Once upon a time there was a placid and progressive little country at the bottom end of the South Pacific, where most everybody was getting on fairly well... then came the whores...

The Nathan led cabal, which mounted the false land claim against Allan and Susan Titford in order to steal their clear freehold title over lands sold to the Crown by Chief Parore Te Awha, in 1876.

To the far left is seen Katina & Ned Nathan. Katina was from Crete and was of full Greek lineage. Ned is estimated to have been 5/8ths Maori, 1/4 European & 1/8th Portuguese. The coloured picture shows Ned's son, the half Greek Manos Nathan in a black "T" shirt, standing beside Dr. Neville Hogg*. The picture was taken at the time Manos's Pouwhenua pole was raised before T.V cameras on Titford's private farm property. The great kaumatua of Te Roroa, Alex Nathan is seen next, trying to get himself onto the council. Australian born (?) Te Roroa claimant, Gary Hooker is seen also trying to get a foot in the door within the council. He is only 1/8th Maori, but acts in the role of propaganda minister for the cabal. The true facts of Te Roroa history, as contained within this article, are very conspicuous by their absence in Gary Hooker's very selective, self-serving approach to interpreting "history".

*Note: A prominent farmer around the Maunganui Bluff district, Mr. Downey, while deep in the bush at the Bluff many years ago, heard a strange and loud incantation nearby, so sneaked over to the source of the tumult. He found Dr. Neville Hogg in ritual ceremony, arms raised in devout supplication and earnestly invoking Maori gods. Dr. Hogg used to spend a great deal of time wandering through the forested hills in the area, exploring. The Nathan cabal were quick to use him as a European figurehead in support of their very dubious cause, presumably to win-over some European sympathy or to promote the illusion that there might be some substance or legitimacy to what they were claiming. They, thus paraded Neville Hogg gratefully before the cameras at the raising of Manos Nathan's Pouwhenua.

Noel Hilliam, former Curator of the Dargaville Maritime Museum, well remembers Ned Nathan coming to the Museum in 1980 and asking for source information on local whakapapas (genealogical links). Mr. Hilliam supplied Ned Nathan with a copy of the rare book, The Peopling of the North, by F. Percy Smith, for in-house reading on museum premises. After some considerable time spent perusing the book, Ned exclaimed, 'Oh, that will do'. He wrote out a family tree, then, according to Noel Hilliam, crossed out a name and inserted another in its place. Noel considered the act to be quite strange, until a few years later, when Ned Nathan became heavily involved in the Waitangi Tribunal and land claims, with himself and his immediate family as the primary beneficiaries. Noel, thereafter, strongly suspected that Ned Nathan had manufactured some aspect of his whakapapa for the land claims process. Other Maori in the know have commented that the Nathan whakapapa has areas "that are in spirit only".

The Nathan family name is, in fact, a bit confusing due to a lot of swapping around of the name of a shipwrecked ancestor, Nathan Porto-ava who was on the French ship L' Alcemene, which was wrecked on the Northwest coast in 1851. Nathan or Natana Porto-ava or Patuawa was, as best we can determine, from Fortune Island, Batangos, Philippines. On the centenary of Nathan Porto-ava's death a memorial tribute was held at Taita Marae, and written up in the Dargaville & District News, October 7th 1998. The paper stated that Natana Patuawa 'was the son of a great chieftainess and belonged to the Ngapuhi tribe.' The paper tribute goes on to state: 'During his life Natana collected money for Hone Heke [a grand nephew] and was a known travelling companion of Bishop Selwyn and Henry Williams'.

Hone Pokai Heke died in 1850, a year before Nathan Porto-ava arrived in New Zealand at the youthful age of 18-years, so the statement can't be in reference to him, although he's the only "Hone Heke" that the public, at large, would think of. It's quite probable that this statement to reporters was merely a "sleight-of-hand" trick to make everyone think of Hone Pokai Heke, when in fact the spokesperson was referring to, virtually unknown, Member for Northern Maori, around the turn of the century, Hone Heke (circa 1900). Irihapeti Patuawa, daughter of Nathan Porto-ava and his wife Tarati, was born at Paihia, so it's very likely that the family had encounters with both Bishop Selwyn and Reverend Henry Williams. Tarati was, possibly, Ngapuhi, so perhaps Nathan Porto-ava was considered Ngapuhi by adoption or marriage. Some Te Roroa commentators state that Tarati was Ngati-Whatua.

At Te Papa Museum in Wellington, N.Z., contributors to the collection get honourable mention and feature on the in-house computer. When one puts the name Nathan Portoava into the computer, the name of Manos Nathan, along with a photo of him, appears on screen. Inasmuch as Manos Nathan fabricated some ceramic pots for the Maori section (Maori never fired pots or had any knowledge of ceramics), an article is included about him. His name is listed variously as Manos Nathan or Manos Nathan Portoava.

Ned told historian Joan Leaf that his brother was the Anglican minister of Rawene, who bore the surname of Patuawa, whereas Ned's surname was Nathan. Joan found this to be quite strange. Even the family genealogy is confusing, as Ned claims that his parents were Aperahama (Aberaham) Natana and Sophia Urikore Cummins. Although Alex Nathan says the couple had 8-children of which Ned was the 5th, Internet genealogical references, submitted by close family members, state that Aperahama's & Sophia's union produced no children. Were Ned and his Anglican minister brother adopted? Do the present-day cabal leaders of Te Roroa, Alex and Manos Nathan, have any Te Roroa blood links at all? As stated, one Te Roroa commentator said, 'you must realise, of course, that parts of the claimed Nathan whakapapa are "in spirit only"*.

*Footnote: In the late 90's there was an incident at a Marae (Taita?), where the claimed Nathan whakapapa was called into serious question. Alex Nathan was giving an oral delivery of his whakapapa, when he was interrupted by a leading Northland kaumatua who stated, 'you cannot claim that ancestor, as she was barren and had no children'. Alex Nathan is reported to have stopped his delivery forthwith and taken his seat, looking very embarrassed.

Prior to the eighties, the Nathans had lived for about twenty-five years in the Porirua-Wellington district, around Titahi Bay, where they ran some sort of Greek restaurant. They were known locally as "The Greeks" and tended to promote their Greek links and culture.

A "gushy" propaganda article about the Maori-Greek Nathans was written by "twisted Greek racist and hater of all things British", Athena Lambrinidou and appeared in Odyssey Magazine. For this truly nauseating, brown-nosing account, very insulting of the sacrifice of European soldiers who gave their lives in Crete during W.W.II, or showing Lambrinidou's utter ignorance of true (non-propagandised) New Zealand history, see: http://www.odyssey.gr/article.asp?pagecode=02&entryid=1326

It would appear strongly that, with new legislation brought in to empower the Waitangi Tribunal, Ned and his offspring saw a unique opportunity to make major financial gains as "born again Maoris", so moved from Wellington district to get a claim underway for themselves in the north. Thereafter, Ned got very active, in collusion with close mates like Graham Latimer, to get his finger in the rich grievance-industry pie and set himself up as the great new kaumatua of Te Roroa, supplanting the authority of the more placid or traditional royal families of the district in the take-over process. He also managed to get plenty of co-operation and help from family members who had taken over government departments, like Sam Brown (Head of Lands & Survey) or Tom Parore (Head of the Land Court). The Nathan network developed very far reaching tentacles of influence that extended into the highest levels of government or law.

In the best traditions of "the squeaky wheel gets the oil", a vocal and militant cabal of usurpers was formed, the mantel of which has now passed to control-freak Greek and "born-again Maori", Alex Nathan. The new great Maori leader of Te Roroa, Alex, now has to be consulted on everything to do with the Dargaville-Waipoua Forest district, even, apparently, down to recent desires for David Bellamy to film and comment about the grand Kauri tree, Tane Mahuta, which Alex refused permission to allow...a pretty amazing con-job for someone who is only about 1/4th Maori and, of that, only 1/8th Te Roroa hapu, depending on whether or not Sophia (Sophie) Urikore Cummins-Natana truly was his grandmother.

Dignified Te Roroa kaumatua and respected elder, Jock Leaf, once owned substantial tracts of land in and around the Waipoua Forest, which he had legitimately purchased off other Te Roroa owners during his long lifetime in the north and for which the family retain documentation. Since Jock's passing on December 24th, 2005 the family have come up against a brick wall in getting any acknowledgement of their holdings and are very concerned that Alex and the cabal are attempting to "absorb" the land owned by Jock's heirs. Based upon the cabal's latest land-grab "Information Pack", issued to their inner-sanctum of conniving members, this could well be the case. A locked gate has, for over a decade now, blocked a pubic road bridge across the Waipoua River that leads to a very large tract of prime public land stretching up the coastline. The Nathan cabal, in collusion with forestry and DOC control-freaks, determine who can enter and who can't. The much aggrieved, righteously-indignant cabal, forever shedding crocodile tears and bemoaning their "dispossesed" state or the historical injustices committed against them, wants all of this "compensatory: territory". In fact, the eternally lamenting Nathan cabal wants much, much more, ranging from Dargaville, where they've seen a vacant lot that tickles their fancy, all the way up the west coast to the Hokianga Harbour, throughout which stretch it is their heart's desire to "absorb" many large parcels of real estate and lucrative commercial resources.

"Ab-Zorba the Greek", Alex Nathan and his parasitic leech cohorts, are despised by the more normal and less militant members of Te Roroa, who resent the terrible disruption and ongoing conflict this "born-again-Maori" family imported into the north during the 1980's and thereafter. The Nathan-backed gang of thugs harassed many peaceful farming families and started fights, deliberately, in an effort to claim & "absorb" many coastal farms, by forcing government intervention to diffuse the situation.

Hardworking farmwife Elizabeth Bibby was labelled a "Nazi Bitch" then both she and her husband John were constantly harassed and intimidated for about twelve years by the thugs, until forced to lose the farm by a false land claim mounted by the Nathan-led cabal. The same thing has happened to a drove of other titled land owners in that troubled northwestern coastal district, a fact that goes unreported and remains unbeknown to most New Zealanders. There is growing list of people in the north who have fallen victim to the Nathan brand of government-backed psychological warfare and had their lives and livelihoods ruined in the process.

In the very near future, the Nathan-led cabal has ambitions to defraud the New Zealand public and private landowners out of the following substantial parcels of land and commercial resources.

Have a look to see if the Nathan cabal are planning to grab your property as well... Maybe you're the owner of that "vacant section" in Dargaville that they're eyeing up for acquisition in the very near future. These documents were acquired from a disenchanted member of Te Roroa, who is sick of the deceit and fraud being perpetrated by the Nathan cabal.


Michael Corleone: My father made him an offer he couldn't refuse.
Kay Adams: What was it?
Michael Corleone: Luca Brasi held a gun to his head, and my father assured the bandleader, that either his signature or his brains would be on the contract. (See The Godfather, by Mario Puzzo).

After years of government tolerated harassment by squatters, constant Nathan led intimidation or violence, assaults and punch-ups by Maori claimant thugs and police, death threats and near misses from bullets or "bump-you-off-the-road" cars, ongoing sabotage of farm equipment, cutting and removal of fences, arson of their two farm houses resulting in total destruction of all their personal belongings, ongoing rustling or murder of stock, confiscation of firearms by the police to leave the isolated farming couple unprotected in the middle of Apache country, deliberate government interference to make it impossible to run the daily affairs of a viable farm business, freezing of assets by the government owned Rural Bank using "starve-you-out" stalling tactics of withholding funds or outright confiscation of farm transactional money, devaluing of assets by getting DOC archaeologists to declare fake wahi-tapu's indiscriminately around the property in order to strip away land value and force bankruptcy, constant court appearances on concocted or trumped-up charges, regular character assassination by a biased and government controlled bunch of media whores, attempts to have Allan Titford declared insane by offering tempting financial enticements to members of Allan's own family including his brother Brian and father, denial of basic human rights under the Land Transfer Act 1952 and a host of other Acts, allowing no funding for self-defence in court when the opposition were given several hundred thousand dollars in legal aid to prepare and mount a case before the Waitangi Tribunal, no right to defend their freehold farm title in a court of law, threats to valuers who made fair appraisals of the Titford farm and assets, threats to law firms engaged by the Titford's that they'd get no future government work or funding unless they dumped the case, etc., etc., the Titford's were forced, under extreme duress, to enter into final negotiations to lose the farm and walk away with virtually nothing after all the debts were paid. When Allan refused to sign the Deed of Transfer until a number of final conditions were met, some upper-level government functionary FORGED his signature so that the title could pass illegally to the government without Allan Titford's sanction.. In the final, punishing tally-up, after the Government, Rural Bank and ACC or others had unleashed their "creative accountants" to grab the remaining spoils or "pay-off" helpful parties (with Titford owned cattle, farm equipment or plant), Allan Titford gained about enough money to buy a 5-acre block.

Allan Titford standing in the ruins of his farm home at Maunganui Bluff in 1992, the second to be burnt to the ground by (????)*. By this point in time Allan and Susan Titford had been constantly terrorised for five years and the New Zealand government stood back and let it all happen or worked in collusion with the activists. Because of deliberate distortions of the Treaty of Waitangi between 1975 and 1992 or thereafter, up until the present, white New Zealanders were left defenseless by a government whose sworn duty it was to protect them and their freehold titles under the Treaty of Waitangi. The government of New Zealand are not only in breach of Allan & Susan Titford's guaranteed Treaty of Waitangi rights, but are also in breach of The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, Articles: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16 17, 21 23 and Article 30 or sections within all of the above. Well-documented incidents can be cited to support this contention. See SUBMISSION

* Footnote: Due to an organised smear campaign (November 2013) Titiford is now accused of burning down his own home to gain, "public sympathy". The nonsense that Allan Titford burnt down his own home and the valuable, irreplaceable Bohemian heirlooms of his settler family, as well as all of his hard-won historical records, is just too big a lie to swallow.

His house insurance had been cancelled and, besides, Prime Minister David Lange had issued an edict that “no private land would ever be lost to a Maori land claim”. Titford had absolutely no reason under the sun to burn down his own house for something as stupid as gaining “public sympathy”, but it certainly provided the police with a much-wanted, immediate opportunity to kick the Titfords off the property.

The government agency extortionist racketeers, intent upon getting some semblance of a sale agreement that they could make stick, had to falsify the "Deed of Settlement" papers. The coercion applied, by strong-arm, stand-over tactics, was illegal under the "Land Transfer Act 1952" (& 1948). It was also highly illegal under the "Contractual Enforcement Act 1956", due to the falsification of the Deed of Settlement papers, shoved through with Allan Titford's written conditions and protests deleted. This illegal tampering with sale documents was so serious that the government refused, for almost fifteen years, to make the papers available, until finally sourced under the "Official Information Act 1987" (unobtainable until the 1st of November, 2006). The Crown would not even supply Allan Titford's nominated lawyer, Mr Clive Jackson of Jackson-Whittaker in Auckland with a copy of the Sale Agreement or Deed before or after the settlement. In fact, neither Mr Jackson, nor Mr Titford ever received a copy of the executed Sale Agreement or Deed from the Crown in the many years that followed, despite ongoing requests. Lawyer, Mr. Clive Jackson was refused a copy on the grounds, "the documentation was confidential".

This deliberate falsification of Deed & Sale documents, by subordinate Government employees, is particularly despicable for the following reasons:

The one insurmountable, blackmailing tactic the Titfords couldn't overcome or fight, leading to this "forced signing" of some final papers pending a full sale agreement, was the very real threat that Allan Titford's parents, as guarantors and consignees to the Maunganui Bluff farm purchase, being forced by the government to lose their Waiwera family farm of four generations ownership. This was the gun-at-the-head "offer he couldn't refuse", proposed by the government's sinister "Mr. fix-it" henchman, Ray Chappel.

The Mafia Godfather, Don Corelone, couldn't have done it better.

The New Zealand public have no idea of the wear-you-down, strong-arm tactics that went on behind the scenes in this case and Ray Chappel, the government's, extortionist expert, even boasted how "we own the media and can manipulate public perceptions of you". He also, in smug confidence, told the Titford's that the background history to the Te Roroa claim against the Maunganui Bluff farm property was "so complex, with the true documentation so well-hidden, that they'd never be able to work it out and raise a counter-case".

The miserable old henchman still dutifully shuffles around the corridors of Bowen House, Parliament, forever engaged, undoubtedly, in the government's "special work", for which he has considerable talent. He once boasted to Allan Titford that 'he's never failed in getting what he wants and had worked under six prime ministers'. He further stated, 'It doesn't matter how good your case is or how much evidence you find, because we own the judges and you'll never get anywhere'. He cautioned Allan Titford strongly, not to 'fart on the church pew', in other words, don't make a big stink or unwelcome, unholy noise in public, 'or we'll punish you forever throughout your life.

Chappel stated that the only right Allan had under the Treaty of Waitangi was the right to 'be in the county'. He said that 'the Treaty was between the Maoris and the Crown', meaning 'government representatives such as himself'. He told Allan Titford that the farm 'didn't belong to him anyway, as the mortgage was held by the Rural Bank (of which Chappel was formerly a top director) and the land is now a 'Historic Place'. This latest little devious wrinkle was due to the "dirty tricks department" of DOC and Historic Places Trust "suddenly finding" evidence of "middens" and declaring a "wahi-tapu"*, after claimants were seen carrying in buckets containing shells and burnt rocks to dump in spots along the newly bulldozed road that Allan had just put in for his coastal subdivision.
*Note:. The ever-creative "dirty tricks" department used the excuse that there were Maori burial sites in the same area where the claimants were observed to be bringing in bucket loads of burnt rocks and shells. The only known graves in the recorded history of the area were those of six French sailors from the L' Alcemene shipwreck of 1851, which remains were removed before W.W.II for reinterrement at another cemetery. The former grave is now covered by a house of Aranga Township on the sea coast.

So, to Political Scientists around the world studying how "Democracy" works in New Zealand, the Titford case gives you a perfect sample of how the New Zealand Government deals with the majority of it's citizens:

It's a totalitarian regime, only feigning or giving the illusion of democratic rule, but not the least averse to using dirty tricks, intimidation and strong-arm tactics to get what it wants. Our government departments and institutions have been largely infiltrated, occupied or hijacked by Maori activists and supremacists, whose working philosophy is guided by manufactured, "grievance-based", Marxist pseudo-history. The country has major problems.

The Titford's however, by sheer bloody mindedness borne of anger over the injustices meted out to them; wounded pride over the unwarranted character assassination insults, accusations and demeaning propaganda levelled at them in the whore media; righteous indignation for the treachery of multiple government departments or officials who should have protected them but didn't; they searched relentlessly in both the Australia and New Zealand for documents pertinent to their case. Bit-by-bit, over time, they found and pieced together all that they needed to reconstruct the true history and prove that they had always held a legal, indisputable title to their farms at Maunganui Bluff.. The reams of true historical documentation accrued prove conclusively that Te Roroa claim Wai 38 is a very transparent fraud. It proves that deliberately doctored, very selective and distorted historical information was, for the sole purpose of acquiring assets under false pretences. The prostituted Hooker-history submitted to the Waitangi Tribunal by the Te Roroa claimants or that of "premeditated-outcome" historian-lawyers and spin-doctors from Crown Law and Historic Places, effectively rendered null & void, the legal titles covering the Titford and Harrison farm properties.

This was a gross travesty of justice, which has too long been allowed to persist, despite the huge body of new, documented evidence, relative to the case, having been presented by the Titfords to the government. This ugly blotch on the government's record, in singling out, bullying and terrorising an innocent young farming couple into subjection, will never go away or be satisfied by token compromises after the event or deceitful statements of justification now being proffered such as, "willing seller-willing buyer". The Titfords were never willing sellers and it was very much a forced sale by a couple that the government deliberately bankrupted into submission, according to a premeditated plan of interdepartmental co-operation. As stated, several very influential and active government department heads, engaged in opposing the Titfords, were also Te Roroa claimants or closely related family to the claimants, with a vested interest in the outcome.

There has been ongoing criminal negligence by ministers of the Crown and dereliction of duty by successive governments on this issue, which lapses in responsibility must be fully and finally addressed in an open and honest public forum. The case must be reopened and all New Zealanders must be granted full disclosure of the true, cross-examined facts in order that justice is seen to be done and the ongoing vexation laid to rest permanently. Public confidence in the government needs to be restored on this matter, as negative feelings of incompetence or unfair tampering by elected officials are the overriding perceptions. Too many New Zealanders know the facts of this case and the issue will fester and cause problems for all the years to come, unless corrected.

To clearly establish who the true Maori owners were of the Titford and Harrison farm properties in 1876, and whose right it was to sell the huge Maunganui and Waipoua blocks to the Crown, one needs to review the history of Maori wars and conquests, going back into the 1700's and before. One also needs to review the agreements and "trade-offs" entered into by the owners and part-owners in 1875-1876.

Here is the true history that Nathan cabal, Minister of Propaganda and self-serving pseudo-historian, Gary Hooker, omits to mention.

The memorial plaque at Moremo-nui, commemorating this battle twelve miles south of Maunganui Bluff on the beach of the West Coast. Although this battle took place at Moremo-nui, it is generally called “Te Kai-a-te-karoro” (the seagull's feast), because the dead were so numerous that they could not all be eaten by the victors, and hence were left for the seagulls.  Another name for it is Te Haenga-o-te-one” (the marking of the sand), from the line drawn by Teke (of Uri-o-Hau) to stop the pursuit. (19th Century Maori Wars page 48)

Note: This event, called "Marking of the Sands" (Te Haenga-o-te-one”) is very important, as it is why Te Roroa, under Taoho, continued to live in exile on the Kaipara, until a delicate peace was negotiated in about 1824.  As a result of "asked-for" assistance by Taoho to chiefs Te Kairau and Te Kaha, who had been living at Maunganui Bluff. Taoho was allowed to return from exile and live eight miles south of Maunganui Bluff at Te Mamari. Chiefs Te Kairau and Te Kaha arranged for Taoho to meet safely with Hongi Hika at Kerikeri to negotiate a peaceful return from 20-years of exile. Taoho and his people, thereafter, were allowed to live as tolerated guests, under Parore’s protection in the upper Kaihu Valley at Opanake, this being just before the battle of Ikaaranganui in 1825, wherein Hongi Hika's forces finally decimated Ngati Whatua.

Maori defenders sound trumpets to alert their people of an imminent attack by the enemy. Picture by McDonald, James Ingram, 1865-1935 : Alarm in a Ma-ori pa 1906.

Nor is that all: they [the Maori people] must not be permitted to enter into any contracts in which they might be ignorant and unintentional authors of injuries to themselves. You will not, for example, purchase from them any territory the retention of which by them would be essential or highly conducive to their own comfort, safety, or subsistence. The acquisition of land by the Crown for the future settlement of British subjects must be confined to such districts as the natives can alienate without distress or serious inconvenience to themselves. To secure the observance of this - will be one of the first duties of their Official Protector.

Within the terms of the 1873 Native Land Act every instrument of alienation had to be explained to the Native by an interpreter, accompanied by a fully endorsed statement, describing its contents, in the Maori language.

By 1840, when the British Government was established in New Zealand, Te Roroa could make no claims to ownership of any territories based upon conquest, as they had been driven off their former lands of inheritance and possession and were now reduced to the lowly status of, what Ngapuhi elder Graham Rankin called, "squatters living on the fringes of the Waipoua Forest". They were also, disparagingly termed, "Ngapuhi's dogs", as they were living on the lands of Ngapuhi as tolerated pets.

Under the Maori system, they were a fully dispossessed people without mana, considered as "squatters". Through marriage into the owner tribes, they could gain access to an inheritance for their children, as Tiopira Kinaki did in marrying a woman of Ngaitu.

When the sale of large blocks down the West Coast to the Crown was instigated by Maori vendors, however, Te Roroa's very avaricious leader, Tiopira Kinaki, was quick to put his own name forward as a claimant for anything and everything he could grab, whether based upon pre-Treaty or post-Treaty, long-term or short-term"squatting" on the many lands of exile to which Te Roroa had been chased, shunted and hunted. What Te Roroa had not been able to hold onto or gain through fighting prowess, they would attempt to acquire through the Colonial Government's Native Land Courts and the British legal system, simply on the basis of having "been there". More than any other hapu, the long-term Te Roroa fugitives and refugees had been chased everywhere up and down the West Coast, fleeing to survive, and would now try to cash in on their long string of defeats, by claiming all of the refuges and sanctuaries where they had holed-up. By the 1880's, Tiopira and his followers had managed to acquire clear title on about 200,000 acres of land in multiple bogus claims. These illegitimately awarded titles he mostly sold to the Crown, but retained large reserves for himself at both the Waipoua and Waimamaku Blocks. Clearly, the biggest losers on the ground in the North became the biggest winners in the Native Land Courts. Tiopira's "squeaky wheel getting the oil" antics and that of others like him, caused an outcry from legitimate owners, who forwarded petitions for redress to Parliament.

Tiopira Kinaki sometimes initiated private surveys of land he didn't own. The record shows that he made a profession out of, deceitfully, trying to sell the lands of other tribes "out from under them" or "unbeknown to them" or tried to get his name on parts of any and every block in the region, stretching from Hokianga to the Kaipara. With British law having now replaced the former Maori conquest system, the very shrewd and money-grubbing Tiopira Kinaki found he could make overtures to the more accommodating and compliant, "third party", Colonial Government for the acquisition of rights that he did not have under the Maori system of winners and losers.

By the time of the signing of Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, he and his tribe were mere tenants on the lands of others and the recipients of their charity or toleration. By the mid 1870's, however, when land block sales down the West Coast above Dargaville were well underway, the old warrior structures were all but gone and Tiopira could appeal for full titles or part-ownership based solely upon "occupation" without fear of reprisal from his hapu's conquerors, who were the true owners. A lot of water had gone under the bridge and his world was a very different place to that of his grandfathers.

Tiopira Kinaki was very adept at working the "all-too-accomodating" British legal system, which was duty-bound to honour Lord Normanby's brief to Hobson for the protection of all Maoris. Since 1840 many "would-be" humane Acts, protective policies & measures had emanated from Normanby's original foundation instructions. By the 1880's, however, this "all-too-accomodating" approach by the colonial government brought the Native Land Courts into derision and heavy criticism from Ngapuhi and others, for awarding titles to illegitimate claimants like Te Roroa.

Ngapuhi well knew their lands of possession, which they clearly described in song or chants and had gained by "occupation, ancestry and conquest". These three foundation factors were supposed to be the determining criteria upon which the various Land Courts made ownership decisions, when awarding Maori titles from 1840 onwards. What had happened prior to 1840 was none of the colonial government's business or concern and they merely exercised their mandate to govern based upon existing circumstances from February 6th 1840 onwards, after Ngapuhi held lands were ceded in sovereignty to Queen Victoria.

Of these combined, defining and foundation criteria of "occupation, ancestry and conquest". Te Roroa could never adequately satisfy more than one condition in the forty-five years before 1840, which was their spasmodic and temporary "occupation" of lands owned by others. After their return from exile in 1825, this "occupation" was predominantly within the territories fully owned by Ngapuhi chief, Parore Te Awha. With the departure of Te Kaha and Te Kairau from Maunganui Bluff around 1825, Ngapuhi chief Matui Parore took full control of lands from the Waipoua Forest to Te Papa at Kaipara and Te Roroa hapu, once permitted to come out of exile by chief Hongi Hika, became "squatters" on Parore's lands (See: The Kaipara Minute Book No. 3). The historical record is very clear on this point.

Between 1880 and 1890, alone, Maoris presented over a thousand petitions to Parliament (AJHR 1891, G1 pg. xi.) without avail, to sort out fraudulent use of the Native Land Courts to perpetuate the awarding of bogus titles to people like Tiopira Kinaki. An 1888 newspaper account states:


Kihikihi Saturday

Mr. Ballance's Land Bill of this session, so far as its provisions are known, is not more acceptable to the natives as that of last year. It is the working of the Native Lands Courts that they are disgusted with, such cases as those at which Sir Robert Stout's Bill points at and others where the real owners have been deprived of their land altogether. Another great cause of discontent is the case with which bogus claims are admitted; and that in some cases where the claims are admitted, and that in some cases where the names of certain natives have been rejected by the court, the names of those natives have been put into the certificates afterwards. It is the administration of these Courts that they object to as altogether unsatisfactory, but on Mr. Ballance's Native Committees the look with even greater distrust. They would far sooner trust the judgement of a European than a Maori tribunal. In no case can it be said that Mr. Ballance has met their wants or removed the objections of the natives which stand in the way of a settlement to the land question satisfactory to both races - June 7 1888.

Just some of the block sales down the north-western coast, several of which Tiopira Kinaki managed to get full or partial ownership of. In the end he accrued over 200,000 acres for himself and his hapu. He was awarded parts of several more huge blocks, to which Te Roroa had fled to escape Ngapuhi, not shown. The biggest losers in the northern wars became the biggest winners in the Native Land Court.

The leniency or duplicity of Native Land Courts provided Tiopira Kinaki with a means to get his finger in the pie for several of the following blocks and others:

  1. 1870... Wairau Block... plan 2012... comprising 1129 acres for the Southern Wairau and 1410 acres for the North... total area 2539 acres...dealt with on the 10th of October 1870.
  2. 1870...Waiwhatawhata Block... plan 2013... comprising 2114 acres...dealt with on October 10th (?) 1870.
  3. 1870... Waimamaku Block.. plan 2014... comprising 2650 acres...dealt with 10th of October 1870.
  4. 1871... Kaihu Block ... plan 1946... comprising... 41075 acres...dealt with 1871.
  5. 1874... Waoku Block No. 1. ...plan 3092...comprising 17650 acres...dealt with on the 28th of April 1875 based upon a plan by R.T. Davis from 1874.
  6. 1874... Opanake Block ... plan 3046A...comprising 14457 acres...dealt with on 9th of December 1873... approved by Heale ...dealt with by Judge Rogan, 4th of June 1874.
  7. 1875... Waoku No 2...plan 3248... comprising 8017 acres ... dealt with on the 28th of April 1875... awarded to Heta Te Haara and Wiremu Pou.
  8. 1875...Waimamaku Block... plan 3278A... comprising 27200 acres... compiled in the survey office ... last plan done by Mr. Kensington on the 21st of February 1875.
  9. 1875... Omu Block... plan 3202... comprising 3147 acres and lying on the Northern Wairoa River between Ounwhao and Waiaruhe Blocks... dealt with on the 27th of March 1875.
  10. 1875... Waipoua Block Plan 3277A comprising (originally) 12153 acres for Waipoua No. 2 but later amended to be 12220 acres... and Waipoua No. 1.. plan 3277.... comprising 41181 acres but amended to be 35300 acres with the removal of Wi Pou's land from the plan. An earlier plan was 3232 for Waipoua 1...dealt with on the 15th of May 1875. Awarded to Tiopira Kinaki and Hapakuku Moetara who also inherited all of Waipoua 2 as a reserve.
  11. 1875... Waimata Block ... plan 3199... comprising 5699 acres... dealt with on the 19th of May 1875 ...claimants were Parore Te Awha from the Te Kuhi hapu of Ngapuhi and his servant lady, Ani Patene of the Te Taou hapu of Ngati Whatua.
  12. 1875... Karara Block... plan 30671... comprising 30671 when first surveyed but later amended to be 27700 acres... dealt with on the 22nd of May 1875. The sole claimant (representing many) was Kamariera Te Wharepapa. The plan was certified by Barnard on the 8th of May 1875.
  13. 1875... Punakitere Block... plan 3270... comprising 7959 acres... dealt with on the 12th of June 1875. Awarded to Western Ngapuhi.
  14. 1875... Ounwhao Block... plan 3200... comprising 8190 acres... dealt with before the court on the 27th of May 1875.
  15. 1875... Opouteke Block... plan 3214... comprising 43622 acres... but amended to 42000 acres when a reserve was cut out. Approved subject to corrections on the 13th of May 1975, but was dealt with in the court on May 22nd 1875.
  16. 1875... Pakanae Block 1... plan 3267... comprising 3189 acres and Pakanae Block 2... comprising 8955 acres ... dealt with on the 18th of June 1875. Both of these join to the Waimamaku block and were awarded to Ngapuhi.
  17. 1875... Waimamaku Block... plan 3278 before 3278A...claimants were Tiopira Kinaki, Hapakuku Moetara and Te Rore Taoho. The map plan was based upon the survey of H&D Wilson, drawn up on July 14th 1875 and comprising 24500 acres... minus Wairau native reserve. The government had purchased 27200 acres... dealt with on the 21st of December 1875.
  18. 1876... Kaihu No. 2 Block... plan 3509... comprising 11666 acres...dealt with on the 14th of August 1876.
  19. 1879... Aoroa Block...plan 3756... comprising 13850 acres...dealt with on the 8th of May 1879.


The circumstances of what transpired in the cases of the Waipoua and Maunganui Blocks are very well documented and should be beyond dispute. Because of Tiopira's usual tactics of attempting to raise the ante so that he could "milk" the block sales, he caused disputes that had to be settled in the Land Courts or by comprehensive Parliamentary enquiry. This led to large files of testimony from the purchasing agents and others involved, which have survived intact since their creation in 1876. The documents could not be more clear in the account that they give. Each of the following statements can be fully substantiated by comprehensive documentation on file in our archives:

The dignified old Ngapuhi chief, Parore Te Awha, was enraged by this attempted theft of his land and required that all surveyors, government or private, get out immediately. He said to the government 'that the survey should not be carried through, if the surveyors were to persist that they would be sent back by guns'.

On the 21st of February 1875, Parore wrote to Sir Donald McLean stating:

Friend greeting,

I have a word to you about Maunganui and Waipoua and up to the top is mine and it has been surveyed and I then went direct to Maunganui and I then wrote direct to the surveyor and stated that the survey should stop at Waikara [2.7 miles or 4.3 kilometres north of Maunganui Bluff summit].
Hone Mohi Tawhi took my letter to the Surveyor Mr Wilson
[A government surveyor being guided through the district by Tiopira Kinaki]. The Pakehas would not listen to stop at Waikara. I then returned to the Wairoa and Mr Preece said to me the word to me was that I was to desist from going to Maunganui. I then said I will not desist from going, for if I do, but if it (the survey) stops at Waikara, I will not go back.
Then Mr Preece said to me if Waikara is left behind it will be wrong. It was then I said my slow word (I reluctantly said) let the matter be settled in the manner of our ancestors and fathers. Then Mr Graham said let it be left for the law to look into
[W.A. Graham was Parore's Surveyor] - Enough I will return there only once more and that will be the end.
That is why I write to you. My land has all been surveyed. My word was that the land be divided at Waikara. Enough the matter rests with the administration of the law when an application is made for Maunganui, Waikara, Te Paku, Paketotara, Waima, Mangatu, Waitomi, Te Waokupu to the line of Pira, thence to the line of the timber (land) sold to Mr Monk - thence to the peg of Mr Monk's line at Ritoatehe, the line of Mr Monk's timber Paketi Te Kawa kapake te peke o te Reti to the peg of the land leased for flax, thence to te takahanga.
[Parore here gives the boundaries of what was to become the Maunganui block].
These are the names of my pieces which are all taken by the Roroa one is Te Uruti
[South of the Bluff below the Waihoupai Stream] Te Kapoai is another, Te Waipohuta kawa is another, Waihopai [River to the South of Maunganui Bluff where the entrance met the sea on the edge of Manuwhetai], Te Patapata [Western wall of Maunganui Bluff].
Enough this is the end of the names of my pieces.
[referring to the coastal boundary of what became the Maunganui Block where Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki lay] If the law is strong enough to divide them it is well.
Friend Sir Donald McLean my heart is crying towards the law namely towards you. If my land is divided by the law it will be right. If it is not divided I shall be forced into the ways of the ancestor and fathers. If my letter reaches you reply to it. Enough I have finished, from your true friend Parore te Awha. (Wai Doc Bank: 000389A-000391).

The terrain at the base of Maunganui Bluff's southern side, bordering the sea, being the location of present day Aranga township, was where Wi Pou, Tiopira Kinaki and others of the confederation envisioned having their Manuwhetai reserve, if they could wrestle the location out of the ownership of chief Parore Te Awha.

Dispossessed farmer and victim of a false, modern-day land claim, Allan Titford, points to the map location of Wi Pou's proposed Whangai-ariki reserve, just south of Maunganui Bluff. In the immediate background is the remains of the PA of chiefs Te Kaha and Te Kairua. It acted as a forward position for Ngapuhi to protect their lands from their enemies, Te Roroa and their Uriohau and Ngati Whatua allies, from 1806 to 1825. After that time, Hongi Hika totally decimated Ngati Whatua. A year before that Te Roroa, under Taoho, foresaw their impending doom and abandoned the fight. Taoho, with the assistance of Te Kaha and Te Kairua, pleaded with Hongi for the right to come out of exile and live in safety in Ngapuhi territory under Parore's protection. This was granted and the defeated Te Roroa exiles were given sanctuary as squatters.

Preece wrote: 'In the first place the weather was so extremely bad that it was impossible to get an open air meeting to enable them to discuss the matter thoroughly.
Secondly, Parore was and still is so very unwell and utterly unable to advocate his own case, yet at the same time was very determined not to be talked down by the opposite party. Tiopira offered what I think very fair terms to Parore and I strongly advised him to accept them, but the old man was on his dignity. He stated that they had sold the land without consulting him, that they had taken five hundred pounds deposit on it which they had denied when he first charged them with it, that they had afterwards persisted with the survey of it in spite of his protestations and to finish all they had come to Court the greater number of them armed with guns.
Knowing there was a great deal of truth in what he said, and considering the state of his health I did not press him to come to terms with them, particularly as the plan before the Court only contained about half of the estate in dispute, the other half being surveyed off and advertised to be heard at Hokianga under the name Waipoua, this I did not know until I arrived here as the plan was only sent in by the Surveyor at the last moment.
With regard to the Uriohau and Ngatiwhatua bringing guns I felt that, although I do not for a moment suppose that they could have attempted to use them, yet it was sufficient cause even if Parore had been well to have the case adjourned.
Preece mentions that the armed mob were assembled 'a few hundred yards down the river' and that 'they were drinking there to a large extent'.
J.W. Preece went on to state: 'Parore has written a letter to Judge Monro asking him to adjourn the Waipoua Block being a part of the same tribal estate as Maunganui and to have the two cases heard together here next summer. I shall support his application for an adjournment for I feel complications will arise unless the two blocks are heard at the same time, and it is impossible for Parore and Tirarau [Paramount chief of Ngapuhi] to attend the Hokianga Court'.

In 1874, Wi Pou of Ngaitu had paid private surveyors, Barnard and Stephens, to do a compass plan of his proposed reserves to the southern side of Maunganui Bluff. He wished to call these reserves Manuwhetai and Whangai-ariki. Whether or not the reserves idea went ahead and moved, in official status, from a proposal to an accurate theodolite survey tied to trigs, then onward to the further stage of awarded title, would depend on the outcome of the Land Court hearing scheduled for February 1876. Tracings of the sketch plans of Barnard and Stephens were sent to the Surveying office by mid 1875 and, thereafter, were copied into Field Book 13 in pencil. Corrective notations were later added in red pen, as best as could be done considering the scant and inaccurate information available. One added red pen notation reads, Mr. Barnard's line. Much of the recopied pencil sketching on both the Manuwhetai and Whangai-ariki plans was later overdrawn in black ink for greater clarity.

In the field, the surveyors used only "lick" pencils and never permanent ink that could not be erased for corrections and adjustments to lines. Field Book 13 was a "bitsa" book, incorporating the work of a variety of surveyors. It's assigned owner was Frank Stephenson Smith, who worked in very closely with his older brother and senior surveyor, S. Percy Smith, doing the major triangulation of the North Island. For over seventeen months, from October 1874 until February 1876, no government employed surveyors were permitted to set foot upon the Maunganui Block. Some semblance of a plan for the two reserves had to be completed from the submitted tracings, however, as they might be needed in evidence when the Native Land Court sat to hear the case and the claims of all parties.

In the interim period, while awaiting the Land Court sitting to determine the legal owners of the Waipoua and Manganui Blocks, surveying staff, not knowing what the court would require from disputants on both sides, drew up a single large plan, showing as accurately as possible, Wi Pou's two proposed reserves. His proposed Manuwheti reserve was designated No. 3297 and his proposed Whangai-ariki reserve was designated No. 3298.

At this stage, the plan was only a very rudimentary and inaccurate proposal, based upon Wi Pou's earlier engagement of private surveyors to rough out his proposal.

Although no government surveyors had been permitted to enter the areas shown, due to an interdiction imposed by Parore Te Awha, surveying staff prepared some provisional materials pending outcome of the court case, which was unknown at that time and would remain so for a further 5-months. In the final analysis the case went against Wi Pou and his entourage and their proposal for reserves to the south side of Maunganui Bluff became null & void.

The large provisional plan, drawn, on the 14th of September 1875, from Wi Pou's earlier private survey sketch. From October 1874 until after the Land Court determined that Parore Te Awha would retain full possession of the Maunganui Block, no surveying by government surveyors was permitted within the boundaries of the Maunganui Block. The Judge's decision to award the entirety of Maunganui Block to Parore was delivered just before the 3rd of February 1876. By that time government surveyors had been forbidden to work there for over a year and the above plan had to be created from pre-1875 sketch plans forwarded by private surveyors. After the Crown purchased the Maunganui Block from Parore, other notations were added to the above plan and the Manuwhetai - Whangai-anriki reserves proposals became officially null & void, as Parore Te Awha sold those areas outright to the Crown, which was his unchallenged right at that juncture. In relation to the reserve proposals, one official notation was added which said: Included in Maunganui. Declared waste lands of the Crown. Vide NZ Gazette 7th September 1876 p 623.

Here is the photocopy of the Deed that Allan Titford was able to make in Tom Parore's office. The final title deed awards Maunganui Block to Parore Te Awha, with Tiopira Kinaki's name also appearing on the Deed as per a pre-arranged agreement. Parore Te Awha's name also appeared on Tiopira's Waipoua Block Deed as per a pre-arranged agreement. All Maunganui Block ownership was awarded to Parore and all Waipoua Block ownership was awarded to Tiopira. Parore Te Awha had full and sole entitlement to sell or retain any and all of the Maunganui Block after the Native Land Court's final decisions related to the Maunganui and Waipoua Blocks.

The original of this deed was sent under orders of Sam Brown, (Head of Lands and Survey and related to the Nathan cabal claimants) to Tom Parore (Head of the Land Court, Whangarei and claimant). Although it and the rest of the file had lasted for over a century when delivered to Tom Parore and was seen in his office by Allan Titford who photocopied the above image, it and the rest of the Maunganui file was "alleged missing"* when it was required to be viewed by the Waitangi Tribunal. Because so many of the "original documents" were missing and there was a dearth of evidence, the benefit of the doubt went in favour of the Nathan cabal and the Titfords were stripped of their farm and assets. In any and all earlier investigations, it was decided that the Crown had no case to answer, as the complete dossier of documents was intact and proved legitimate purchase from Parore Te Awha.

*Footnote: During the period of Waitangi Tribunal hearings relative to this case, dispossessed farmers Allan Titford and Don Harrison were in attendance at all known meetings that they were informed about. These meetings, numbering about eight or nine were mostly held at Kaihu or at the marae at Waipoua. There were a couple of instances where they were barred from entry, as the meetings or parts thereof were being conducted in secret, behind closed doors, with only the Maori contingent allowed to be in attendance. Allan Titford, by a fluke of good fortune, had managed to get a photocopy of the deed shown above and tried constantly to have it accepted as evidence by the Waitangi Tribunal, to no avail. He tried to access it through the "document bank" relative to the case, but could never find it there. He repeatedly asked Sue Kendedine (Crown Law), David Colquoun (Crown Historian) or other Crown representatives / historians like David Alexander and Anderson Armstrong where the original "Deed" was, but never got a straight answer and was simply "fobbed off" by all of them. At all meetings where the dispossessed farmers were in attendance, this foundation document was not seen or presented. Allan Titford gave a copy of it to Sue Kendedine. We now know (2008) that David Colquoun had full, pristine copies of all the original "Deed" documents all along and could not help but know that there was absolutely no mention of any reserves called Manuwhetai or Whangaiariki. The only legal reserve mentioned, after all parties had come to mutual agreements, was Taharoa reserve for Parore Te Awha.

Further to the foregoing, government correspondence (Dept. of Lands & Survey) obtained under the "Official Information Act" shows that Garry Hooker, Te Roroa's so-called historian, was charged $11 under invoice C327815 for copies of these same "Deeds of Conveyance" on the 7th of September 1981. The Te Roroa cabal obviously knew the "Deeds"and accompanying testimonials written thereon were damning evidence against their claim, so made them "disappear" and never feature in the Tribunal hearings.

The long report goes on in much the same vein. This was not an actual court case as such, only an inquiry to see if one was justified. The Nathan cabal really try to make it sound like this was a court case and get as much mileage as possible out of Judge Acheson's overly accommodating attitude*. When the modern-day claimants made their "representation" of this inquiry before the Waitangi Tribunal, they are reported to have used their own "doctored", typed version ("for easier reading"), which omitted significant detail not helpful to their case. In the final analysis, however, Chief Judge Shepherd, who Acheson was subordinate to and was required to report to, found no evidence whatsoever that there was any substance to the 1939 claim. With full access to all of the surveyor's, Native Land Court and Parliamentary reports and letters or gazette notices, etc., it was clearly evident that everything had been settled correctly in 1876, with no oversights, loose ends or outstanding issues. It is also significant that neither Parore Te Awha nor Tiopira Kinaki ever mentioned these reserves during the remainder of their lives or in their wills as items or parcels of land the Crown forgot to give them. Tiopira had no claim on anything to the south of the Bluff and every square inch of that region became the total and undisputed title of Parore Te Awha.

Merridith said the following in 1939:

That is the point I am making. They [Manuwhetai and Whangaiarikiki] were not for Parore, because Graham [William A.] was Parore's surveyor and he made the 250 acre reserve [Taharoa Reserve], and in that respect it is clear that the data incorporating that 250 acre reserve on the plan of transfer would obviously be in existence prior to the formal plan of the reserve, which was signed, I think, one month later by Graham.

I think there is a month or six weeks between the date of the transfer and the date of that 250 acres plan signed by Graham and put in by him. What I am leading up to is this: you will notice in the statement of Preece's on behalf of the Crown both Tiopira's and Parore's reserves are taken into account, and the purchase for that is deducted from the total purchase price.

Note: Tiopira was awarded a very large reserve at Waipoua and Parore was awarded a 250 acre reserve at Kaiiwi Lakes, which they bought back off the Crown after selling the rest of their holdings.

They are taken into account so that if there were any further reserves to be taken out which are not mentioned there should be a deduction in price similarly to the two cases of the reserves which are known and the purchase price for which is deducted.

Note: It must be remembered that full title for the lands or blocks in question was first awarded to the Maori owners, who then had the option to either retain or sell as little or as much to the Crown as they wished. The system was that they would. generally, have a choice part surveyed out of the block, which they wished to retain. They would then sell the entire block to the Crown and "buy back", at the same acre value, the part they wished to retain ownership of.

There is nothing on record to show that these were ever mentioned. I am referring to Manuwhetai and Whangai-ariki. They were not taken into the calculation and there was no reservation in the deed as in the case of the 250 acres. It would have been so simple if three reserves were to be made instead of one, and to have mentioned three.

Note: The final carefully surveyed and official plan showed no other reserves to be sectioned out for repurchase except Taharoa, which Parore Te Awha wanted to retain for himself. He subsequently sold the entire Maunganui Block to the Crown and purchased back his 250 acre Taharoa reserve.

The fact that some natives, whoever they might be, had a plan prepared of these two areas, carries the matter no further unless something is done in connection with those to create some sort of title or some sort of right to those particular individuals.

Note: The individuals who originally wanted the Manuwhetai and Whangai-ariki reserves [Wi Pou and Tiopira] were never awarded land south of Maunganui Bluff by the Native Land Court. By mutual agreement and trade-offs between Parore Te Awha, Tiopira Kinaki and Wi Pou or others, Parore gave up his claim to Tutamoe and Wi Pou, in return, gave up his claim to Maunganui. Parore gave up his claim to Waipoua and, in return, Tiopira gave up his claim to Maunganui. Everything in Maunganui Block became the possession of Parore Te Awha by mutual consent and undisputed agreement arrived at and witnessed in the Native Land Court.

Whatever may have been in the minds of whoever had the survey made can have no bearing on what subsequently happened at the negotiations between Tiopira and Parore and the Crown, the hearing before the Court, and the finalizing of the matters at that time. They cannot suddenly spring into being and be given validity and force because some individual at an earlier date took upon himself to instruct a surveyor to survey them, and nothing was done with those plans. I do not propose to carry the matter any further.

Note: It was, in the end, fully up to Parore Te Awha to have whatever reserves he wanted, as he and he alone was awarded full title and could sell or retain whatever he wished. He wanted only a placid reserve by the lakes, suitable for an elderly gentleman and nothing more. The rest he was very content to sell to the Crown.

Court closed 5:15 p.m. 7/7/39.

Te Rore Taoho, son of Taoho, attempted to lay claim to Manuwhetai in 1897 and had a letter written to Surveyor General Stephenson Percy Smith in this regard. S. Percy Smith was, of course very conversant with all that had transpired in the sore disputes of ownership over the Maunganui and Waipoua Blocks, as well as the final resolution, leading to full title being awarded to chief Parore Te Awha for the Maunganui Block. He was equally conversant with the fact that Parore Te Awha only wished to set aside and repurchase Taharoa Reserve within the block, which was subsequently surveyed by William A. Graham, under S. Percy Smith's leadership. Stephenson Percy Smith had risen to the position of Surveyor General in 1889. The official response from the Surveyor General's Office to Te Rore Taoho came from Head Draughtsman, Kennsington (who had worked in the Surveying Department at the time of the Maunganui Block sale, and subsequent repurchase of Taharoa Reserve by Parore Te Awha, in 1875-76). Kennsington's response letter to Te Rore Taoho was dated 30 December 1899, and he wrote:

'Te Rore Taoho is in error in supposing that the reserve was made for him at Manuwhetai. It was cut out at first, but afterwards it was found that the Deed of Sale did not exclude it, so the land was opened for selection as Crown Land'.

Indeed, the fully agreed and ratified decision of 1876, acceptable to all contesting parties, that Parore Te Awha had sole ownership rights over the Maunganui Block, meant that the much earlier Manuwhetai & Whangai-ariki reserves idea became null & void and obsolete. Parore wasn't interested in sectioning out those locations for repurchase and sold them outright to the Crown... end of story!

Stephenson Percy Smith (wearing a hat & holding a pipe in his right hand) sits centrally amongst his team in this 1886 photo. During the surveying leading up to, during and after the sale of the Waipoua and Maunganui blocks to the Crown, he was in charge of all government surveyors in the area and acted as overseer to their regional activities. He was fully and meticulously conversant with every aspect of the dispute between Parore Te Awha and Tiopira Kinaki or others, which had held up government surveying work for seventeen months between late 1874 and early 1876. When S. Percy Smith, in his capacity as Surveyor General of New Zealand, responded to Te Rore Taoho's letter in 1899, he was in possession of all pertinent documentation (which was on file at the Surveyor General's Office) and a memory of all that had transpired, inasmuch as he was personally involved in resolving the difficult and bitter dispute to the satisfaction of all contending parties assembled at the Native Land Court in 1876.

*Note: It is interesting that Judge Acheson was later released from his position as a judge, as his all-too-accomodating attitude interfered in his ability to make sound judgements based solely on factual evidence. The Crown, by consequence, dealt only in documented, clinical facts and required judges to rule or make judgements according to the law, not according to emotion or personal sympathies.

The arrogance of modern-day authorities, in assuming that a drove of professional individuals from 1876 onwards with "first hand" experience in dealing with the case somehow "forgot" to give two substantial parcels of land to "rightful owners", is truly absurd, amazing to behold and to contemplate. The case had been regurgitated and reviewed several times over, always with the same, carefully researched and informed outcome, until the 1980's and 90's, when the New Zealand Government assumed a "third party" position. Thereafter, for the first time ever, the contest was not between the Government and a "try it on", "nothing ventured - nothing gained" claimant, but between the "all Maori" Waitangi Tribunal and an isolated farming couple, deprived of the ability to defend themselves. Their "Freehold Title" had come via the Government, which had made the initial purchase in 1876, then on-sold subdivided allotments to individuals in the century that followed. Now, under the "new way of doing things" instituted in the 1980's, the Government withdrew fully from its protective responsibility, let original documentation pertinent to the case get stolen or conveniently lost, allowed the sacrosanct, guaranteed nature of "Freehold Title" be nullified and extinguished, resulting in the loss of the Titford farm & assets in a uninhibited, unopposed Waitangi Tribunal "free for all" and "lolly scramble".


The reason why no further action was taken with Wi Pou's reserve proposals is that neither Wi Pou, Tiopira Kinaki, Uriohau hapu or Ngatiwhatua iwi owned one square inch of territory in the Maunganui Block. It is a well registered fact that Wi Pou and his Ngaitu hapu did a "trade-off" with Parore Te Awha, wherein he would give up all claims to Maunganui, provided that Parore gave up claims to Tutamoe. The entire Maunganui parcel was awarded to Parore Te Awha by the Land Court, after unanimous agreements were reached with all contending parties, including Tiopira Kinaki and his Te Roroa hapu. No further mention of anything "unresolved" or "forgotten" ever cropped up in the "wills" of the original contestants.

Parore had no desire to establish reserves at the positions of Manuwhetai and Whangai-ariki, which could be considered "young man's county" for hardy fishermen. The location was better adapted to those wanting a fishing camp on the edge of the often howling and hostile West Coast. Aged chief Parore Te Awha opted, instead, for a more placid and sheltered, inland eel-fishery reserve of 250-acres at the picturesque fresh water lakes nearby. The final plan drawn after his sale of the Maunganui Block to the Crown, clearly designates the boundaries of his preferred, very tranquil Taharoa reserve.

The Kaiiwi lake and surrounding land where Parore Te Awha set aside a reserve for himself, called Taharoa. The location was considerably closer to his Kaihu estate than the high ground of Maunganui Bluff. The placid waters of the lake, rather than crashing surf of the blustery sea coast, were more suitable to the needs of the dignified old chief, well advanced in age. Here he could live out his remaining years in peace.

This is the fully and accurately surveyed plan that was produced for Parore Te Awha by the only surveyor he ever engaged to do his work, W.A. Graham. The plan was completed on the 22nd of March 1876, a little over 6-weeks after he sold the entire Maunganui Block to the Crown, but "bought back" this reserve in the sale agreement. In latter years, as areas within the boundaries of this plan were sold to the Crown, further notations were added, declaring: Proclaimed Crown Land. This notation was added after the Crown bought the land, assumedly off Parore Te Awha's descendants, in 1952.

The only reserve that Parore Te Awha wished to "buy back" for himself after selling the entirety of his Maunganui Block to the Crown. His chosen reserve, bearing his name as the "titled" owner, encompassed most of Kaiiwi Lake and also bordered along the frontage of the large Taharoa Lake. The plan notation reads: All the lines have been cut and the angles pegged and locks-fitted - position of the Kaiiwi Lake has been included in the area at request of Parore Te Awha.... William A. Graham, Surveyor, March 22nd 1876.

The fact of the matter is that neither Te Rore Taoho in 1897, nor any other Te Roroa "opportunists" since, have ever had even the most remote vestige of a claim on any part of Parore Te Awha's land on Maunganui Block after the Native Land Court ruling of February 1876. The "Manuwhetai" or Whangai-ariki reserves idea never got past the most rudimentary proposal stage and later became an utter "non-event" when Parore Te Awha refused to acknowledge their existence and "buy them back" from the Crown.

This is a part of Parore Te Awha's Taharoa Lake frontage and the foreground constitutes one boundary of the only area that Parore Te Awha wished to "buy back" from the Crown.

Te Roroa "opportunist" claimants need to become conversant with the basic process of how the Maunganui Block was disposed of: (1) Title was awarded to the Maori owner (Parore Te Awha) by unanimous agreement in the Native Land Court. (2) The Maori owner (Parore Te Awha) sold the entirety of his block to the Crown, after nominating an area that he wished to keep for a reserve. (3) The nominated reserve area was then surveyed very accurately by William A Graham and "officially" registered as a titled allotment, to be repurchased by Parore Te Awha. (4) Parore Te Awha paid the Crown for the nominated land of his pre-chosen reserve, whereupon full title of ownership for that allotment passed to him and later to his heirs. Parore Te Awha repurchased only what he wanted... nothing more and nothing less!

There is nothing in this transaction that has anything to do with anyone other than Parore Te Awha and the Crown...end of story!


The Paramount chief of Ngapuhi wished it to be known that his call for justice in the Titford case extended beyond the grave. In order to let the world see how incensed he was at the injustices meted out against Allan and Susan Titford, the dying chief requested that Allan be a pallbearer at his funeral.

Graham Rankin was a historian of great renown, whose grasp on Northern New Zealand history was unsurpassed. He deeply researched the Titford case and knew that the claim against them was outright fraud. He wrote the following to the Minister of Treaty Claims, calling for redress and justice.

Graham Rankin,
16 Rankin St, Kaikohe.
June 4th 2001.

Minister of Treaty Claims,
The Hon Margaret Wilson.

Tena koe,

Eighteen months ago I met a man of good Bohemian stock. I have met him several times later, a young man with a terrible bile in his belly, and rightfully so.

No living person should suffer the pain of he and his wife and children, at the hands of Government and Associates, Ministers in particular. From the time the Te Roroa claim took effect, I asked, "could this be the land of our fathers".

In my view, how could Te Awha Parore and Tiopira own so much land, when Maori, at some time in our history had communistic laws? The Chief only apportions a small parcel of land for family requirements, no more, no less. The land belonged to the Tribe not the chief.

Te Roroa people are only squatters, living on the edge of Waipoua Forest. They don't even know what they are!! Ngatiwhatua or Ngapuhi. Like the Israelites, driven out of the Bay of Islands to Whangaroa, then fled with Hongi Hika in chase to Waipoua.

My Ngaitu people were the earlier settlers, our Tupuna, Chief Kohuru of the funerary chests at Kohekohe. I am angry that the chests were never returned to Kohekohe, but interred in a simple ceremony at Waimamaku without permission.

I have read the Te Roroa report, also attended the findings at Waikara Marae, men and women in their finery, Ministers, Members of the Tribunal, others in country apparel, gumboots, oilskins, horses, tractors and dogs, out for a great day. The big tops, a large dining area, all at the expense of the Government of the day.

Before the seal had set, this 15th day of May 1990, the great philosophers found there was a grave mistake. Accordingly, a prompt change to the Act was pushed through by Parliament, "land that was owned by private ownership should not be challenged". The work of the claim was shoddy, unclean and destructive in the eyes of our New Zealand Society.

My question Minister, the land can never be given to Maori, sitting as a "crown jewel" when it should be returned to Allan Titford, now.

I asked Titford to bring me copies, various deeds, Court minutes, successions before writing. I am satisfied what I have witnessed, by the sequence of events, from the time the Crown purchased Maunganui lands from Te Awha Parore in successions, or lease, is compatible with the standard within the law of our country.

Also let it be known to the Tribunal and yourself, in permanent storage, Turnbull Library had "an epitome" of official documents, relative to native offers and land purchases in the North Island of New Zealand. A very useful follow up guide for claims. Compiled and edited by N. Hansen Turton. There is a large section contained about Maunganui lands.

Enclosed, is exhaustive research provided by Titford. Maps and Deeds can be supplied if required. I am a devoted protector of my Maori Peoples interests if a case is fair and accurate, same goes for Pakeha people.

I must reiterate, this must be the saddest case I have come upon. Bad research coupled by greed and inefficiency. Please have the Tribunal sight this letter. Be guided by extra care in the future.

Tena Koe Hoi ano

Signed, Graham Rankin, Ngapuhi elder.

Regards to our great Prime Minister.

The history content of this article is a synopsis of the exhaustive research undertaken by Susan Titford, great-great-great granddaughter of chief Eruera Patuone of Ngapuhi.
Main body text writing by Martin Doutré in consultation with:
Allan Titford (dispossessed farmer), Ross Baker (Head of the One New Zealand Foundation), Noel Hilliam (former Curator of the Dargaville Maritime Museum), Northland Historian Joan Leaf, Ngai-Tahu historian, Jean Jackson and many other contributors.