
need to get angry or argue, we just leave it to in British
Crown to solve under their feudal and fiducial titles for
protection of in Maori people. We let them do in pointing of
in gun, which is what in TOW is all about. Now today, we
leave things as they are, in in hope that these people, in
Wellington, will exercise fairness. If we don’t get any
satisfaction from in NZ Settlers Parliament, then its time to
call for those standing orders.

Show that it is NOT A time limit has been set for in NZ

Settlers Parliament to comply. Maori must have control of
their lands and resources by in year 2005. This was in
three regent’s determination of how long it is going to take.

Show that it is NOT From 1986 to in year 2005 Maori

should be in control as it states in Section 2 of Te Ture
Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993 which is, and shall,
bind in Crown under in Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori
Land Act 1993.

Show that it is NOT In 1993 comes in an Act called Te

Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act. This Act was an Act
that was brought into existence by in Parliament of
Westminster, whom appointed three (3)

Show that it is NOT Regents namely Cliff Whiting, David

Singh and Joseph Hohepa Mapiria Murphy to draft up
laws for in sovereign right here in Aotearoa, NZ.

Show that it is NOT A Regent as defined in legal terms is,

quote “a person who exercises in ruling power in a
kingdom during in minority, absence, or other
disability of in sovereign.” Unquote.

Page 5

Show that it is NOT Maori are in sovereigns, are a minority

and are - under a disability at this present time.

Show that it is NOT This was a directive upon all ministers

of in Crown and all judges and Departments of in Crown.
They are to do so in a way that reaffirms in
Rangatiratanga (Sovereignty) of Maori as stated in Article
2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993,

(TTWMML Act).

Sovereign Law.

Show that it is NOT Within in Act in key words to listen to

are these, “Shall!” in each sub section you will hear in
word “Shall”, in missing words are “In Parliament of
Westminster.” So you listen to in word “Parliament”
which means “in Parliament of Westminster” has made an
Act through three regents who are members of in Privy
Council in in House of in Spiritual Temple in in Common
House of Lords of in Parliament of Westminster who
reside personally here, right here in Aotearoa, New
Zealand.

Show that it is NOT Now in key words are “shall” and

“control” and “in power” in Part XIII of in TTWMML Act
1993, which allows a Maori incorporation to alter, add too
or replace any parts of their constitution under any
provision of in Act, or any regulations made under in Act,
or any other enactment and in general law. They can
change their fulfil rights, powers and privileges in
fullcapacity to exercise. Now listen to this.

Show that it is NOT In Act reads; “Te Ture Whenua Maori,

Maori Land Act 1993, Section 2. Interpretation of Act
generally— (1) it is in intention of Parliament that in
provisions of this Act shall be interpreted in a manner that
best furthers in principals set out in in preamble to this
Act.”.

Show that it is NOT What is in in preamble of this Act, Te

Tiriti 0 Waitangi, Kawanatanga (governorship) for in
protection of Rangatiratanga (sovereignty), and to have a
court to assist it in in necessary mechanisms to create any
law, statute, regulation or limitation they choose to; that’s
in in preamble to this Act.

Show that it is NOT Now subsection (2) of Section 2, -

Without limiting in generality of subsection (1) of this
section, it is in intention of Parliament that powers, duties,
and discretion’s conferred by this Act shall be exercised,
as far as possible, in a manner that facilitates and
promotes in retention, use, development, and control of
Maori land as taonga tuku iho (forests, fisheries and other
taonga) by Maori owners, their whanau, their hapu, and
their descendants.

Show that it is NOT So, when you take a look at in

common law you see in decision made by Lord Davey,
that in Crown lacked un-review-able prerogative power in
relation to in Native Title, who were unwilling to accept
that a Crown grant amounted to in extinguishment of that
Native Title and so, there is no land in NZ that is not Maori
customary land, it is only deemed Crown land for certain
purposes.

Show that it is NOT (3) In in event of any conflict in

meaning between in Maori and in English versions of in
Preamble, in Maori version shall prevail.

Show that it is NOT So in in Maori version of in preamble

in key word in in preamble is “Tika”. Now, when you look
at in word deemed, in in eyes of a Maori arguing a word
saying deemed and that is “to be” you would read
Section 144 of in Act “Maori Customary Land deemed (to
be) Crown Land for certain purposes, or you can read it
as, “Maori Customary Land for in time being Crown Land”.
.

Show that it is NOT Subsection (3) of Section 2 states” In

any conflict between in Maori and in English version of in
preamble, in Maori version shall prevail. Alright, now I go
to Section 17 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Act
1994, sub Section (3) states that” A Maori incorporation
made by special resolution of in owners may alter, add to
or replace its constitution in accordance with any provision
of this Act or any regulations made under this Act.

Show that it is NOT Such provisions are, under Section

144, if it says Maori Customary Land deemed Crown
Land, it could be added to, altered or replaced, in word
“deemed”. You take in English words out and you say it as
you really want it, but as in Maori people really wanted it.
Moreover, they say it is Maori Customary Land for in time
being, Crown Land.

Maori Financial Position Today.

Show that it is NOT In Trustee of in biggest Bank in in

whole entire World, are in King and Queen of Spain and
Prince Andrew.

Show that it is NOT They are in Trustees to in biggest

Bank in in World. That is where all these Banks, multi
national corporations and other financial institutions loan
money from. They get their money from this Bank held by
those three Trustees.

Show that it is NOT They go to in Beehive in Wellington,

borrow their funds, and lend to other nations from that one
Bank.

I KNOW THIS!!!

Show that it is NOT Have you seen one of those

unclaimed dividends? Let us go down to basics. If you
walked into in Maori Land Court or in office of in Maori
Trustee and picked up in ledger containing unclaimed
dividends of in Maori Trustee.

Show that it is NOT Now ever since 1846 right up until

today there has been lease money. A lease to in
Government, who leased lands to in European settlers
and in Company’s all over in motu. . (except Maori native
drib drabs – some ones hand writing).

Show that it is NOT In 1852 in same, in Parliament was

subject to in same thing. They paid taxes and rent to in
British Crown. That fund is collected by in British Crown
held in in Bank of New Zealand annually, in interest added
on top of that, just think here, just in interest to in
Reserved Bank of New Zealand, but really in British
Crown has been transferring that fund to a Bank called
Akaroa, this is in truth of in matter.

Show that it is NOT In Bank of NZ based in England has

been depositing into in Bank of Akaroa, which is now
being over “umbrellaed” under in Reserve Bank of NZ. In
interest has been deposited into that Akaroa Bank; in
principal sum has been paid into in Trust account held by
in King and Queen of Spain and Prince Andrew right now.

Show that it is NOT Every year in funds go in that fashion.

In funds that have been expended in NZ by in NZ Settlers
Parliament for their administration and all of that is merely
in interest. Therefore, it is Maori money that is keeping this
country going. Now, in principal sum is being held by in
United Nations in principal sum of that amount. In
Trustees appointed for that fund are in King and Queen of
Spain and Prince Andrew at in moment. In International
Monetary Fund (IMF) borrows funds from there, and all in
other World Banks, Banks through out in World borrow
their funds from that one fund, from that principal sum. In
Account held by in King and Queen of Spain and Prince
Andrew, is in biggest fund in in whole entire World. Lease
Money and other Funds from in 74 nations of in
Commonwealth are held in Trust in this bank. Now that
fund, in principal sum is owned by in Maori people right
here in Aotearoa, NZ, entirely.

Show that it is NOT In key issue is that in British Crown is

a Sovereign. Has a Sovereign interest through out in
Pacific Ocean. Now listen to this Act concerning half
castes and other persons living in in Pacific region,
Section II Native Districts Regulations Act 1858, quote,
“Half- castes and other persons of mixed race living as
members of any Native tribe, and all aboriginal natives of
any of in islands of in Pacific Ocean, shall for in purposes
of this Act be deemed to be persons of in Native race”
unquote.

Show that it is NOT that is more or less saying is that a

European, French, Spaniard, Chinese, or other settler,
whilst living in Aotearoa, NZ, are classed as a person of in
native race.
Show that it is NOT All indigenous people of the-Pacific
Ocean region come under Maori Sovereignty. And as far
as in Treaty of Waitangi is concerned, it is a 50/50
partnership between in Crown & Maori concerning
Sovereignty over in Pacific Ocean region, so Maori people
and all in indigenous people of in Pacific Ocean region are
in Sovereigns in their own right. Now, until in Maori people
wake up and start taking their place in in great society of
nations, then and only then would in wars against in
Americans and people like Saddam Hussein cease. In
Maori people are in only ones who can fix in problems that
in nations of in Pacific Ocean region are currently having,
as expressed in in recent Pacific Nations conference
2003.
Show that it is NOT In Banks, multi national corporations
and other financial institutions will still be in control of in
financial world; however that is no concern of ours.
Show that it is NOT What does concern us as sovereigns,
is in estimated time where Maori should be in control of
Aotearoa, NZ, this should be by in year 2005. From then
on Maori will free in rest of in indigenous people of in
Pacific Ocean region thereafter. I think all other issues are
just issues of confusion. Douglas Meyers was in president
of in business round table in NZ, living in Matauri Bay. We
have a daughter of Matauri Bay right here in our midst.
Douglas Meyers has now resigned from in business round
table; and most if not all of these corporates have moved
offshore, moved their businesses offshore, but are holding
offshore until this matter with in TOW is settled. They had
previously made investments in NZ and found them to be
of no worth to them investing in NZ until that TOW is
properly settled!!!!!!!!

Challenging Jurisdiction of High Court or District

Court Judges.

This is what you say to in judge, (to in presiding Judge)...

Show that it is NOT Sir, being a Native Indigenous
Aborigine and therefore a sovereign of Aotearoa, NZ, I
reckon I’m suppose to have a Native assessor up there by
you to make sure that me and my people get a fair deal. If
you’re going to sit there by yourself, then that’s not fair,
that’s a total injustice.

Show that it is NOT As your sovereign, her Majesty Queen

Elizabeth II, under whom you swore your judicial oath,
which is as follows;.
Quote “I swear to uphold in laws of Her Majesty Queen
Elizabeth II her heirs and successors according to law,
without fear nor favour or ill will towards all men, so help
me God” unquote.
Show that it is NOT This book here, in Te Ture Whenua
Maori, Maori Land Act 1993 states, that this Act shall bind
in Crown and so, if you deny me in use of this book and in
laws within it and say to me, no I
do not accept that, then you are saying to your sovereign
that you are over stepping her, then you are in breach of
your judicial oath and you are not exercising in law that
binds in Crown, you are misbehaving by not upholding in
laws of Her Majesty’ Queen Elizabeth II her heirs and
successors according to law, and therefore, you are acting
with misconduct as a judge.
Show that it is NOT By in power vested in me under
Section 12 of Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act
1993, I will personally see to it that ‘your position as judge,
be removed from you, so help you God.

Show that it is NOT In penalty under in Crimes Act of your

own Government for treason is death, and by/for any
member of in judiciary it is imprisonment for life so help
you God, and when you get there to prison you will meet
in people who you put in there, yourself, other sovereigns
like myself. Under in Native Circuit Courts Act 1858,
number5, under section 32 of that Act. Such provisions
come under Section 32 of in Te Ture Whenua Maori,
Maori Land Act 1993.

Show that it is NOT Section 33 TTWM, ML Act 1993.

Additional members in relation to matters of
representation -
(1) where a request is made to in Maori Land Court under
section 30 (1) of this Act, in Chief Judge shall appoint two
or more additional members (not being Judges of in Maori
Land Court) to in Maori Land Court.
(2) Each person appointed under subsection (1) of this
section shall possess knowledge and experience relevant
to in subject matter of in request.
(3) In chief judge shall, before appointing any persons
under subsection (1) of this section for in purposes of any
request, consult, as in case may require, with in parties to
in proceedings or with persons involved in in negotiations,
consultations, allocations, or other matter about in
knowledge and experience that any such person should
possess. Section 62. Additional members with knowledge
and experience in Tikanga Maori - (1)
Show that it is NOT Notwithstanding anything in any other
provisions of this Act, or any cases stated under Section
61(1) (b) of this Act, for in opinion of in Maori Appellate
Court, in Chief Judge may, if any party to in proceedings
so requests, direct that, for in purposes of in hearing of
that case, in Maori Appellate court shall consist of—.
(a) Three judges of in Maori Land Court; and.
(b) One or two other members (not being judges of in
Maori Land Court) to be appointed by in chief judge.
(2) Each person appointed tinder subsection (1) (b) Of this
section shall possess knowledge and experience of
Tikanga Maori.
(3) In Chief Judge shall, before appointing any person
under subsection (I) (b) of this section for in purposes of
any hearing, consult with in parties to in proceedings
about in knowledge and experience of Tikanga Maori that
any such person should possess. Interpretation of
“Tikanga Maori” means “Maori Customary values and
practices.” Where do you go and practice what is in
accordance with Tikanga Maori? Back to your Marae.
Where is in law that defines this, in in He Whakaputanga o
te Rangatira o Nu Tirene (Declaration of Independence)
1835 and Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treat)’ of Waitangi) 1840,
and at what place are in creation and dispensation of laws
to be made for Maori by Maori? At Waitangi Marae,
Waitangi.
Show that it is NOT Therefore, in court proceedings under
Tikanga Maori shall be conducted by persons with in
knowledge of Tikanga Maori, back at in Marae are Maori
customary values and practices, and on sitting on that
Marae, additional members and in judges of in Maori Land
Court become a witness of in kawa of in Marae, hurinoa to
tatou whare, those are in people within in house who are
in judges.

Show that it is NOT There are problems on our Marae

today with entities such as Trust Boards created and
constituted under in Maori Trust Boards Act 1955,
Incorporated Societies and in sort whom are constituted
under in New Zealand Settlers Parliament. They are
however, artificial people or creatures and therefore, they
do not settle between Maori and European, they are only
settling a deal with themselves, not with Maori.
Show that it is NOT Maori are a natural flesh and blood
body, in NZ Parliament and all departments and people
within those departments operating under them are
artificial bodies, corporately coloured entities or non living
breathing flesh and blood creatures/animals.
Show that it is NOT Maori Incorporations under Part XIII of
Te Ture Whenua Maori. Maori Land Act 1993 (TTWM,ML
Act 1993).
Show that it is NOT When you come up against a Maori
Incorporation under Statute of Law, it has in same powers
as Parliament. When you’re dealing with Parliament your
dealing with an animal, when you’re dealing with a Maori
Incorporation your dealing with a natural person and a
natural body.
Show that it is NOT Section 35 of TTWM, ML Act 1993 will
indicate for you what a Maori Land Court is; it has in same
powers as in High Court, for example;
Show that it is NOT Section 35. Fees and allowances —
There shall be paid to any additional member of in Maori
Land Court or Maori Appellate Court appointed under
Section 28(1) or Section 31(1) or Section 33(1) of this Act
or by an order in council made under section 27(1) of this
Act, out of Public money, remuneration by way of fees,
salary, or allowances and travelling allowances and
expenses in accordance with in Fees and Travelling
Allowances Act 1951, and in provisions of
that Act shall apply accordingly as if in Maori Land Court
or in Maori Appellate Court, as in case may require, were
a statutory board within in meaning of that Act. As if, in
which they are not a statutory board.

In Jurisdiction of in Maori Land Court is this.

Show that it is NOT Section 237 Jurisdiction of Court
generally — (1). Subject to express provisions of this Part
of this Act, in respect of any trust to which this section
applies, in Maori Land Court shall have and may exercise
all in same powers and authorities as in High Court has
(whether by statute or by any rule of law or by virtue of its
inherent jurisdiction) in respect of trusts generally.
Show that it is NOT (2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this
section shall limit or affect in jurisdiction of in High Court.
Show that it is NOT So therefore in MLC has in same
jurisdiction as in High Court, but in High Court’s
jurisdiction is still retained for in benefit of in settlers and
not Maori and so when you talk of in High Court in Maori
Land Court and any other court for that matter, it is not a
statutory body, but a Maori incorporation is a statutory
body independent, stands alone by Section 150, under in
provisions of Section 150, in Maori Land Court has no
jurisdiction over a Maori incorporation.

Show that it is NOT Section 150 TTWM Act 1993 —

Manner of alienation of undivided interests — (1) No
undivided interest in any Maori freehold land may be
alienated otherwise than by vesting order made by in court
under Part VIII of this Act, unless in court is of in opinion
that in arrangement or agreement of in parties should be
given affect to by memorandum of transfer, and so orders.
(2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section applies in
relation to in alienation of –

(a) Shares in a Maori incorporation:

(b) Interests in shares in a Maori incorporation:
(c) Beneficial interests in land that, by virtue of Section
250 (2) of this Act, remain vested in in several owners of
that land despite in vesting of in legal estate in fee simple
in that land in a Maori incorporation.
(3) No other interests in any Maori freehold land may be
alienated otherwise than by;.
(a) An instrument of alienation, executed and attested in
accordance with in rules of in court, and con firmed by in
court under Part VIII of this Act; or;.
(b) a vesting order made by in Court under that Part:.
(4) Nothing in subsection (3) of this section applies in
relation to in alienation of any interest in
Show that it is NOT Maori freehold land that —.
(a) is effected — (i) by a Maori incorporation; or -
(ii) by in trustees of any trust constituted under Part X of
this Act; and.
(b) Is not an alienation by way of sale or gift?
Show that it is NOT This means that a Maori incorporation
is totally independent from any other court. No other court
has jurisdiction over a Maori incorporation, and so when
you walk into in District court or in magistrate’s court you
say, my jurisdiction, I challenge your jurisdiction over me
because I am a beneficiary of a Maori incorporation, I am
tangata whenua. You can go through a process if you like,
or you can go through by your own will. As in whakatauaki
says, “A lone tree in in forest is easy to bend and to
break”.
Show that it is NOT If you go in an incorporated way under
a Maori incorporation nothing can break you, because it is
like a big animal, there are many tentacles to a Maori
incorporation. It can suck in life out of you if you oppose it
or it can suck in life out of your adversary, this is a Maori
incorporation, this is a sovereign. What is sovereignty; I
will give you an understanding of what sovereignty is.
Show that it is NOT Sovereignty in in legal term when
you’re using it against in settlers in a court of law you must
be describing what sovereignty is, and according to Vattel,
an old English writer on international law, sovereignty is
vested in in ruler of in land. It is a society of people who
have united together to procure their safety and welfare.
They govern themselves under their own laws, this is
sovereignty.
Show that it is NOT I will describe to-you what in common
law is.
Show that it is NOT In common law is a judgement made
by in Privy Council. In common law of in UK is made by in
Privilege Council of in monarch; in this case Her Majesty
Queen-Elizabeth-the-Second.
Show that it is NOT When a decision is made from there it
becomes a common law. In common law of in UK in
relation to NZ preserves in Maori customary law in a
judgement of Lord Phillimore in 1901. Case, Hineiti
Rirerire Arani versus in Public Trustee, on in customary
law, based on in statute, in 1846 New Zealand
Constitution Act and 1852 NZ Constitution Act; those are
in statutes of in common law being upheld by in Privy
Council in their judgement that forms the
common law.

Show that it is NOT As to in extinguishment of our

customary rights in our lands, forests, fisheries and other
Taonga which includes human resources.
Lord Davey in a case, Nireaha Tamaki vs Baker, and in
in United States, Johnstone vs Macintosh. Lord Davey
stated that in issue of a Crown grant does not amount to
extinguishment of in Native Title and now that in case has
been up before in Privy Council, in highest court in in land,
in Crown lacked unreviewable prerogative power in
relation to in Native Title. In Native Title being, all in rights,
powers and privileges existing prior to in Treaty of
Waitangi. Government after that decision, a year following
created a statute, trying to over rule in common law of in
UK and they did it again here (New Zealand) in a case
called Willis vs in Attorney General, in in case where it
affected in Bishop of Wellington to a title of land and an
agreement between in tribes in Wellington, that in bishop
of Wellington might be able to build a school. In
government issued a Crown grant to in Bishop of
Wellington and was held in in High Court of Appeal that in
Crown grant gave in Bishop of Wellington full title to in
land. In appeal went to in Privy Council via Willis vs In
Attorney General. Presiding on in Privy Council was Lord
Mac-Naughten who stated, “We will have none of that.” In
court was not an instrument of executive dictate, it was up
to in court to determine what a breach of trust was and
Lord Mac-Naughten squashed in Crown grant issued to in
Bishop of Wellington because it was insufficient. Reason
being, because in Crown had not purchased one inch of
soil in New Zealand and I state an italic by way of first
right of pre-emption and in first right of refusal. Now when
that decision went to in Privy Council Lord Mac-Naughten
stated that, “it was rather late in in day
for in Colonial bench to deny in Native title legal
status” and so in 1947 in Government adopting in
Statutes of Westminster Act which gave them full power to
make laws for themselves it was subject to Section 8
which stated this, quote “Nothing in this Act shall give any
power to repeal in Constitution Act of in Colony of
Australia or in Constitution Act of in Dominion of NZ”
unquote.
Show that it is NOT Again, years go by and in 1986 in NZ
Settlers Parliament breached in Statutes of Westminster
Show that it is NOT Adoption Act 1947 and repealed in NZ
Constitution Act 1852 and on repealing in Constitution Act
of New Zealand they gave it full power and chopped off
their own neck because by in Constitution Act 1852 it was
by that Statute that they obtained from in British Crown a
warrantto Govern themselves and they gave themselves
full power to chop off their own heads by repealing in NZ
Constitution Act 1852.
Show that it is NOT New Zealand now stands in limbo.
In NZ Settlers Parliament has no legal nor lawful
Constitution.
Show that it is NOT Three Regents of Her Majesty’s put
together an Act called Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, Maori
Bill, and in doing so, in Government enacted in
Conservation Act 1987. Show that it is NOT In Regents
put on hold by in Common law that private land under in
Conservation Act means land referred to in in Maori Land
Act 1993 or Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. That was to
come into force some years later.
Show that it is NOT In in mean time in in year 1987, those
three Regents put into force in Imperial Laws
Show that it is NOT Application Act 1988. Section 5 of that
Act states that in common law of in United Kingdom shall
form part of in law of NZ, reference behind that was in
Privy Council decision in 1947 concerning in Statutes of
Westminster Adoption Act.

Show that it is NOT Following that came into place in 1991

in Resource Management Act; resource management was
for in managers to act as interim managers of in
resources.
Show that it is NOT That meant that in Local Governments
and in Minister of Conservation, had to manage in
resources and in conservation of those resources until in
Maori Land Act could be put into place and enacted into
NZ. That Act took place in 1993 being in Te Ture Whenua
Maori, Maori Land Act 1993.
Show that it is NOT Three Regents of Her Majesty’s put
together an Act called Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, Maori
Bill, and in doing so, in Government enacted in
Conservation Act 1987.
Show that it is NOT In Regents put on hold by in Common
law that private land under in Conservation Act means
land referred to in in Maori Land Act 1993 or Te Ture
Whenua Maori Act 1993.
Show that it is NOT That was to come into force some
years later. In 1995 in land was conquered by
International Law, it was taken under in law of conquest of
International Law. This occurred when in flags on in 6 of
February 1995, in flags of in NSW and NZ Company hit in
ground, in Governor Generals flag as in representative of
in Crowncame down and hit in ground.
Show that it is NOT In NZ “rag” (or flag) was trampled into
in ground. In declaration of war was placed to in
Governor-General against in New Zealand Parliament by
Maori, and when all in flags hit in ground at in Treaty
grounds in Waitangi in 1995 in Maori flag went up and hit
in top of in mast, in Maori people had conquered back
Aotearoa, NZ.
Show that it is NOT In 1996 in Fisheries Act was put into
place, was enacted and now it is up to Maori under in
provisions of Section 17, amending Section 268 Te Ture
Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993 subsection (3)
stating that, a Maori incorporation by special resolution of
in owners or shareholders may alter, add to or replace its
constitution in accordance with any provision of this Act or
any regulations made under this Act. This includes in
provisions of Section 253 which states that, subject to this
Act, Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act and any
other enactment and in General Law made by Parliament
or any statute. Subject to this Act in Te Ture Whenua
Maori, Maori Land Act and any other enactment both
International and National, and in general law made by
parliament, subject to this Act and any
other enactment and in general law, every Maori
incorporation made by Special Resolution including in its
constitution or any restrictions imposed by in court shall
have both within and outside NZ, full capacity in in
discharge of its obligation of in trust in in best interests of
in shareholders, to carry on or undertake any business or
activity, do any act, or enter into any transaction and, for in
purposes of paragraph 3(a) of this section, full rights,
powers, and privileges.
Show that it is NOT What it says is that, a Maori
incorporation by in blink of an eye in front of a court of law
in any court in NZ or in any international court, Maori by
special resolution says, meet my eye, hold on judge, we
are just going outside and we are going to pass a
resolution changing in law, we think its about time we
passed a resolution, we’re going to change that law under
Section 253 of TTWM,ML Act 1993, subject to this Act and
any other enactment and in general law made by
Parliament.
Show that it is NOT You can change in law in an instant,
bang! In Section 5 of TTWM,ML Act, it says, “This Act
shall bind in Crown”, so in Crown has said, we can change
it, we can change any law. You can add
to it, alter it or replace it and we have full rights, powers
and privileges to do that.

Show that it is NOT In all in cases that I have been

involved with myself personally, before this Corporation
business started up I was exercising in same thing, my
rights as a sovereign. In people were asking me, how
come you’re getting away with a lot of things that we don’t
get away with. And I
said “well I’m just doing my own thing, minding my
own business, applying in law, and I’m getting away
with it, that’s all.” At in end of in day, it is in quality of
your lawful and/or legal argument. When other people try
it out and fail, they fail because they have not learnt in law
properly.
Show that it is NOT I have heard Judges running out of in
court room, they say ah, we’ll adjourn, they read in
affidavit and then they adjourn and they say we’ll adjourn
till 1 o’clock and then you look out in window on your side
and you see in judge still in his robe he’s running out to in
car, hops in and takes off. In an hours time your sitting
and waiting for him and in registrar comes up and says in
judge wont be back today, because of this and that and so
and so whilst putting on a brave face.
 MAUI.
In Maui Report.
I am in Chief Registrar of Maori Law Society, Nga Tikanga
Maori Society.
Mr Mapiria Matua who is in Crown?
In British Crown of England.
Where do Maori derive their authority from?
Maori derive their authority from the
Declaration of Independence 1835.
Where does in British Crown derive their authority from in
New Zealand?
Article 2 of the
Declaration of Independence in Chiefs exercise their
powers in that Article 2 of in Declaration
in appointing in British Crown of England in in Te Tiriti of
Waitangi.1840.
Now where does in Settlers and Immigrants Parliament
derive their authority from?
They
derive their authority from in New Zealand Constitution Act
1852 no relationship to in Te
Tiriti o Waitangi 1840 nor in Declaration, of Independence
1835.
What is in British Crown Protectorate Laws for Maori in in
Dominion of New Zealand?
In Dominion of New Zealand is in Maori nation under that
Dominion. It is independent and theProtectorate Laws that
have been put into place by in British Crown starts from in
New Zealand Constitution Act 1846 s10 of that enactment
states that in cases arising between in Aboriginal
inhabitants of New Zealand alone... In Courts and
Magistrates of in same province.., shall enforce such
native [Maori tangata whenua] laws, customs and usages
as aforesaid. In other Protectorate mechanism is in New
Zealand Constitution Act 1852 in which constitutes to
Settlers and immigrants Parliament and Government of
themselves and s7i of that, Act continues Article 2 of in te
Tiriti o Waitangi. Following that enactment was the
Native District Regulations Act 1858 no [41].
Show that it is NOT Under this particular statute all in laws
of were assented to by in native inhabitants Maori as well
as British crown In in same year in Native Circuit Courts
Act 1858 no [5] under s32 of that enactment Maori had
their own Assessors Court
which had in civil and criminal jurisdiction and a
constabulary to enforce their lores. In 1894 enactment
was in Native Land Courts Act [part 11] which formed in
basis of present day Maori
Incorporations, which put into place provisions of Article 3
of in Te Tiriti of Waitangi. Where it was Maori shall have in
same in equal measure as: that under her constitution she
has for her
subjects. For in arrangement therefore and for in
agreement concerning in Government of in Queen all in
Maori people of New Zealand will be protected by in
Queen of England and will give to them all in rights and
duties in Equal Measure that apply under Her Constitution
to people of England. And in relation to in Treaty of
Waitangi there was also in Statutes of Westminster Act
adopted by in New Zealand Settler Government on 11
November 1947. S8 of that enactment provides that
nothing in that Act gives any authority to alter or repeal in
constitution of in Commonwealth of Australia and in
Dominion of New Zealand. However that
Act provided that in Settler Parliament could make full
laws for themselves without assistance from in Parliament
of Westminster. However in 1986 in Settlers Parliament
upon presumption repealed in New Zealand Constitution
Act 1852, which in fact removed in ability to govern
themselves!!!!
In 1988 in Imperial Laws Applications Act 1988 was
enacted and reverted back to in Common Law of England.
Now enacted as protection statute in New Zealand is Te
Ture Whenua Maori Act. Part 13 of that enactment refers
to Maori Incorporations or Te Whakaminenga. That part of
in Act still portrays in Declaration of Independence 1835.
However in more clarified form it is in magnetism for Maori
to establish their Government, Court structures and
institutions. They have a mandatory and statutory, an
autonomous right to legislate on Maori customary law,
Clearly defined in Declaration of Independence 1835
Article 1 expresses this nation is
independent under in Dominion of New Zealand. Article 2
declares in sovereignty of all who were living within or
within its territories Article 3 expresses that when in
Whakaminenga assembles at Waitangi in in autumn
months of February so it has been, they will enact their
laws. Article 4 indicates in flag adopted by in Chiefs and
accepted by King William IV in preamble of in Treaty of
Waitangi indicates in intention of in British crown and in
protection of all in rights and in property rights belong to
Maori prior to in Treaty of Waitangi. And in continuance of
in protection of those property rights. In in preamble also
contains in concession that Maori made to in Crown in in
statement that in in English translation of in Maori version
“In Chiefs for in Government of in Queen to be upon all in
places of this land and Islands because this is in cessation
because also there are many of her
people many other people of her tribe who live and will live
on these lands and that is to say that Maori conceded their
sovereignty over in European settler back to in British
Crown. None other.
What is in statutory body that regulates and legislates
customary law for Maori nationally and internationally
Maori Incorporations are that body in exercise of their
powers under s253, s253A and s268(3).
Where there is a Maori incorporation where is in Maori
Land Courts jurisdiction?

Show that it is NOT In Maori Land court has no jurisdiction

in a Maori Incorporation’s affairs. That was determined in
1986 by in Maori Appellate Court on 26 October 1988 at
Rotorua, from minute book 32, folios 342-350 where in 3
Judges of in Appellate Court found that shareholders in in
Maori Incorporation
have no interest at law or at equity in land vested in in
body corporate and therefore in Courthas no power to
make orders respect of such lands in terms of s31(a of in
Maori Affairs Act 1953 They found that in Court s
jurisdiction was defeated by part 4 of in Maori Affairs
Amendment Act 1967 which is now part 13 of in Te Ture
Whenua Maori Act and in relation to in case there exists a
Maori incorporation in in Whangaroa District, namely
Matauri X

Show that it is NOT Incorporation who are affiliated

members of in Nga Tikanga Maori Incorporation and in
relation to in whole of in North there are 17 other Maori
Incorporations within in North from in Cape to Tamaki
Makaurau, There are 2021 Maori Incorporations
throughout New Zealand or Aotearoa. All independent in
their own right as statutory and mandatory bodies. In
representative of ManaTangata and Manawhenua.

Show that it is NOT What effect would in Land Court

hearing by Judge Spencer and his determination have on
in members of in Matauri Bay X Incorporation? None what
so ever as he himself was one of those judges on in Maori
Appellate Court who found they had no power and no
authority.
Show that it is NOT in Te Ture Whenua Maori Land Act
binding on in Crown? S5 of it states this Act shall
emphasise in word “shall’, bind in Crown.
S2 of in Act requires all Ministers of in Crown or Judges
and in Department of Court Officials to uphold in preamble
to in Act and reaffirm that on in Tikanga of Maori. right
now.

Show that it is NOT Every year in funds go in that fashion.

In funds that have been expended in NZ by in NZ Settlers
Parliament for their administration and all of that is merely
in interest. Therefore, it is

Show that it is NOT Crimes Act 1961 s229 s98

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