CONSPIRACY BY REWRITING HISTORY TO STEAL FREEHOLD TITLE

This article is about the struggle to keep my freehold title property at Maunganui Bluff and how the Claimants, Government and its Crown Departments used the system in coercion to extort and cheat us of our freehold title land forcing us off under duress leaving us unable to replace and stock, and out of business with the Government gun at the head approach.

Criteria For The Modern Day Land Claims

Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1974

Statutory Interpretations of a Maori :
1. The Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1974 defines a Maori as a person of the Maori race of NZ and includes any descendant of such a person.
Note - This allowed the likes of the Nathan's (Gary Hooker) to make a claim for freehold title land.

The Electoral Amendment Act 1975 :
2. The Electoral Amendment Act 1975 defines a Maori as a person of the Maori race and includes any descendant of such a person who elects to be considered a Maori for the purposes of the Electoral Act.
Note - In effect, officialdom can no longer say who is and who isn't of Maori descent. They can have a fraction of one percent and still claim to be Maori.

The Waitangi Tribunal Act, 1975 :
The Waitangi Tribunal Act, 1975 which came into law on 10th October 1975 is the biggest injustice ever created by any Government on the people of New Zealand. It allows one group, by race alone, the privilege of a Government funded Tribunal to claim against the others with no input from them or the right of appeal. Especially when, in most cases, this one group's major ancestry is now from the same bloodline as the people they claim created the so called injustices.
Note - This meant Maori could bring claims before the Waitangi Tribunal on ward from 1975, not pre 1975. But their claims had to be based on true facts and in accordance with the Treaty of Waitangi signed in 1840.

Historic Places Act 1980 :
Archaeological sites are protected under section 46 of the Historic Places Act 1980. It is unlawful to disturb or destroy an archaeological site without having first obtained an Authority to Modify or Destroy the site from the NZ Historic Places Trust. Note - Modification includes all earthmoving, digging and tree planting.
Note - This act gave the Maori or Crown the power to make any ones property an archaeological site at any time with or without proof. A site can be registered on emotional grounds against any individuals freehold property in order to de-value any freehold property without compensation for loss in value to the freehold titled landowner.

The Loss and Replacement of my Fishing Vessel :
1st February 1985, I lost my first fishing vessel off the West coast. State Insurance paid out two thirds of what the vessel had cost me. Later that year I replaced the vessel with a smaller one as I had to replace the vessel to be illegible for the fishing quota. But when it came to obtaining the quota the Crown cut it down due to the replacement vessel being smaller. Unfortunately this vessel did not have the fishing ability needed (for tuna 1985 - 86 season) that my previous vessel had so I returned to Northland. I couldn't obtain insurance cover outside Harbour limits or the Hauraki Gulf. I had previously been prevented by law from fishing in the Hauraki Gulf unlike others due to the fishing license quota system even though I had lived in the North Auckland area all of my life. Interest rates on my loan had climbed to 32% due to no ocean going insurance.

Maunganui Bluff properties Brought to my Attention :
October 1985, while working at Kaihu catching goats, both of the Maunganui Bluff properties were first brought to my attention and were on the open market. The asking price between them was about $1.2 million, which was out of my price range.

Claim pending Department of Lands and Survey :
15th November 1985, Unknown to me, a letter from L.G. Fraser, the District Field Officer, of Department of Lands and Survey, Whangarei to CCL, Auckland, states - Mr Ned Nathan seems to be the leading local person pursuing this claim and he also sits on the Waitangi Tribunal in place of Sir Graham Latimer when he has an interest in the land under consideration. Also stated - that the Committee had met with a group of local people and viewed Manuwhetai and it was explained to the department (Wrongly alleging) that the Chiefs had the land surveyed out and that it was inconceivable that the Chiefs would have agreed to sale this land. Mr. Fraser pointed out that this claim had already been investigated and that the claim was on shaky ground. The Officer of the Maori Affairs Dept made a request for the files the Lands & Survey Dept had on the previous decision (1939, 1942) be made available to the Department of Maori Affairs and the local Maori Community. There is a note on the letter stating - I also consider you should advise the licensee, Mr Harrison, that a claim may being made for part of the land in his title. (Wai 38, Doc #E3 of David Alexander for the Crown, 1989; Document D)

In meeting minutes signed by Michael Corrigan at this time (Same man later used by Federated Farmers to do a valuation report on my property) stated, The Maori Land Advisory Committee should make a submission to the Waitangi Tribunal in support of the owners to have Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki returned to the owners.
(Wai 38, Doc #E3 of David Alexander for the Crown, 1989; Document 27A of the report)

Minister of Maori Affairs declined to agree that redress was justified :
Unknown to us in 1986, The Minister (Maori MP, Wetere) wrote to the Secretary, Maunganui Reserves Committee on 18 April 1986 (Head Office file 7/6/103) in which he declined to agree that redress was justified. Since then further representations have been made and are with the Minister for consideration. If there is no satisfaction from the Minister, it is likely that this case will be referred to the Waitangi Tribunal. (Document D.2)

Claimants going to Refer claim to Waitangi Tribunal :
5th August 1986, A letter to Northern Maori MP, Dr. Bruce Gregory, signed by Tom Parore (claimants family member), stated that since they were getting no where with the Minister, (Maori MP) Wetere, they were going to refer their claim to the Waitangi Tribunal. (Wai 38, Doc#E3 of David Alexander; Document D.2) This was happening unknown to me when I was about to and in the process of purchasing the properties. (Letter 2)
Note, the Maori MP, Wetere, was still up holding the truth late in 1986. Tom Parore was also head of Maori Affairs.

Giving up Fishing Quota to go Farming :
By 1986 I knew my quota was going to be worth a considerable sum of money and realised that by foregoing my fishing quota compensation money and assembling all my assets at this point I could go farming and buy a property for less than half what farms were selling for a few years prior. Land prices by 1986 were at an all time low compared to other commodity prices due to Government withdrawal of subsidies, etc. I knew by simply putting myself in to a different position I would be better off and in an occupation I had longed to be doing for the past eleven years since leaving school as I had always wanted to be a farmer.

Could have taken Life Easy :
As a fishing firm wanted to purchase my vessel, I decided to sell and forgo my Government compensation for quota. By mid 1987, the quota alone was worth about $300,000 - 350,000. I could have simply sold the fishing boat and retired keeping my fish quota selling the surplus quota to the Crown on the buy back scheme. I could have then earnt a living each year by simply renting the remaining fishing quota without having to work. If I had of done this later by 1995 when I was forced off my farm being nine years later the same quota was worth about $3.2 million.

Decided to take new opportunity and forego tax payers compensation :
I decided on purchasing the two Maunganui Bluff farms after looking at many opportunities. The two Maunganui Bluff properties totaling 1742 acres now had a much lower asking price. By restructing them and selling off the un-wanted land to re-coup my investment I would end up with the type of farm I had been looking for. The second purchase was entered into on a condition of Council approval so I could sell off the surplus unwanted area of both farms. I didn't want to end up with a long-term mortgage as I wanted to be able to further develop the farm property to its full potential.

Professional Advice Concerning The Two Properties :
I had taken Accountants, Surveyors and Valuers advice as well as doing my homework on the property and was sure it was the right property and viable without any hidden risks. My family had agreed to give me assistance to make the project work. In return for this was to be taken into account later concerning financial affairs and matters between the family and my two brothers, etc. In other words, help from the family. The family farm was my inheritance.

REASONS FOR PURCHASING TWO MAUNGANUI BLUFF FARMS IN OCT - NOV 1986
The asking price was right for both the Maunganui Bluff properties. It had more farming potential. Its Government valuation overall measured up to the values providing titles were to be arranged so surplus land could be sold. These valuations I had done by Northern Valuations, Whangarei, and advice received. The property had a warm coastal climate, easy contour, and an easy manageable property for my needs. By buying two adjoining farms I could simply sell off the surplus land that was not needed at current market value or less and clear my debts and expenses. To buy a property at that time of easy contour you were paying up to three times as much in other areas closer to cities or south of Auckland. I knew by putting these two farms together would double the value of the land to be retained as both properties complimented each other also by doing this I would end up with a large farm being nearly impossible to buy in Northland. I was brought up North of Auckland and wanted to live in Northland. I wanted the right property from the start and to stay there for life, my family has always stayed in the same area once purchasing land as the Titford's have been in the Puhoi area since 1855.

I required a property with good contour and suitable for dairy conversion if I wished to do that in later years and in an area where it could be later enlarged. It had to be preferably coastal, as stable climate suitable for kikuyu grass and cattle farming with good high rainfall and frost free as I didn't want to feed supplementary feed, good free draining red soils but with a few different soil types with good natural levels of trace elements, a range of altitude like Maunganui Bluff. A property with plenty of fresh running water that was suitable for stock and irrigation if needed for cropping in future. A property that had the ability to be further built up production wise. A property with gravel on it. The property had to be in the Northland, Auckland or Waikato regions with potential as half of New Zealand's beef cattle numbers were in these areas and definitely not in a TB area. The price had to be right to make the whole venture viable.

I purchased the two adjoining farms totaling 1746 acres in October and November 1986 being six months before the false land claim was lodged by Te Roroa in mid April 1987. My Valuers valued the beach frontage and farm for mortgage purposes at its current re-sale value. They valued the land that I was purchasing in two parcels, one being the farm and one being the coastal area and surplus assets, spare land, homes, etc, not needed for my farming venture. I had to re survey and sell off the beach frontage. The farm contracts had both gone unconditional upon the Council's approval for the sub- division on 15th November 1986. A new County Council Scheme Plan for the district and this area had just been approved and passed with no objections. Just before I made the purchase, the coastal area was zoned residential and development zone C and this was one of the reasons for purchasing the property as it could be subdivided as of right. If I hadn't got approval for a subdivision and boundary alteration on the coast (outside what was to become the claim) I wouldn't have purchased the second property and I wouldn't have borrowed the finance as interest rates were too high for long term farming.

After I purchased the property in January 1987, items appeared in the media that the local Maori people were claiming 90 acres of the beachfront saying that it belonged to them. It was the most valuable part of my land purchase. My Solicitor looked into the matter and I was given a copy of the sale deed of the Maunganui Block to the Crown in 1876. This showed that all this land had been sold and that there is no founded claim as the land (Maunganui Block) had been given its title on 3rd February 1876 by the Court and the entire area sold on the 4th and 8th February 1876 to the Crown. Unknown to me, I did not realise until later that the claimants and Crown would re-write history to substantiate a false Maori land claim to this land.

Apparently, just before I had purchased the property, unknown to me until Ray Chappell's visit in Tasmania in 1994, there was a National Party meeting at Wellsford in the winter of 1986. Judge Nicolson who was just retiring from the Maori Land Court, addressed the meeting along with Graham Latimer. Graham Latimer confirms doing so. Lockwood Smith chaired the meeting but now denies doing it. MP Winston Peters and his brother, Jim Peters, attended the meeting also. The issue of Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were discussed and Judge Nicolson made a recommendation on how it can be resolved by re-writing history. The Valance Estate property was then for sale being this part of my purchase.

Nathan's Make the first formal intimation of the claim :
10th November 1986, Unknown to us, the head claimants Alex and Manos Nathan on behalf of their father E.D. Nathan, JP, make the first formal intimation of the claim in a letter to the Waitangi Tribunal asking it to investigate the (alleged) improper sale of the Maunganui Block to the Crown in 1876 and the failure to make proper native reserves, contrary to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. (The Waitangi Tribunal Te Roroa Report 1992: 297)
Note - E.D. Nathan had at times sat on the Waitangi Tribunal in place of his friend Sir Graham Latimer and also with Judge Spencer who was to hear this case of the Nathan's (Te Roroa). Later on Judge Spencer ended up hearing this Wai 38 claim and Graham Latimer ended up giving evidence, as a so-called witness Graham Latimer was also head of the Maori Council. He also had close ties with MP's Peter Tapsell Minister of Police, Lands and Valuation, Doug Graham Minister of Justice and Treaty of Waitangi Policy Unit and Prime Minister Jim Bolger.
The Nathan's had also carved the carving in the foyer of the Justice Department Office of the Waitangi Tribunal Division in Wellington.
The America's cup smasher Benjamin Nathan, is also of the same extended family.
These claimants lodged their intention of this claim five weeks before the Treaty of Waitangi State Enterprises Bill was introduced to Parliament this shows they had inside information.

Treaty of Waitangi State Owned Enterprises Bill introduced to Parliament :
18th December 1986, the Labour Government enacted its State Owned Enterprises Bill.
As stated in Clause 9 of the Act of the State Owned Enterprises Bill it said, "Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi."
Note - There are no Principles in the Treaty of Waitangi signed in 1840, only the Preamble, Three Articles and consent from the Natives.
Note - Publicly the Government were telling the people that Maori could only claim State Owned land, but with this law change the Waitangi Tribunal's recommendations become binding on the Government, no matter how ill- founded.

Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi
These so-called Principles were never passed as Law. The Principles are made up under the protection of Clause 9 of the Act of the State Owned Enterprises Bill which allows the Waitangi Tribunal to re-write and change its made up Principles as it goes along. There is no such thing as the Principles in Law. They are made up to carry the conspiracy.
The Principals first appeared in a 1989 booklet by then Prime Minister, David Lange. It set out the principles by which the Government and Tribunal would act when dealing with Treaty issues. Most Acts of Parliament now contain references, not to the Treaty, but to the Invented Principles of the Treaty.
Note - There is a vast difference between the Treaty and the Principles.

The Principles are :
1. Government - Government has the right to govern and make laws. (Same as Article one of Treaty).
2. Self Management - Iwi have the right to organise as iwi and control the resources they own. (Same as the "Rights" by the British subjects when NZ became British soil. "Resources that they Owned)."
3. Equality - All New Zealanders are equal under the law. (Same as Article Three).
4. Reasonable co-operation - Government and iwi must accord each other reasonable co-operation on major issues of common concern. (No mention in the Treaty in 1840)
5. Redress - Government shall provide processes for the resolution of grievances in the expectations that reconciliation can occur. (No mention in the Treaty in 1840)
These unfounded Principles created the so called "partnership" between the Crown and Maori. Article three of the Treaty made us all equal NZ citizens. How can Maori have partnership these Principles have never as such become law but are protected by Clause 9 of the Stated Owned Enterprises Bill.
Note - This meant the Treaty of Waitangi State Enterprise Bill made the Tribunal's recommendations binding on the Government, no matter how ill founded they are and without being legally obliged to determine whether or not the claim was well found. These principles meant that the Crown and Maori could now invent and protect their false land claims, but they still couldn't hear any false land claim been invented against our freehold properties as further law changes were needed so claims pre 1975 could be heard. This latest law change meant they could now make false accusations and rewrite past recorded history.

Surplus land For Sale :
First week of January 1987, I put up the coastal part of my farm purchase (200 acres) and a part of the farm on the other end (125 acres) and two surplus houses for sale at valuation either as it stood or with further subdivision. The area of land that I wanted to sell even as it stood on less than current prices was enough to cover my mortgage with out any further subdivision than what was in place by October later that year. I had several contracts on parts of the surplus land to be sold to the value of $260,000 out of my purchase of $60,000.

The Claimants Lodge their Claim to the Waitangi Tribunal :
15th April 1987, The claimants could now lodge their false land claim making false accusations to the Registrar of the Waitangi Tribunal as a result of the 1986 State Owned Enterprises Bill but the false land claim still couldn't be heard as the 1975 Waitangi Tribunal did not allow pre 1975 claims to be heard.
The list of claimants claiming on behalf of the descendants of the Chiefs Parore Te Awha and Tiopira Kinaki were - Mr E.D. (Ned) Nathan (Chairman), Mr Manos Nathan (Vice Chairman), Mrs Huia White (Secretary), Mr Turo (Lovey) Te Rore, Mr Kahi Te Rore, Mr Syd Morunga, Mr Mihaka (Maani) Anania, Dr Neville Hogg, Mrs Maria Larsen, Mrs Francis Cooper, and Mr Tom Parore. Note - Tom Parore was head of Maori Affairs where the Land Court files went missing.
The claimants only gave three reasons for their claim. The reasons being -
That we have been prejudicially affected by certain ordinances, Acts, regulations, orders, proclamations, notices and other statuary instruments, and by policies and practices of the Crown, and by acts done or omitted by or on behalf of the Crown by which we have lost the ownership of the Manuwhetai and Whangai Ariki blocks
AND THAT such ordinances or Acts, regulations, orders, proclamations, notices, or other statuary instruments, and the policies and practices of the Crown, or the acts or omissions of the Crown were or are inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi
AND THAT we desire our claim to such lands examined by the Tribunal under s.6(1) of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.

22nd April 1987, Te Roroa claim was received by the Tribunal division of the Department of Justice Wellington.
Note - The Crown and Te Roroa could now re-write History and tell lies but to have this claim heard, further Law changes were necessary.

I acquired history papers from the Maori Land Court, Whangarei, which later disappear :
I went to the Maori Land Court in Whangarei and acquired a whole lot of relevant papers and got hold of a copy of the original deed which clearly shows the land had been sold along with the Maori Land Court file. It was then that I met Tom Parore (claimant) who said he was going to use his influence in Government to get my farm as his people wanted it. Tom Parore and his off sider Mr Green were going through files on the claim at the time. Mr Parore was furious and walked away threatening me he would use his influence in Government to get my land. While he was away and no one else was in the room, I was able to photocopy parts of the files, which today are all alleged missing. I realised that this claim had no founding based on recorded history and again took legal advice on the matter. The Solicitor's opinion being that the fact of the matter is that the land was clearly sold and that claims might only be able to be made where land was stolen or taken, etc. But definitely not in this case as it had all been clearly dealt to and sold in 1876 as the deed in the Maori Land Court in Whangarei showed, along with other Maori Land Court files. The Solicitor pointed out that I had a clear freehold title in fee simple with a coastal area shown for future development. The sale was unconditional so I had to complete the contract anyway or stand to lose everything that I had worked for over the years. Also the fact that it was looked at in 1942 where Judge Shepherd made a recommendation to Parliament being upheld by Parliament that there was no case.

Department of Maori Affairs to the Minister of Maori Affairs, distorting the Truth :
1987, 26th May, A letter from M Maniapoto, Secretary of Department of Maori Affairs to the Minister of Maori Affairs, States : in regards to the (alleged) reserves which has been dragging on since 1928 when it was first brought to the Crowns attention. He goes on (alleging) that Judge Acheson's opinion was a decision found in favour of the claimants having the land returned and the decision of the Chief Judge, Judge Shepherd, who didn't agree with Judge Acheson and instead suggested that the officers of the Crown come to an arrangement with the claimants whereby any burial place on the above reserves might be preserved from desecration. This unfortunately did not see favour with the claimants. Government adopted the recommendation of the Chief Judge and pursued a settlement on the basis. However the claimants were not interested in settlement in accordance with the Chief Judge's recommendations and the matter seemed to end there. The claimants now intend placing this claim before the Waitangi Tribunal.
Note - Judge Acheson did not make a decision it was only an opinion for the Chief Judge who made a recommendation, no case. (Document Q)

Conditions of Loan Approval based on Coastal Land being Sold :
In July 1987, I accepted a loan from the Rural Bank which was Government owned at the time and they were impressed with the potential of the property. The conditions of the loan was based on the coastal land being sold. The loan was a commercial loan not a farming loan because I was selling off the surplus coastal land and they believed it would only be needed for a short term. This was without doing any further subdivision in what was to become the claim area. I chose the Rural Bank simply because it was a Farmers Bank and Crown owned and whom the family had dealt with in the past. A supporting letter was given to the Rural Bank on my behalf from National MP Don McKinnon. My Dad went Guarantor, putting his farm which had been in the family for four generations up for security, but only until the sales had gone through and the titles were finalised. I like every one else, thought and expected to have the privilege that a freehold title in fee simple is supposed to have. (Meaning of Fee simple = to do what one wishes to do with one's property).

Surplus Land Already Sold :
By July 1987, I had sold $250,000 worth of surplus sections not needed for farming including two pieces of land at the inland end of the farm and one of the three houses on the property prior to us shifting there. I would have re-paid my mortgage within a year or two at this rate. The Maori people were now putting up signs warning potential purchasers alleging that the land was Maori land and had been excluded from sale to the Crown in 1876.

Lockwood Smith Advises claim is Maunganui Bluff Scenic Reserve :
July 1987, I went to see MP Lockwood Smith at Wellsford, being MP for the area then where my parents lived and he told us that the reserve being claimed was the Maunganui Bluff Scenic Reserve itself and not my land. I wanted to know, if a claim was accepted on my land and it lost its value how would I get on. Mr Smith told me that the Crown would then have to compensate the claimants on valuation and leave me with the land if that situation did eventuate. He assured us that this claim would not be heard if it was for private land.
He gave me a copy of a letter dated April 1986 which Mr. Wetere had sent to him stating, The Government of the day adopted the Chief Judge's recommendation. I have studied the report of the petitioner and advised the Maunganui Reserves Trustees Committee that I am inclined to agree with the Chief Judge on the interpretation of the facts and unless the committee has new evidence that has not been brought to light before I cannot see that there are any grounds today for the Crown to change its stance on the matter. (Letter 2)

Vacant Possession :
29th July, My Lawyer, Mr Duke, received a letter from the Valance Estate's Lawyers, Hammond, Jackson & Hammond, in Dargaville saying, your client is taking vacant possession. (Letter 1)

We Move onto the Property :
1st August 1987, We moved into the five-bedroom homestead on top of the hill overlooking the farm. This house was over 100 years old and had an interesting history, as it had been the first house to be built in that area.

Squatters move onto Coastal Land :
A week later, squatters moved on to the beach part of the property in force and a heap more signs appeared. We went to see Sergeant Goodland at the Dargaville police station. He stated, There's been a claim lodged to the Waitangi Tribunal and the Government hasn't said the Maori people can't lodge claims on this land, so we've been instructed to have nothing to do with it. It's your problem. But you could give them the land and you should go and see the claimants. He asked us what we thought we were doing moving there anyway as the Local Maori will be getting this land back from the Waitangi Tribunal ruling so we'll have to wait and see what happens.

Te Rore Claimants Allege the Land is Theirs :
8th August 1987, We met Mrs. Huia White (Te Rore) who is a member of the Maunganui Bluff Reserves Committee (the claimants). She claimed that the land was theirs, a Maori burial ground, and it was taken from their tribe forcefully in 1876 by the Crown, instead of being set aside as a reserve as the Crown had agreed to do so, then turned around and stole it off their people. She also told us that all our land and surrounding land was Maori land once and that the Waitangi Tribunal will be giving it all back to them. I asked her to remove the signs, but she refused. Mrs. White did agree to us meeting with the Committee to discuss the area they said was under claim, called Manuwhetai. They told us that a piece of our neighbours property, belonging to Mr. & Mrs. Don Harrison, was also under claim being 22 acres, called Whangaiariki. The land claimed on my farm was the land, which I intended to sell or further subdivide and sell. I asked her to bring any evidence of what she was saying to the meeting so I could get on to the matter to see if she is correct. Mrs. White stated that I could subdivide the land as long as I agreed to give their people half of the proceeds and pay all the subdivisional expenses out of my half in return for dropping the claim. She stated that I should have married one of their girls, then they wouldn't have needed to claim the land.

Meeting with Claimants :
We met the claimants a week later in one of the baches (cottage) at Maunganui Bluff, which was occupied by Mrs. White's nephew, Hughie Te Rore. Hughie Te Rore told us he takes sheep and meat from our farm whenever he wants as of right. He also told us they do not want any white bastards living on the beach and that he will break us and drive us off the land. I could not get them to remove their signs. I told them I wanted the squatters off the land, but they kept refusing as they said the police told them they could stay there. Hughie Te Rore and especially his Aunty, Huia White (Te Rore), stated that if I was to give them the claim area outright that they would drop their claim to the Waitangi Tribunal because they are going to win any way and in exchange they would let me live in the district in peace. I explained that if they could get the Crown to compensate me for the land, or write off some of the mortgage as the matter is between the Crown and themselves then that is the only way that I could afford to do it. I asked them could they supply evidence of an injustice so we could approach an MP of the Crown with some facts to get matters resolved, but they produced nothing.
A few days later, Hughie Te Rore and others started erecting more huts on my land.

In September 1987, We had further sales of $60,000.

Cattle Shot :
On Labour weekend, October 1987, all our for sale advertising signs were vandalized. Hughie Te Rore along with a European person (Mr. Clark who lives with one of the claimants) were helping themselves to timber on another part of my property, outside the claim area. When asked to leave they told me that I would pay for it, as they will get me where it hurts, as all this land will be theirs. Later that day I heard gun shots and on investigating, I found two cows shot in the paddock, ten meters apart at the Bluff. The Police told me they would make a note of it.

Labour Government Re-elected with Tapsell in Key Positions :
The Government opinion and view behind the scenes to the previously told truth about our freehold title was to change as we now had a Maori Apartheid, racially elected Minister, Peter Tapsell, who was to take up position of Police, Lands and then Valuation and later came out publicly attacking us. This put the Maori land movement in a position to forcibly use dirty tactics behind the scenes to force us from our freehold land. Straight after this, the attacks on our property started a long with propaganda. The claimants stating to us that Tapsell had promised them the land and other Government Departments, Police, etc, were taking the same view behind the scene.

29th November, We met Hughie Te Rore on the side of the road and he told us they were planning to move onto my land over Christmas and build a marae. More signs had been erected.

Police suggest we Walk away from the Property :
1st December 1987, We had been asked by Sergeant Goodland to come into the Dargaville Police station. Goodland advised us that we should give the land back to the Maori people and told us it was tough luck we were caught up in the situation. He told us the police did not want the problem and it would be easier if they were to arrest me, than it would be to deal with five hundred Maori's. He stated that he had spoken to higher authority and the Maori people would be getting my land back and we should walk away from the property. We asked Goodland about a trespass notice to get the squatters removed but he told us they could not be removed, as they own the land.

Trespass Notice Served on Squatters :
Not happy with the response from the police, I spoke to our local National MP Ross Meurant (part Maori) telling him that the police would not help us with a trespass notice to remove the squatters as they kept telling us they were now our tenants and our Lawyer said that they are not tenants and don't give in on this point. Meurant said he would speak to the police and told me to go back to them and demand a trespass notice. We went back to the police station and asked them again about a trespass notice. Mr. Meurant had spoken to them, so Constable Brown showed us how the trespass notice should be set out. The notice asked the trespassers to vacate the land, remove vehicles, signs and all other possessions which belong to them within 24 hours. We asked Constable Brown if he would assist us when we handed the notice to the squatters, incase there was any trouble. So a time was set to meet that evening and the squatters were given their notice.

Buyers became Nervous :
People were still looking at buying land and we had a buyer interested in buying the vacant house in the middle of the farm. This person made me an offer of $45,000 subject to the survey being completed. People were now becoming nervous about this pending claim. Some were of the view, until the Waitangi Tribunal case was heard they would not purchase any land in the district.

Te Rore family Claimants Threaten they will Expose their Claim :
5th December 1987, While shearing the 3000 ewes and lambs we had on the property Hughie Te Rore and Mrs. Huia White came up to our house and threatened me, that if I go down to the claim area to remove the buildings on the land, I will know about it within 24 hours as it will be nation-wide news, as they will seek revenge on us. These threats were carried out in front of several witnesses. I told her I have seen no evidence of a void claim so as far as we are concerned they must go, as we have been more than reasonable. I rang the police to report the threat and told them I wanted the squatters removed along with anything else of theirs off my property, as they had not gone yet. Seven hours later, the police arrived and followed my father-in-law and myself down to the Bluff and watched me pull down the signs and buildings. When the police heard that the Maori people were coming they fled the scene claiming that they would be out numbered and that we were also to leave even though we hadn't removed all their belongings.

Vacant House Burnt :
The next morning we got a telephone call (around 7:00am) from Mr. Armour to say the vacant house had burnt down around 2:00am. This was the house I was given an offer on and was next door to Mr. Armour (a previous owner) who had purchased another house off us in the middle of the farm.

Television Reporters & Media Appear :
MP Meurant stated that he would get the problem resolved and get onto the media to expose what the Labour Government was allowing to happen to Freehold title. The television crew arrived a few days later. On the news report, Richard Harmond the News Reporter, wrongly allegedly stated to the nation, he had come to see us prior to the fire without a camera crew and alleged that I had told him that I was going down to the Bluff with a bulldozer and a shotgun to remove the squatters. Note - How many television crews interview without a television camera? There was no bulldozer or shotgun. We had not seen or even met Mr. Harmond until after the fire. We later found out that Richard Harmond is married to Doctor Matich's daughter. Doctor Matich's family is involved with the Doctor Hogg who was pushing this claim. We had been set up. Mr Harmond was also close to MP, Bolger (who later became Prime Minister) who took the Maori side in this case. Richard Harmond was assisting the claimants by telling lies about the history on television. The claimants alleged that the land was a reserve and a burial ground. Doctor Hogg (European) alleged that he had seen bones. Also on the news report on TV, Superintendent Wells from the Whangarei police station, said that the police were present when I removed the signs, etc., to keep the peace, and he also stated, We were there in case someone wanted to lay a claim against Titford, as we were there in a position to see what went on.
This shows that the police were not interested in protecting our freehold property rights or our freehold title. It was obvious they were now being intrusted by the apartheid Police Minister (Tapsell). (We had been set up to get the claim off the ground for propaganda purposes).

Propaganda to promote Te Roroa's false Land Claim :
At the time of this fire and attack from media, Te Roroa Maori brought elderly Maori women and children into the area and alleged to the media that I was trying to push these people (young and old) off their land. These people did not even live at Maunganui Bluff. This was done for media and public sympathy for their false Maori land claim. In fact, the main Maori people hassling us had just moved back into the district from where they were living around the country to lodge this claim. Huia White moved back from Tokoroa, the Nathan's earlier moved back from Wellington, Gary Hooker (spokesman for Te Roroa) they say, moved back from Australia, and Hughie Te Rore was paid to move back from Bluff (in the South Island). Infact, Hughie Te Rore was adopted by Lovey Te Rore's brother. Mrs White's daughter, Sharon Murray is an illegitimate child.

Over the next week, more cattle were shot and another hut was shifted on to my freehold title property.

Justice Department tells us to see Claimants :
9th December 1987, I rang the Department of Justice and asked them what the claim was all about and can they fix the problem as I have seen the original land sale deed and the land was all sold to the Crown in 1876. They stated that they were not getting involved, as it is political but would write to us. They sent us a letter dated the same day referring us to one of the claimants, a Mrs. H Smith from Mamaranui telling us to ask the claimants about the claim, as they know the history. We contacted Mrs Smith, she told me to contact the other claimants being the Nathan's and White's, who were of the view that they already own the land and Mr Tapsell had promised it would be returned to them through Maoridom. (Letter 1.A & 2.A)

Claimant meets Historic Places Trust to get Area's of Claim Registered :
December 1987, Unknown to me, Sue Bulmer from the Historic Places Trust stated to the Tribunal - following newspaper publicity about the case, a member of the local Maori community, Mr Ropata Parore, came to the Regional Archaeology Unit and asked us to record wahi tapu at Maunganui. An extended discussion was held about the legal protection available for wahi tapu if they were archaeological sites. The Unit was often involved on such requests and considers them to be routine. (November 1990, Doc #H15, Item 7.2)

Hobson Council Meeting :
The Chairman of the Hobson County Council, Mr. Warren Leaf, arranged a meeting between the Council, ourselves and the Maunganui Bluff Reserves Committee on the 15th December 1987. The claimants discussed the importance of the land to them, as they believed the Justice Department was going to let them have the claim on my land heard. I pointed out that I had lost twenty head of cattle and five had definitely been shot. They were hell bent that they will be getting my land back.
The Council told me I should subdivide a piece of land more intensely outside the claim area now, but still near the beach, until the claim is heard. I never intended to subdivide that particular area out side the claim into smaller blocks in the first place, but I was now being forced into a more intense and costly subdivision, but I had to try to sell that part of the land to repay my loan as agreed when I took my loan out from the Crown owned Rural Bank. It was my intention originally to only subdivided several larger blocks outside the claim. It was suggested by the Council that they would find out when this hearing was going to be dealt with.
I said I wouldn't subdivide any further land within the claim for twelve months and in doing so, this was on the condition I wasn't prejudicing myself as a landowner, or losing any rights, or any commercial advantage that I sort when purchasing the land. This was after speaking to my Solicitor, Mr Duke, by telephone. The claimants in turn agreed that they would refrain from any protest and would allow me to get on with what ever I wanted to do outside the claim and they would take down the signs affecting the property and would remove their huts from the land. The road boundaries were to be remarked (surveyed), so every body knew where the boundary was and I could fence my land in.
The Claimants said they would remove the hut and signs provided I didn't, in the short term subdivide the claimed piece of land any further until they had time to speak to the Government over purchase and return of it.

Bank advises me to carry on Selling :
After the meeting I contacted the Rural Bank and advised them what had happened. They advised me to carry on and sell the land even though it meant a more intense subdivision.
A couple of days later, I received a letter from Mrs. White saying the hut would be removed and the signs would be modified. Hughie Te Rore told us that they (the young people) intend to ignore their promises.

Treason :
In 1987 the death penalty for treason was removed. By removing this penalty, it allows corruption to take place concerning the true history of or Nation.

 

1988
New Years Day, My parents, Aunt and Uncle came to visit us and while out on the property they were issued with abuse and threats by Te Roroa Maori.

Conservation Department show me Two (alleged) Sites :
7th January 1988, Shortly after Robert Parore requested to have sites registered, we were visited by a Mr Michael Taylor from Waipoua, working for the Conservation Department. Later employed by the Waitangi Tribunal. He walked over the property with me and showed me the two pa's on the property and to see if there were any other sites. One of the sites, a pa, was in the middle of the farm which I knew about and another small pa within the alleged claim area. This was all the sites of concern. I wanted to spray the gorse on the inland pa as it was hard to get to, so I put in a track up the hill to get access to the gorse as there was only a few patches on the property but too much to do by hand on this particular hill. I stopped when asked by Mr Taylor. The claimants played up and expected me to carry the water or drag half a kilometre of hose up and down a steep hill, to do the spraying by hand. Te Roroa then decided to claim this pa as well, which became involved in their claim to the Waitangi Tribunal being outside the alleged reserves. They again used this for propaganda.

Hobson Council Contact Justice Department :
8th January 1988, The Hobson County Council wrote to the Justice Department asking them where they stand on the matter and asked for the claim to be heard at the earliest opportunity. The Council did not want me to do any sub- division now at all until the claim was heard and they knew what was happening with the claim situation.

11th January 1988, I had started to do the subdivision outside the claim, as I knew I had to repay my mortgage, but sabotage kept happening. Some of the younger Maori people headed by Hughie Te Rore, assumed the claim included the area where the new subdivision was. They claimed that they now had an old plan, which showed the claim went to the river, but still we had not seen this plan. Hughie Te Rore stated that they had decided that they weren't going to let me sell any land and they would kill stock to mess up my finances so that I would go bankrupt and then they will get all the land, not just the claim.

Hobson Council's Second Meeting :
12th January 1988, Things had not settled down, so the Hobson County Council organised another meeting. Since the last meeting more, Maori were coming onto my land after it was agreed that they would keep off. A group of the Te Rore were shooting in the paddock at my stock one day. We were receiving telephone calls and threats from both Maori and European people. It was brought up that they were getting the Historic Places Trust in to make the claim area a sacred site which was not part of our agreement. I requested all signs to be removed within 24 hours and every body to keep off. I stated that the hut on my property had not been removed as agreed at the first meeting and the signs were still affecting me. They once again agreed to remove the huts and they now only wanted to modify the signs. They also agreed that I mark (survey) the claim area, so they knew exactly where the boundaries were. They wanted to put up a carving, but I refused. I only agreed to the survey as advised by my Lawyer on the phone at the meeting, on the grounds it in no way makes my rights any lesser and that in no way it makes their rights any greater. It was only to relocate the old survey line of Section 19. My Surveyor, Mr Elrick, marked the area of the alleged reserve which the claimants didn't believe that the line was correct so they had another Surveyor redo the line which was in a slightly different place by several metres which had me confused. This later confirmed the difference between the original proposal map and the Crown survey five years after the Crown had purchased the land. Note - Manos Nathan, claimant, gave me a copy of the proposal map called plan of alleged reserves, 3297-8. After this meeting unknown to me, the claimants had taken Mr Wetere's advice and presented "new" evidence. This evidence consisted of re-written history and files in Government hands were now alleged missing as the Te Roroa family has connections in these Crown Departments.

More Stock Lost :
13th January 1988, 36 lambs dead in the back paddock. I was now down in excess of 300 lambs and sheep missing or dead in a matter of two months.
Bulldozer Sabotaged :
17th January 1988, My bulldozer had been sabotaged. On inspection from Sue's Dad, Constable Brown and myself it had sand in the engine and radiator and sugar in the diesel tank. Brown told me to wait for the Waitangi Tribunal Hearing before they would remove the squatters and if I played up they would lock me up.

Claimant Erect Pole (POUWHENUA) for Propaganda :
20th January, On the way to town we passed a car and trailer with a big pole on it at Kaihu, heading North. When we got home from town, we drove down to the Bluff and saw a large crowd of Maori people standing around a carved pole erected on my land. They did not have my permission to put it there or even to be on my property. Even the local Councillors, other local Europeans, Maori Marsden and the Crown owned Television all attended the erecting of the pole. It appeared that every one knew before hand except us that this was about to happen. I went home, rang the police, and asked them to come and assist in removing these people. The New Zealand police's response was, 'no it's under claim to the Waitangi Tribunal, it is disputed land and not your property'.

An (Alleged) Burial Ground is Protected Whether or Not Recorded :
February 1988, Unknown to me the Historic Places Trust and Claimants had met on my property. Sue Bulmer of Historic Places Trust states - after a meeting between Sue Bulmer and Mr Michael Taylor and claimant Hugh Te Rore, Historic Places Trust, assures claimants that as a burial ground the site is protected under the archaeological provisions of the Historic Places Act, whether or not it has been recorded. (Historic Places Trust, November 1990, Document #H15, item 7.7)
Comment - This was being used to support the false land claim and to destroy the re-sale value of my freehold titled property.
Ross Meurant Changes Stance :
I was called down to Mamaranui by MP, Ross Meurant and informed that he could no longer act on our issue due to the law changes taking place and that life can be dirty and unfair and sometimes people get wrongly done as a result of certain issues. He told me this claim will be successful and Maoridom will be getting the land back as far as the Crown Law Office is concerned, and he didn't want to get involved any further as it could effect his Political career.

Solicitor advises me that my Tenure and Title are Safe :
I again approached my Solicitor, Mr Duke, whose view was no matter what happens, we have a copy of the sale deed and the Maori Land Court file which shows it was properly dealt with in 1876. He could not see how they could get away from the truth no matter what as the land is freehold title and Government guaranteed.

Sue Starts to Write to Government :
Sue decided to write to Prime Minister, David Lange on several occasions. Lange wrote back stating that he had done a search through the Lands and Deeds Office and identified the land in dispute is owned by me Allan Titford and the land is held in fee simple title.
Sue also wrote to the Queen, but the letters were referred back to the Governor General (Paul Reeves) who in turn passed the letters onto the appropriate Ministers. (Paul Reeves happened to be a part Maori and also pro this land claim). These letters to the Queen and Governor General always ended up with the same Ministers involved in the conspiracy to steal my land so things were just going around in circles.

Claimants and Crown Archaeologist meet on my Land Without my Permission :
22nd March 1988, Hughie Te Rore had some Archaeologists from the Conservation Department on my land. Mr. Leigh Johnson told me that they had permission from the landowners, Hughie Te Rore, to be there. He stated that the area is now wahitapu and a reserve, as he had seen a plan the Maori owners showed him of the land. I told Johnson that Mr Taylor has already surveyed the farm for sites on my request and I have been shown two sites. I told him that evidence shows this is a false Maori land claim. Mr Johnson told me that his Department have been advised from Wellington and their Lawyer that this claim will succeed. I spoke to the police about the incident that night and I was told I should mark my boundary's.

Claimant Hughie Te Rore Issue's Threat :
23rd March, I met Hughie Te Rore on the road and he told me, if I do anything at the Bluff, they will kill me and also stated that if the Waitangi Tribunal doesn't give them the land back, it's still their land forever and that when they get the land back, they don't want white people living around them in this area, so he will stop the other subdivision too. I told him that I would remove the carving shortly as this is a false Maori land claim. When we told Sergeant Goodland he said it was a circumstantial threat and they cannot do anything unless something happens.

Bulldozer Sabotaged Second Time :
18th April 1988, The reconditioned bulldozer sabotaged again. This time water had been put in the gearbox and winch unknown to me and on using the machine it turned the mixture (being oil and water) to a yellow clay colour destroying the bearings. I reported it to the Police.

I Chopped down Claimants Pole :
The signs and squatters were still on my land and I had asked them earlier by letter to remove the carving. It was now 90 days since I had given a 7-day notice to the Nathan claimants to remove the pole. So that night, I went down, pulled down the signs, and cut down the carved pole. I rang the police telling them what I had done.
19th April, Constable Porter and a Maori Constable came to look at the bulldozer. They asked me to drain the oil (yellow muck) from the winch so they could see the water and Sue watched. Later on, in the Police file, they both denied this ever happened and alleged that there was no water in the oil.

Police ask for Guns to De-Arm me :
22nd April 1988, The same two Constables returned and said the Maori's had complained about the carving and they wanted me to hand over all my firearms which I would not give them without a warrant.

Police state "It's Disputed Land" :
23rd April, Rang the police asking if they would assist us once again while we gave the squatters another trespass notice to move, so we can mark the road boundaries as suggested by Sergeant Goodland to prevent my cattle getting out on the road (where the claimants, had cut the fence). The Constable told us they would not be coming as they are getting sick of me and it is disputed land.

Set Up, Arrested, Locked Up, Fire Arms Confiscated :
24th April, The police rang twice asking where the Maori carving was. At 10:00am, we went to give the squatters another trespass notice. Around 11:00am, I found the pieces of the carved pole near where it had fell a few yards away from where it had been all along in the long grass. I rang the police requesting that we want protection as we are going to mark the boundaries and we expect trouble. We were told they were not interested. I had acquired a plan from the Surveyor showing the exact points marked on it so we knew exactly where the boundaries were.
At 3:30pm, Went down to the Bluff to fence the boundaries so every one, as agreed at the Council meeting, would know where my land was and in particular, to keep my stock in and to mark my true boundary and correct legal line. There was a camper van there where the squatters were but on the Council land, (road).

Claimant Arrives to Assault Me :
Around 5:00-5:30pm the troublesome aggressive Hughie Te Rore drove up with his wife and abusively asked what we were doing. I told him we were marking my boundary. When Hughie got out of the car he walked passed Sue who could smell he had been drinking and smoking marijuana. Hughie asked how I know it is my boundary and I told him I have measured it and located my boundary and I have freehold title to prove it. I produced the survey map. Hughie stated that his family are the owners and said why don't the Police stop them if they are wrong. He stated that the fence was coming down and then started pulling out the posts telling me that I did not belong here and it is his land. Then Mr. and Mrs. Te Awhitu arrived on the scene and watched. Hughie picked up some wire and started waving it around my face. I had my spade in my hand as I had been using it to dig holes when Hughie arrived, so I lifted it to try to stop the wire from once again striking me on the face. At this time, Mrs. Te Rore yells out, I am a witness.
Hughie was going crazy, so Sue picked up the axe from off the ground in case he grabbed it. By now Hughie had picked up a piece of steel reinforced hydraulic hose, and was swinging it around. Hughie went on about the carved pole and stated that he will see me at my funeral because the lizard will go in my head and eat my guts out. I asked the lady in the campervan if she would ring the police for us. She went to one of the baches to use their telephone then told us the police are on their way. We sat and waited for the police to arrive. The men from the campervan arrived back from fishing and one of them helped me put the posts back into the ground. Then they packed up their campervan and left.
Police again call my land Maori Disputed Land :
The police arrived around 6:30pm and told us it was the Maori people who had rang them, not us. I explained about this witness who had rang them on my behalf. Constable Brown asked what the fence was for and what witness we had as he could not see one. I told him that we are marking the boundary. In front of the police, I asked Hughie Te Rore, three times, to get off the property and told Brown we have freehold title and it is 100% freehold title. Brown told us it was disputed land and told us to leave. The police talked to Hughie Te Rore and his wife, and the other Maori's. We told Constable Brown, we would be up at the house when he is ready to see us. We stopped by the bach belonging to Dr Neville Hogg to prevent a coil of wire from falling of my truck and I was approached by Dr Hogg. I had a burn on my foot at the time, which was playing up, so Dr Hogg insisted he put a bandage on it, as he wanted to talk to us. He told me to give my land back in the name of God and he had seen the claimant's evidence, an old plan.

Police follow us Home :
When we left, the police followed closely behind us. When we got out of the truck at the house, they started searching the truck. It turned out from the police file, that they were looking for firearms. They did not have any warrant to search the truck and we had no firearms with us. Inside the house Constable Keen went and used the telephone without asking then started searching the house. Constable Brown asked me my statistics and said that Mr. Te Rore has laid a complaint and they will be taking me to the police station. Brown then asked me if I had raised a spade today and I told him I had been using it to dig holes and I was using it when Mr. Te Rore arrived and I lifted it up to stop some wire from hitting me in the face. Brown wanted to know why we were putting up the fence and I told him I was marking my boundary as Sergeant Goodland told us to do so to keep cattle in. He asked more questions and told me I should not do anything on that part of the farm until after the Waitangi Tribunal hearing.
Brown said they are leaving in a few minutes and taking me with them. I told them if they were not going to take my statement they can leave, then said I was going to ring my Lawyer. I had rang our Lawyer, Mr. Duke, before we went to the Bluff because we thought there might be trouble and as the police wouldn't assist us. Mr. Duke told me to ring him back as soon as we got home.
Police Pounce on me :
As I walked towards the telephone both Constables got up and grabbed me. Brown grabbed me around the throat, choking me, pulling me backwards. Both of the Constables had a hold of me. Brown was poking me with the barrel of his handgun. I yelled out to Sue that he's got a gun. Both Constables pushed me on to the floor and Brown de- deliberately jumped on top of my upper left leg hurting my hip with his full body weight. Sue came to try to get Browns arm away from around my throat because I could hardly breathe. Constable Keen handcuffed me and they were both belting me and giving me a hiding. They said, This will do for resisting arrest. They did not read me any rights or even say what I was being arrested for or why I had to go to the police station. As they were taking me to the door Sue pleaded if she could come too so she could ring her Dad from Dargaville, to come over and get her, instead of waiting for one and a half hours by herself until he gets here with a bunch of crazy (Te Rore family) Maori down the road. Constable Keen told Sue she could come if she took our car but three tyres were flat when we got home and it turned out later they all had nails in them as they had been sabotaged and Sue couldn't drive the big truck. Before taking me away, Constable Keen went back inside the house and searched around finding a .22 rifle behind the curtain in the kitchen. This rifle is always there, as it is used for its sights as it had a good scope on it to look over the farm at the stock from the house as I didn't have any binoculars then. It is never loaded and the bolt was never in it. When the police had visited prior to this event, they would have seen it there. Keen took the rifle to the car and at that time the telephone was ringing. As Sue answered it, Constable Brown started belting me in the police car stating to me, Hopefully, Maori will rape your wife and there isn't much you can do about it. Constable Keen followed Sue into the house to the telephone and asked her for my tablets for my burnt foot. Note - I was not in a condition to be in a scrap even if I had wanted to as my foot had become infected when hot metal got spilt down my boot a few days earlier. I still have that scar. Before Sue could get off the telephone, the police car was going up the hill. This all happened around 9:00-9:30pm.
Police Advised I'll never own a Firearm again & will be Leaving the District :
As I was being taken away, Brown implied that I would never own a firearm again. He said I was to leave the Maori land alone and that I would definitely be leaving in the end.
Charges Un-Decided :
Sue contacted our Lawyer, Mr. Duke who in turn contacted the police. About 45 minutes later, Mr. Duke rang back and said that the Dargaville police haven't decided what they are going to charge me with yet. She rang the police station about one hour later and Constable Brown told her they will be out to see her in 2 hours but because Sue said she wouldn't be here in 2 hours he told her they would be out in half an hour. Sue's father arrived and went down the road to the cattle yards to let out some cattle we had been working with earlier on in the day, and pick up our dog.
Search Warrant Obtained to take my Firearms :
The police returned and said they had a search warrant for any firearms which may be in the house. Sue read their warrant and then told them she didn't want them to go in the house until her father gets back. They told her if she didn't give them any firearms, they would search the house and arrest her for not letting them in. She did not want the police to go through the house without any witnesses. At that time, her Dad arrived back. The reasons given on the warrant for the search was, Threatening to kill, carrying a firearm except for some lawful, proper, and sufficient purpose. (Letter No2.B) Sue handed over all the firearms on the premises but could not find the bolt for the .22 rifle taken earlier and could not find any ammunition. After a lengthy search, Sue's father found the bolt for the rifle and dropped it off at the Dargaville police station on their way to Whangarei. They were there when Constable Brown examined the firearms. He opened the shotgun and stated that it was loaded but Sue's father told him they were the blanks (pins) for the gun and Brown said, So they are.

A Night in Jail :
I was kept hand cuffed in the Dargaville police cell. The police said to me they had to take legal advice on what to charge me with. In the early hours of the morning, they took me out of the cell still handcuffed. On the Dargaville Police Station steps, they un-handcuffed me and told me to run, pushing me out the door, belting me with rolled up newspaper. After refusing to run, they re-handcuffed me and took me to Whangarei Police Station for the rest of the night in the cells.

Police Charges Laid On The Grounds That My Freehold Property Is Maori Land :
25th April, I was taken to the Whangarei Court and let out on bail, charged on three accounts, assaulted Te Wairua Hughie Te Rore, resisted Rhett Douglas Brown a Constable acting in the execution of his duty, and the third charge being, who except for some lawful proper and sufficient purpose had in his possession a .22 caliber rifle. Note - None of these charges have been proven as being true. I came out with marks on my wrists, a cut on my neck, a sore throat and a sore infected foot as I hadn't had my medication and an aching hip. I then realised, in the eyes of the Crown, I had no rights to my freehold title property and a claimants false land claim and oral accusations have stronger rights than my freehold title.

The media had a field day making the landowner the BAD GUY and with all these charges being laid the Crown had all the propaganda it needed.

Police files obtained under the Secret Information Act :
We have copies of my police records obtained under the Secret Information Act. Before the police even came that night the files sow that they were allegedly saying I had a firearm, so this whole situation was another Police, claimant set up. In the file, Sergeant Goodland allegedly states that I was shooting at the police when they arrested me.

Constables Brown and Keen made statements stating they had advised me that they had received a complaint from Hughie Te Rore. They both allege that the defendant (Titford) stated, I had a spade in my hands. I swung it at Mr Te Rore to keep him away. I am entitled to protect myself from those black nigger bastards.
They say a struggle took place and that I said, Dear, get the gun and shoot the bastards. Go on, blow them away. Go on, do it, get the gun and give them one.
Another report done by Constable Brown stated - 'A dispute exists between Alan TITFORD and the Maori's living in the area of the Maunganui Bluff, concerning land on the coastal area overlooking the sea by the Bluff. TITFORD purchased the land and claims right of possession by virtue of land title.
At about 1700 hours on the date TITFORD began to erect a fence through the disputed land. The complainant TE RORE talked with TITFORD and asked him to desist. TITFORD refused and TE RORE began to pull out the fence posts where upon they were replaced by TITFORD. It culminated with TITFORD becoming enraged and without warning swung a vicious blow with a spade at TE RORE who just managed to sidestep and parry the blow by lifting the top wire TITFORD had strung as a guide on the fence.
TITFORD was spoken to at his house in relation to the matter and admits swinging the spade to protect himself from these 'black niggers'. He was duly arrested and cautioned, at which stage he went berserk. A violent struggle ensued. At the start of which he called out to his wife to get the gun and give the bastards one, meaning Cont. Keen and myself. There was a rifle in the room.
TITFORD has been charged with assault, resisting arrest and inciting threatening behaviour under the Crimes Act. I ask that he be kept in Custody and appear at the Whangarei Court and given Court Bail.
I will be asking the Court to impose certain conditions of his bail in an attempt to defuse the situation at the Bluff which is quickly degenerating. TITFORD is in an unsound state of mind and has made threats to burn and kill the 'bastard niggers' on his land. Doctor HOGG a resident at the Bluff has observed TITFORD during this whole matter from the start and has expressed fears as to his mental state, and the fact that he is likely to resort to violence.
I also feel that TITFORD could be considered suicidal.' (Letters: 2C, 2D, 2E, & 2F)
These statements are a distortion of the truth. PLEASE NOTE: I have never called Sue, Dear. This was a Crown backed Police set-up as they were armed with a handgun. It was later stated to us (family) in 1993 that it was intended by the Police to have me blown away.

Lady in the campervan :
Unknown to us at the time, the Lady in the campervan took some photos of Hughie with the hose attacking me.
Later after the publicity that I had been charged, the lady came forward with photographs and wrote a statement stating actually what had happened. This is her statement. I have left her name out on her request.

Statement is as follows - QUOTE : 24.4.88 End of the Road Maunganui Bluff 4.5.88
At approximately 3:30pm while reading in my campervan the farmer known to me as Allan with his wife Sue arrived in a truck at the end of the road at Maunganui Bluff, had almost finished fencing when a car pulled up in front of Allan and a maori man got out of the drivers seat and went straight over to Allan and said Quote "what the fuck are you doing" in a violent tone. Allan replied "Fuck off" I'm putting a fence up on my property, the maori man said How do you know it's your property. Allan said it is and I have the title to prove it. The maori man said that is Bullshit and told Allan to take the fence down. Allan said he would not take the fence down and the maori man pulled out a post by a yellow caravan. Allan rushed across to the maori man and tried to hit the post back in with his spade. The maori man lunged at him and Allan held the spade up to defend himself at no time making any form of contact with the maori man. Allan then proceeded to tighten up the wire again and the maori man said he was going to cut the wires with a wire cutter. The maori man then said to Allan to get the hell out of it and take your wife with you, and that Allan was sick in the head and pointed to his own head repeating this on a number of occasions. He told Allan he had a tapu on him and Allan laughed and the maori man said you'll be the last one laughing mate and I'll be at your funeral. The maori man then ran up the bank and pulled on the top wire and pulled out the fence posts. The maori man then said there was going to be a big huley there tonight and there was going to be a lot of people present. He was then showing Allan the carved head chopped in two pieces laying on the ground that had been behind my campervan and spoke to him about something that was on the carving referring it to Allan and about his life. All this conversation to Allan was said in a very violent and threatening manner and I was very scared the whole time hoping my husband and friends would arrive back from fishing. Allan then came over to my campervan and asked if I would get the people in the end house to call the police, he was worried for his safety and would not send his wife. The maori man said when my husband and friends arrived back from fishing, I hope your going to get your van (meaning my campervan) and truck out (meaning Allan's) and hope your Insured cause I am.
At no time did Allan provide any form of physical violence.
In witness of - S.F In presence of - G.L Dated this day 4th May 1988

Claimants remove my fence and Police arrive to take my spade :
26th April 1988, The fence had now been completely pulled down. I made a complaint to the police. Twenty minutes later, Constable Brown and another Constable arrived to take possession of the spade I was holding during the incident on the 24th April. I had been using it earlier today and left it over on the hill, so Brown said they would be back tomorrow for it. I told Brown that the fence had been taken down and that we wanted charges laid. He said charges couldn't be laid as it was Maori land.

More Police Charges Laid :
28th April 1988, I appeared in the Dargaville Court for the charges as a result of the pole that they had put on my land against my will but the case was remanded for another day. While at Court, Constable Brown served me with three more summons's so I had a total of six charges laid against me. They were for $1000 theft of a Maori flag, $80,000 for damage to the Maori carving they called a Pouwhenua and $80,000 for theft of the Pouwhenua.
Note - They had the carving and it never left their sight so how could it be stolen. These charges were now been laid ten days after the event. Constable Brown stated in Court that they will financially break us and all they need now is a conviction so I will lose the land without compensation and the public will be on their side.

12th May 1988, I again appeared in the Dargaville District Court for the Pole charges. I elected to have a trial by jury. A depositions hearing was set for the 26th July 1988.

Threatening phone calls :
19th May 1988, We started to get harassing phone calls with threats and told I'm going to burn. The police said nothing could be done.

Claimant Te Rore fires shots :
29th May 1988, Shots were fired into the paddock where the stock were by Hughie Te Rore and co. The police said that they would look into the situation. Nothing ever happened.

1st June 1988, The Police in Whangarei told Sue's father that he was the one who decides whether I get my guns back or not and that I will not be able to hold a firearms licence anymore because (alleging) that I had assaulted a policeman with a gun the night I was arrested.

Further Police Accusations :
8th June, Constable Keen did a police file report concerning the fact that the Lawyer had been in touch with them and it stated - 'I suggest that a photocopy of the warrant, clearly marked 'Copy' be taken and forwarded to the solicitor as requested. The grounds for the seizure of the firearms was directly related to TITFORD's volatile emotional state, his demands to his wife that she shoot the two Policeman arresting him with the rifle standing in the corner of the room and his expressed hatred of those persons opposing him. Since the taking of the firearms Constable Brown and myself had occasion to visit his address and were met at the door by TITFORD holding a raised axe, which in my mind demonstrates a willingness to use violence. I would suggest that should TITFORD's solicitor feel that he should have his firearms (with the exception of that pertaining to the threatening to kill charge) returned to him that he approach the Courts for an order to have them returned. In that case when TITFORD uses the firearms on someone the Court can shoulder the blame.' (Letter: 2G)
Comment - I never had an axe and Sue was witness to that, and why give them further reason to accumulate more charges as I know this is what the Crown wanted in order to take my land for Te Roroa.

Notified Police re Prime Minister Lange's Letter :
15th July 1988, I rang Sergeant Goodland and told him that the Government said the land belongs to me and it is 100% freehold. I asked Goodland again why the law was not upheld. Goodland stated that when I give him a copy of a letter from Government he will certainly uphold the law.

Attempt to run us off the Road, Police state - legal way to Kill :
27th July 1988, Depositions hearing in Whangarei for the Pouwhenua charges. The Court committed me for a trial by jury in Whangarei on the 10th August 1988. On the way home from Whangarei, a claimant (Te Rore, White, family) tried to run us off the road, pushing us into the oncoming traffic. We reported the incident to Sergeant Goodland who knew the driver of the vehicle was, Mrs. White's son. Goodland stated that is a legal way for them to kill you. Goodland advised me it would help my case if I found a piece of the Pouwhenua which was apparently missing it so I told him I will burn off some rushes on my land at the Bluff in the area the Pouwhenua was, to see if it's there.

Advised by Police to move to Australia :
9th August 1988, Went to give Goodland a copy of the letter from Prime Minister Lange about my freehold land, but he was on holiday. The relieving Sergeant from Whangarei (ginger headed man, Scottish accent) read it and told us if the police have to come out to the Bluff, they will come to arrest me. He advised us that if we did not like it, we should go live in Australia, as we will have to go anyway before they are finished and the Prime Minister's letter meant nothing.

10th August, The Court case for the Pouwhenua charges was delayed again for a later date.

Another Attempt to put up Fence :
20th August 1988, We went to put the fence back up. John Bibby a Councillor for the Hobson County Council and Aranga Farmer, came to help. At lunchtime, I telephoned the police asking for assistance as a small group of Maori had arrived and we thought there might be trouble again. After lunch most of the Maori's had gone and the police never turned up.
Note - John and Elizabeth Bibby were later forced off of their farm by the claimants.

Requested Police Assistance in Removing Squatters Belongings :
22nd August 1988, I told Sergeant Goodland I want the squatters and all of their junk removed off the land. Goodland agreed to meet us at the Bluff at 8:30am the next day.

23rd August, We went down to the Bluff at 8:00am. Our neighbour, Don Harrison (who has the other part of the claim) came to help us. We were approached by a Don Nathan (claimant's family) who told me if I tried to remove the squatters he would do me in. (This is the same family who in later years in 1997, dealt to the Americas Cup in Auckland). He went on about the significance of the land and that they will get it back regardless, along with Don Harrison's land as they have been promised it by the Ministers in Government. I told him they should research their facts and history. The police arrived at 9:23am, an hour late. Sergeant Goodland kept on referring to the people on the land as tenants not squatters. He told us we have to get a Court Order to remove tenants. Goodland asked why the boundary fence was not put up long ago. Don Harrison told him because you came and locked a man up for being on his own property, which you guys said, was disputed land. Goodland asked us what we wanted to do next and I told him that I want the huts and all the junk off my property so we can repair the fence. The Maori's said they were not leaving.

More Abuse :
31st August 1988, While burning some rushes at the beach we were approached by Sharon Murray (daughter of Mrs. Huia White, nee Te Rore claimant). She told us that we were burning their cemetery and she was going to sit there until we put the fire out. I told her that she was on private land and she was trespassing and if they wanted the land so badly, they could buy it. Sharon Murray alleged that white man took it off them in the first place and the Crown say they will get it for them. I asked her where the proof was that there was a burial ground and she stated that their people will deal with me and left.

Our Solicitor Writes to Minister of Police :
Mr. Duke wrote a letter to the Minister of Police (Maori MP, Peter Tapsell) out lining the trouble we have had with the Maori claimants and the police and also about the fencing problems.

Rural Bank instructs me to sell claim to the Crown :
The Rural Bank (Mr Mitchell) told me that as nothing was advancing with the Waitangi Tribunal I was to get on with the subdivision inside or outside the claim or sale the claim to the Crown.

13th September 1988, I told Mrs Huia White I am bringing in a bulldozer to do some roads at the Bluff and she told me that they would stop me doing anything at the Bluff. I told her it is freehold title and I am no longer waiting for the Waitangi Tribunal as it does not effect land outside the claim and I am now going ahead with my farm development. I rang Sergeant Goodland and told him he should tell the Maori people where they legally stand and that I have been in contact with a contractor and the Hobson County Council.

September 1988, Auckland Conservation Department contacted me about sites and alleged that I provided them with wrong site numbers. The numbers were infact given to the Department by Mr Taylor, one of their employees. I had applied for authority to modify tracks to the sites (that was to put tracks up to the area concerned for weed control) earlier on the 28th January 1988.

14th September 1988, Michael Taylor stated in a letter to the Conservation Department that I had not been notified regarding the application and eight months had passed since the application.

Conservation Department inspects Farm track for Sites:
20th September 1988, I rang Sergeant Goodland and told him the contractor is coming to do the roads next week so Goodland agreed to be present. The Conservation Department rang and said they wanted to meet us at 3:00pm the following afternoon.

21st September, The Conservation Department did not turn up, so I went to do some work on the farm. Dr Sue Burmer from the Department of Conservation rang later at night and told me she will get someone to come and look around the area we are going to bulldoze as the claimants wanted the whole site (the claim) registered.

22nd September, I met Mr Leigh Johnson from the Department of Conservation on the road by the pa in the so-called claim area. We walked on top of the pa and I pointed out to him where I was going to form the farm access roads. We went down the road to the Bluff and looked around the area and a new road I had formed which goes in by the lake. Johnson told me that everything appears OK and he stated that he had been on the property earlier on Boxing Day 1987, with the land owner, Mr. Hughie Te Rore and that he had a good look around the area then as Te Rore said it was his land. He told me I must stay on the lakeside of the hill. He looked at the pa across from the house. On dark he approached me again, and told me that since the piece of land where we want to do the road is under claim with the Waitangi Tribunal, he feels that maybe I should personally ask Mr. Te Rore and CO, as to their thoughts to the roads being done on the land as they may get the land back with the Tribunal ruling in their favour. After dinner that night I rang our Lawyer, Mr Duke, and he told me it is my land and there is nothing on the title to say it belongs to anyone else or that it is a sacred place. He advised us to do the road straight away including the claim area as I had conceded more than enough by shifting and doing a subdivision out side the claim which has been at great expense. So I went and started bulldozing my farm roads.

Conservation Department wants roading to stop :
26th September 1988, The contractor arrived with his big bulldozer, so we started forming the access roads with his bulldozer and my bulldozer. Mr. Reg Kemper from the Waipoua Forest, Department of Conservation, turned up and said the bulldozing had to stop immediately. I told him it is 100% freehold title, not Maori land, and if you want me to stop, will the Department pay me for the time the hired bulldozer is sitting doing nothing. Kemper said he was just here to ask for the bulldozing to be stopped. We carried on bulldozing while Mr. Kemper and the local Historian I had asked to be present went away to read the Act, which Mr. Kemper had. Goodland never turned up as agreed to.

27th September, Continued bulldozing. Just after 2:00pm, I was taking my bulldozer home to do a small repair on it, when I was stopped by Joan Coates, Joan Mangey (Conservationists), Sergeant Goodland and a Maori Constable. They talked to the Historian because he was the best man as a mediator for me. Shortly after, the Bulldozer driver came up the road and said that he had his bulldozer stuck and needed help so I had to take my bulldozer back down to pull him out. The Conservationists looked around the area that had been bulldozed then gave me a letter saying I was to stop work but told us to carry on, provided I headed from the lake out to the coast as they couldn't find anything in that direction. They told me not to go on the hill above the lake until someone from Auckland had a good look over it. They left and the bulldozing stopped for the day.
At 7:15pm, Kaye Green, Department of Conservation Lawyer, rang telling me that I should not be destroying archaeological sites as the Maori are upset. I told her that I have not destroyed any sites that I am aware of. Kaye Green stated that the pohutakawa trees on the property are marking the burial ground and each tree has bodies under it, because the Maori people say so. I asked her could she produce hard cold facts not just one skull, a few of them. Kaye Green told me, that the Conservation Department will make it so hard that it takes 6-8 years before I can do anything on the property at all and there doesn't have to be any evidence for an archaeological site to be archaeological. She stated, If a Maori claims it to be of spiritual importance to them, then it is an archaeological site, which means, you can't do anything to it. In this case, you should wait for the Waitangi Tribunal to hear the case before doing anything anywhere on your land, because if they say it's Maori land, there's no reason why you can't sell it to the Government so they can give it to the Maori's. There's no reason why you shouldn't wait for that decision.
At this point we still did not know if a claim was even going to be heard.

28th September 1988, Bulldozing continued. The Department of Conservation (Leigh Johnson and Brenda Sewell) arrived at 2:30pm after meeting with the claimants at Kaihu. Don Harrison (owner of Whangaiariki) and the local Historian were present. The Conservationists looked over the area and did not find anything. They claimed that they had a Maori claimant who knew of burials on my property and said that the Maori people say the property is important to them. Everyone got on to talking about the history of the area in general and the Department of Conservation wanted to know where the access road was going. They left me and the contractor to carry on bulldozing.
Later in Conservation reports, it states that they found sites, all conveniently where the bulldozer had been. Later this was used by the media, the Waitangi Tribunal and to get a Court Order injunction against me, stopping me from doing further work on my own land.

Because of the claim the sites on my property went from the two pa sites to the whole area of my subdivision and claim being called sites, wahi tapu, and under claim to the Waitangi Tribunal for return to Maori. Every where I wanted to work on the entire property an alleged site turned up after I had been there, even two miles inland. Yet the next door neighbours were clearing their scrub over the fence, with no problems. We had seen Hugh Te Rore (claimant) on my property carrying buckets of ash and shell and tipping them throughout the claim area and elsewhere. I would bulldoze or clear an area on the farm and there would be nothing there, but when I would go back at a later time, there would be shell and ash there from some other site.

Bulldozer goes swimming :
30th September 1988, Our bulldozer was sabotaged again. This time it was in the lake. I rang the police and Sergeant Goodland said they might come out for a drive later which he never did. The contractor pulled the bulldozer out of the lake with his bulldozer and a local diver, Peter Mold, was required to attach the rope. The fuel tank top and the air cleaner were off and some oil bungs were out.

Claimant says Maori don't work at Night in Burial Grounds :
3rd October 1988, I rang Mrs. White just after midday about the bulldozer. She stated that I was the one who is doing all the sabotaging all the time because Maori's do not work at night in burial grounds. I asked her who said all the sabotaging has been done at night. She told me that I was mental and that they only want the land because I want to subdivide it. She stated that Don Harrison and I would lose our land because they have family and contacts in Wellington and Peter Tapsell will give it back to them.

State cancels Insurance because I'm a Bad Risk :
Friends in Wanganui were getting married, so we went to their wedding. On leaving we received a letter in the mail from the Crown owned State Insurance Company canceling all my insurance's because I was considered a bad risk as a result of the Maori land claim. Every other Insurance Company also stated they would not insure me until either the claim was over or we had moved, then they might think about it. Note - They cancelled my insurance but they never paid back my insurance premium I had paid for the Insurance cover.

Attempt to Burn House :
20th October 1988, When we returned home from the wedding, our neighbour (Van Houton) from the back of the farm arrived ahead of us and saw the state our house was in. Bedding was over the floor in the kitchen and lounge and a sheet was shoved in the oven. The bedding and floor were covered in diesel and the oven was turned on high. Because Sue had always had a habit of pulling the manual button out when she was not using the oven, it did not burn. One of the bedroom windows was broken and the back door was unlocked, indicating that someone had come through the window and left through the door. But the window did not have enough glass knocked out for any one to climb through and the window was still closed. I rang the police and told Sergeant Goodland and he sent out a Maori Constable (Richard Collet) and two Detectives. The Detectives sent the Constable off to question neighbours while they looked around the house. They found fingerprints on the window and said they would investigate. Before leaving, they took our fingerprints.

Told by Rural Bank to put entire farm except the disputed area on the market :
Mr Mitchell, Manager of the Rural Bank, told me to put all the farm except the disputed area on the market this being against my will as the Rural Bank was wanting their money back by 1989 as originally agreed, and if I didn't do this they would have to move (take control) and sell me up. Wrightsons Real Estate put up their signs but as we expected, no one was interested in a property under claim. The sign put up opposite the bach Hughie Te Rore lived in, vanished. I reported it to the police and the Constable noted it as theft.

27th October 1988, The Court case for the charges of resisting arrest, assault and unlawful possession of a firearm came up, but were once again delayed.

Police state I constructed the Scene of Crime to gain Publicity :
29th October 1988, A Constable from Dargaville came to take our fingerprints again so they could re-check them with the fingerprints found on the window when the diesel was put in the house.
Note - They had now taken my fingerprints three times.

We now have the police statements on this event and the Detective Constable, G.C. Smith, alleged, Titford is well known to both the Dargaville and Whangarei Police for his involvement with local Maori's concerning ongoing disputes over TITFORD'S claim with the Waitangi Tribunal over the sale of his property at Dargaville.
He also states, As a result of my scene examination I have reached two basic conclusions concerning this offence and they are as follows :
1 That TITFORD constructed the scene of this crime in order to gain Police publicity. I have spoken with Sergeant GOODLAND about this matter and he is also of a similar opinion, that TITFORD is seeking publicity.
2 The second possibility is that the offence has been set up by a member of the local maori community who is against TITFORD, just to show how easy and vulnerable he is to sustain any damage.
Also is the fact that TITFORD no longer had any insurance cover whatsoever on his farm buildings or property. Any insurance fraud, therefore, in relation to TITFORD could be ruled out. (Letter: 2H; 2.I)
The septic tank cleaners who cleaned the tank while we were away and they had seen no broken windows or anything that appeared to be suspicious.
It's not me who has a claim before the Waitangi Tribunal.

Sue again Writes to Prime Minister Lange :
2nd November 1988, Mr Lange replied to her stating, Some of the incidents you describe are clearly matters for the Police to investigate. You should understand that I have no legal powers which would permit me to intervene on your behalf, nor can I authorise the State to purchase private land. (Letter: 3)
Comment - So much for Prime Minister Lange's promises of no claims on freehold land.

The Te Roroa claimants had spoken to all the bach owners at the Bluff and told them that if they supported their claim, they would leave the bach owners alone as all the baches are also in the disputed area. Nearly everyone of them supported the Maori land claim, except for a couple of residents.

Bodies removed to Mitimiti Cemetery :
30th November 1988, In a file released under the Official information Act in 1999 there is a letter to the Minister of Lands from the Acting Director-General of Lands stating - The Chief Judge did suggest that officers of the Crown endeavour to settle an arrangement whereby any burial grounds on the two 'reserves' might be preserved from desecration. The Government of the day adopted the Chief Judge's recommendations. The former Department of lands & Survey made several endeavours to reach finality on appropriate arrangements to preserve any burial grounds from desecration. The Maoris displayed little or no interest in the matter and a departmental filed officer in 1939 in respect of the purported use of the 'Manuwhetai reserve' as a burial ground commented that there was no evidence of a burial ground at present, "the bodies having been removed to Mitimiti Cemetery many years ago". He goes on to say - Both 'reserves' are alienated from Crown ownership and a large part of the 'Manuwhetai reserve' forms part of the land owned by the Titford family. (Crown files - Lands 10/1)

Minister writes to Solicitor concerning Police :
Our Solicitor, Mr. Duke, had earlier in September 1988, written a letter to the Minister of Police, Maori MP, Mr. Tapsell, telling him about the problems we had been having with trying to remove the squatters and with the police.

11th November 1988, MP, Peter Tapsell answered Mr. Dukes letter, stating that the Police interpretation of the situation was that it came under the provision of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and not the criminal law of trespass and their reasons were based on the grounds that : There were no clear boundaries to show title initially; It was common belief that the land in question was a reserve and subject to a claim under the Waitangi Tribunal for return to the local tribe; The squatters could be considered tenants whether they paid rent or not; Parties involved prior to the sale considered that they were lawfully doing what, or living where, they were; and Sections 50 and 51 of the Residential Tenancies Act requires the seller or owner to service notices on the tenants, and this had not been done. (Letter : 4)
Note - This letter shows that Tapsell is pro Te Roroa false land claim, the very Minister that I had to deal with in Government as Lands Minister. So we had no chance of getting anywhere although I had a freehold title to my land.

For Sale Signs Painted Over :
16th November 1988, All ours and the Real Estate Agents For Sale signs had been painted over. They had big V's on them in red paint. Two of the signs had UTU on them. (The film UTU Revenge had just previously been shown on television). The Wrightsons sign opposite Hughie Te Rore's bach, which had earlier gone missing, was replaced and this was the only sign that didn't have any writing painted on it. I rang the police.
Note - Utu could go on for many generations.

From Treaty to Conspiracy :
Twelve years after setting up the Waitangi Tribunal in 1975, it was found it was still not enough for the Apartheid Waitangi Tribunal to substantiate their recommendations to Government. The Labour Government tossed the Treaty aside and used the invented "made to order" Five Principals for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi. These principals show very little resemblance to the Treaty. But if they omitted the preamble no one would ever know or understand its true intention. The Crown and Maoridom through propaganda made Maori feel cheated and the non-Maori, feel guilty. Even the Race Relations Office became involved in pushing propaganda.
This was not quite enough so the following Act was needed.

The Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act 1988 :
21st December 1988, The Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act 1988 is a amendment to the 1975 Waitangi Tribunal Act. Under the 1975, Act claims had to be based on the true facts and in accordance with the Treaty of Waitangi, as signed in 1840, which allowed the Waitangi Tribunal to only hear claims since 1975. By the Treaty Amendment Act 1988, this allowed claims back before 1975 to 1840 but it also allowed and meant false claims that could be invented under the 1986 State Owned Enterprises Act. With this Act, claims could be invented and they could change the Crown's principles on the Treaty of Waitangi.
Up until 1988, the false Te Roroa land claim that had been made for our freehold title properties could not legally be heard. The Crown and Maori needed to change this Act for this claim invented on re-written history over our freehold title land to proceed and be heard.
Note - This meant parties could falsify history and distort the truth and the Waitangi Tribunal could make recommendations binding on the Government, no matter how ill-founded.

The Vehicle to deliver the Conspiracy under Way :
The principals of the Treaty of Waitangi State Owned Enterprises Bill based in 1986 and the 1988 Amendment Act are a euphemism for a corrupt and fraudulent body, with various Acts being enacted by Parliament along the way. The Waitangi Tribunal Act, 1975, the 1986 State Owned Enterprises Bill, the 1980 Historic Places Act and the Five Principals for Crown Action along with the 1988 Amendment of the Waitangi Act of 1975 are the Biggest Injustices ever created by the Government on the people of NZ and used to extort private property assets. So the Government funds an apartheid Tribunal for today's part Maori, by race alone, the privilege to claim against fellow New Zealanders with no defence or right of appeal.

After the amendments to the Waitangi Tribunal Act in late 1988, the claimants and Corrupt Ministers & Bureaucrats of the Crown had the opportunity to get this False Te Roroa land claim Wai 38 heard before the Waitangi Tribunal in order to defraud Freehold Titled landowners of our assets. The fact that the racially elected Eastern Maori MP, Peter Tapsell, had become Minister of Police, Lands, and Valuation, using his power and influence in these Departments along with public sympathy by alleging the poor Maori had been "ripped off." Te Roroa had several family members involved in these Crown Departments, Sam Brown, Director of Lands (later became Commissioner of lands). Tom Parore (Head of Maori Affairs), and the late Ned Nathan, being a leading local Maori in this claim at times sat on the Waitangi Tribunal in place of his friend Sir Graham Latimer, (Maori Council). They all had access to Crown files Ned Nathan also shared Chairmanship of the Tribunal with Bill Wilson. On the original Tribunal was Andrew Spencer who was now Judge for this Wai 38 claim, John Kneebone (ex Federated Farmers), Mr Delemere (uncle of Maori M.P John Delemere and Te Kanawa), were all involved with the Wai 38 claim to our land. They only exception was Bill Wilson. This meant the claimants of Wai 38 had their own friends and connections on the Tribunal as well as in Government so the out come was based on corruption and conspiracy from the start. In fact the carving in the foyer of the Justice Department Office of the Waitangi Tribunal in Wellington, was carved by the Nathan's, again showing how close their links were in this fraudulent claim and the Law changes.
We had been used to get various Law changes.

1989
By now, the Conservation Department had devalued the beachfront due to its involvement on behalf of the Crown and Te Roroa. Police had laid charges along with the Justice Department had delivered no justice or law and order. The Politicians had made Law changes to rip of public and private assets.

13th of January, 36 lambs at the back of the farm dead. I rang the police and Constable Porter wanted to know why we do not shoot the dogs that had been in our sheep. I told him I do not have any guns because they took them all off me the night I was arrested. Porter suggested that Sue should get a firearms licence but stated that she might be turned down anyway.

Mr Duke replied to Mr Tapsell :
27th January 1989, Mr Duke replied to Mr Tapsell's letter of 11th November 1988, telling him the legal reasons for each of Mr Tapsell's comments. Mr Duke stated that the land has been within my freehold title and recent endeavours to fence the property so that there might be no doubt on the ground as to where the boundaries lay has led to problems against which the Police have given no or insufficient protection. A search of the Land Registry would show (and even simple enquiry of the Local Authority would indicate), the land was and is freehold as mentioned and states that he was astonishment at the suggestion that any claim in respect of such could result in its "return" to the local tribe. Especially as various Ministers of your Government have been at pains on many occasions to point that there is no jurisdiction to deprive lawful owners of freehold land of such. Certainly not at the hand of the Waitangi Tribunal. Mr Duke stated that the Residential Tenancies Act can only be invoked if there is a tenancy. All else aside there cannot be a tenancy in terms of the Act save when the occupation is in consideration of rent. None has ever proferred let alone accepted. Sub-section (2) of Section 65 provides that nothing in it "shall limit or effect the provisions of the Trespass Act 1980 or any other remedy that may be available to the person lawfully entitled to possession of the premises". Section 50 and 51 deal only with tenancies to which the Act applies. He finished stating that we have been intitled to call upon the Police to enforce the Criminal Law of Trespass. (Letter : 5)
It was Police Constable, Brown that assisted us in doing the trespass notices prior to these letters. Tapsell never replied to our Solicitor's letter. Peter Tapsell was of the view it was Maori land and that was that. He showed one view to us and another opinion publicly.

David Colquhoun's Waitangi Tribunal Preliminary Report :
31st January 1989, It had only been 40 days since the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act 1988 had gone into being. David Colquhoun's preliminary report for the Waitangi Tribunal was to remain confidential until the hearing. David Colquhoun had written the two Surveyor's, Smith's, into two people. That is J.S. Smith in 1939 was now F.S. Smith. This was the so-called new evidence. He had written it for the Tribunal and it was a distorted version of the true facts. Within days, the Government were acting on one man's report for the Tribunal. They were leaving out the crucial parts of history alleging that it was missing. By 12th June 1989, in his revised version of his report he states that this case was the first claim to be transferred to the Tribunal's RC ("ready claim") register.

1st February 1989, Emily Paniora (Waimamaku Maori Committee, claimant) wrote to the Waitangi Tribunal to lodge a claim for Maori Reserves, burial grounds, wahi tapu, artifacts and taonga. She also wrote that the Tribunal is asked to commission David Colquhoun as researcher to report on this claim prior to any hearing.

Tapsell's visit to Maunganui Bluff :
10th February 1989, Ten days after the Waitangi Tribunal's Preliminary Report, Peter Tapsell arrived at our property in a helicopter. Because Don Harrison had the other part of the claim, I asked him to be present. We told Tapsell what we have been through. He looked around part of the farm where the claim was. Tapsell was not very interested in our side of matters and he seemed to be totally pro claim. Don Harrison told Tapsell about the claim on part of his land and he denied knowing anything about it thinking it was all on my land. I told Tapsell about the history I knew of my land and explained the original plans, valuations and expectations for the farm. Mr Tapsell told us that it would be best for every one if he through his Department was to purchase my entire property and we were to relocate on another property in another area and told us to consider his offer only. I commented that I only really wanted to sell the claim and coastal area, which he could have at nett potential valuation or on updated valuations plus compensation for costs which both would add to the potential which it would have been if there was no claim. I stated I would like to keep the rest of the farm but I would think about his offer only if I could replace the farm in its entirety and be put back in a situation we would be in if I could have sold our land on the coast at its real value (as unaffected by the land claim). Only then would I be prepared to sell the entire farm. His response was, No problem the Crown will compensate you. Go find yourself another farm. Tapsell said the Crown had to have the entire farm. Mr Tapsell requested that we get a valuation done on the property to resolve that side of it and compensation over and above for loss or effect could then be assessed. I told him that if we were to move we didn't want to have to go to far away from our families, so the property would have to be around Northland, Waikato area and be similar to what we have and run the same amount of cattle. Tapsell told us that was fair enough. I agreed to get a valuation done. Our Lawyers, Mills and Duke, instructed Gary Bacon from Northern Valuation in Whangarei to do a new valuations on the beachfront and the farm area.
Note - Not long after, Te Rore and family were letting us know it will soon be their land as Tapsell had promised them on their Marae after he visited us and that he will obtain the property for them.

Within days of Tapsell's visit, it was clear from MP Palmer, Prime Minister Lange and the Labour Government that they would not be buying one square inch of private land. This made us feel we now being left in limbo more so than ever.

Crown makes promises to the Nation :
20th February 1989, Tapsell tells television, The Crown will not compulsorily take from Mr Titford his land even to satisfy the Waitangi Tribunal. If the Crown acquires the land it will acquire the land by mutual negotiation with Mr Titford. Tapsell indicated private owners could be compensated for land lost under the Tribunal recommendations.
Deputy Prime Minister, Geoffrey Palmer rubbished fears that private landowners could lose their properties through Waitangi Tribunal claims. CROWN WERE NOW USING PROPAGANDA.
The previous year in February 1988 and 21st October 1988, Prime Minister, David Lange, was also on television saying, The Government will not tolerate sporadic claims for private land. No-one can lose their private land as a result of the Waitangi Tribunal.

Crown wants to acquire property under Provisions of the Land Act 1948 :
23rd February 1989, Acting Director-General of Lands writes to Minister of Lands regarding the Minister of Lands draft letter to me. The Acting Director-General of Lands states to the Minister of Lands - you should be aware of possible implications if the Crown acquires the Titford property. These are as follows :
- acknowledges that the Maoris have a justifiable claim ahead of the hearing by the Waitangi Tribunal as well as pressure for the allocation of the balance of the property as compensation for the loss of the use of the purported 'reserve' area since 1876. (Hand written is a note - ie leading to claims to whole of Titford ppty)
- expectation that the Crown will also acquire the residential properties subdivided from the purported 'reserve' within the Titford property for return to Maori ownership.
- Mr Harrison, a neighbouring farmer with a purported Maori reserve 'Whangaiariki' within his property, is subject to a similar claim to the Waitangi Tribunal, could expect like treatment.
- Maoris with land claims over freehold land may see the Titford proposal as setting a precedent.
Mr Titford's property would need to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Act 1948 with the authority of the Director-General of Lands. Because of the value of the property the financial authority for the necessary expenditure would probably require the joint approval of yourself and your colleague, the Minister of Finance.
The Government valuation of Mr Titford's property of 709.4 ha as at 1.7.88 is : Improvements $175,000 - Land value $370,000 - Capital value $545,000.
Before negotiations could commence with Mr Titford, the Department would have to obtain an up-to-date valuation and if necessary, valuation of stock and plant.
If the Crown purchases the Titford property then to avoid an "Awhitu" situation the balance of the property (less the reserve area to be returned to Maori ownership) should be disposed of immediately. This would enable the Department to recoup a large part of its outlay. It would therefore be desirable to obtain an undertaking from the Maoris that they will not lay claim to the balance of Mr Titford's property as compensation prior to the Crown purchasing.
Having regard to the different interpretation of the facts by the Maori Land Court Judge and the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court, on investigation of the 1937 Petition, it may not be unreasonable to give the Maoris the benefit of the doubt. Because of the tension and ill will between Mr Titford and the Maoris then the only practical solution may, as you suggest, be for the Crown to acquire the Titford property and for him to relocate his farming practice in another district. (Crown file 7/744 released under the Official Information Act)

Tapsell writes suggesting the Crown purchase the farm :
2nd March 1989, Tapsell writes thanking us for meeting with him, etc. He stated in his letter that since we purchased the farm there has apparently been growing ill will between the Maori people and ourselves and this has lead to allegations by both sides that threats of violence had been made. It is clear that the present situation has been a most unhappy one. He said that having considered the matter carefully it might be best if the Crown, through his Department, were now to purchase the farm and I should consider it. He stated that it should be possible to arrive at a fair price, that would be negotiated between ourselves and officials of the Department of Lands, subject to the necessary Government financial approvals being given to the purchase. He finished off stating that the Government has made it very clear that no registered title held by private person can be threatened by a recommendation of the Tribunal. (Letter: 6)

Mr. Duke wrote to Mr. Tapsell telling him we would be interested in selling the whole farm as asked, because of all the bitterness and all the trouble going on.

Mr. Tapsell replied back to Mr. Duke and told him that the correspondence was forwarded to the Director of Lands to obtain a valuation of the property prior to commencing negotiations. Note - The Director of Lands happens to be Sam Brown happened to be a member of the Te Roroa tribe who wanted my land for Te Roroa.
The claimants had family involved in the valuation process and what I was to be offered as well as also in the Maori Affairs Department, the two Departments where the files were now alleged to have gone missing.

Crown uses Propaganda to Soften the way for their Low Offer :
10th March 1989, Mr Tapsell spoke to Radio New Zealand and stated that he had made me an offer to purchase my farm. He also made a comment that, Some would see it as a millionaires resort, while others would say the land is worth nothing because of troubles that have blown up there.

Notified of the Claim :
15th March 1989, Over one month since Tapsell's visit, we received a letter from the Department of Justice about the Waitangi Tribunal. It stated that we have been notified directly because the Tribunal understands that we own land in the claim area and therefore we may have a special interest in this claim over and above any general public interest. The claim will not affect the security of our title to our land. This has been guaranteed by the New Zealand Government. (Letter:7)
Note - But of course it had already severely affected the security of my title and the value of the land.

21st March 1989, Land owners were also given notice of claim.

Crown Owned Rural Bank takes control leaving unable to defend my Freehold Title :
Note - The Rural Bank took control eleven days after the Justice Department gave the first Official notice of Te Roroa's false land claim going ahead.
24th March, Friday, I sold a large number of stock and before I could bank the cheque of $116,517.32, the Crown owned Rural Bank rang to say it had been stopped and they had taken all the proceeds. The Bank took $33,000 to bring my account up to date, which was not due until the end of the month. This was done so the Crown could hold me to ransom. Up until this point my interest payments were up to date this was the turning point that destroyed me. I could see these critical moves that put me in a no win situation were done by the Crown deliberately to obtain my property indirectly at a cheap price. I was now unable to replace my capital stock or trade in order to keep up my interest payments. I had to give Elders an Instrument by way of security as requested by the Rural Bank over my livestock which the Bank already had anyway. This meant I could only sell stock through Elders and they were to hold the proceeds. The stock that I had on the property on the 31st July was, 500 cows, 144 weaners, 230 one year old bulls, 8 three year Angus bulls, 1050 sheep, 250 lambs and 50 rams. This equated to 5200 stock units down from 6500 the previous season due to the Bank's intervention.

From then on, cheques were taken or sent straight to the Rural Bank. They lent us $1000 a month for living expenses, so Sue and I were now running my farm for them, the Crown owned Bank, being lent $250 a week to live on which was treated as a loan until the claim was sorted out. Penalty charges were added and day to day expenses became so called debts on which interest was charged as well. Cheap slave wages for Sue and myself while they went ahead with the false land claim. From 1993 being the last two years until I was forced to sell under duress in 1995, I didn't receive one-cent income at all from my farm. Everytime the Bank took all the stock proceeds, etc, GST was never deducted, so I was left with the GST bills to try and pay, which meant the tax Department was on my back.

On speaking to the Bank by telephone at the time in 1989, they told me that they had to take action as the Tribunal was to hear the claim and that Tapsell was purchasing the farm. Also as the land claim had de-valued my property and that orders had been received from above as the Rural Bank was now to be sold to private outside interests.

Government MP's Allege I was not Viable :
More propaganda now by Ministers of the Government. Shortly after the Bank took control of my finances it was alleged by Government MP's, Crown and media that my business wasn't viable in the first place.

Pre-Tribunal Notice :
6th April 1989, We were given notice that a pre-hearing of the claim on our property Wai 38 was to be held in Whangarei on Wednesday the 26th April. This notice came from the Department of Justice in spite of Government promises of no claim on freehold title land.

Denied Financial Assistance by Department of Justice to present our Research :
20th March, We wrote to the Department of Justice asking if we could have financial help to do our own research in order to protect our title as the Maori people were being paid to do their research for their claim.
14th April 1989, We received a letter from the Department of Justice saying, - Your lawyer, Mr Duke, has already been informed that you will be heard by the Tribunal in this matter as a person with an interest apart from any interest of the general public. You will need to consider the reasons why you think this representation is appropriate as a person only indirectly affected by this claim. You should note also that the Tribunal may only appoint (ie pay for) lawyers to assist itself or the Maori claimants. It has no power to appoint a lawyer to assist third persons. The Tribunal will not be able to give you financial assistance for further research. This claim is made by Maori people against the Crown for alleged breaches of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Tribunal does not see a need to commission research by persons such as yourself whose interest in the claim arises indirectly. Such research would not assist the Tribunal to deal with the major issues about the Crown actions and policies raised by this claim. In addition, the Tribunal staff have already done considerable research on the historical background to this claim. (Letter : 8)

That meant that any Maori person can come along and claim any ones freehold land and the Government pays them to do so. I wanted to present all the evidence that I had collected and to show that there was no claim. I knew I needed assistance to prepare it properly as it is laid out in this article. But I didn't have the money resources or even the right to defend my freehold title or property.

Waitangi Tribunal Pre-hearing in Whangarei :
26th April 1989, Waitangi Tribunal Pre-hearing in Whangarei. The Tribunal members were Judge Spencer, Kneebone, Ryan and Dr Mary Boyd. Judge Spencer wrote out a detailed list of events to occur (of which I still have a copy of). It was detailed that at the fourth hearing Crown and other interested parties (Harrison, Titford) could have a say. They were to visit my property on Tuesday 20th June and no outsiders only myself, the land owner, Tribunal, Representatives of Crown and claimants were to be present. It was stated that at the first hearing the Tribunal will observe their protocol. The claim will be introduced. The report tabled by Mr Colquhoun will become public record, until then Not. Then the claimants case which will be briefs and evidence by people who will support their claim. Crown can put questions to clarify points, Not Cross-examination. I bought up the fact about my costs and land sales fallen through and I cannot get legal aid and that this claim will break me and put me on the road. The stones in the Waipoua Forest were bought up and it was stated that evidence could be given confidentially only.

The Te Roroa people were now referring to the claim area as wahitapu (burial ground). Sue wrote to the Maori Land Court under an alias name asking them about wahitapu's on the Manuwhetai (our block) and Whangaiariki (Don Harrison's block) and Taharoa (Kai iwi Lakes) blocks.
28th April 1989, Sue received a reply that the Maori Land Court had no record of these blocks. They had records of Waipoua and Maunganui but none of these blocks are wahitapu. (Letter: 9)
Shows the Maori Land Court had no registration of a burial ground in the past.

Notice of Claim from Claimants Lawyer :
4th May 1989, We were served by way of notice from J.V. Williams, the claimants Lawyer, from the firm Kensington Swan a statement of claim as instructed by Judge Spencer.
Note - This was the first notice of claim received from the claimants Lawyer. The Rural Bank also used the same Law Firm.

Title is Sacrosanct :
8th May, Sue wrote to Tapsell concerning some stone formations in the Waipoua Forest and another letter asking him if he stood by comments he had made about freehold land being sacroscant.

11th May 1989, Mr. Tapsell answered Sue's letter stating - I have also said several times that where an individual Maori or European owns a freehold title in land registered in the Land Transfer Office then that title is sacrosanct. I have told you that in all the circumstances, and particularly bearing in mind the bitterness which appears to have grown up in the area over the last eighteen months, you may wish to sell your farm and move to another area. If that is the case, then the Crown would be prepared to buy your farm at a fair, reasonable and negotiated price which is mutually acceptable. (Letter : 10)

20th May 1989, My Father wrote a letter to MP Tapsell, because as Guarantors they were concerned as they stood to lose their farm at Upper Waiwera, which has been in the family since the mid 1800's for four generations. It was now also being threatened as a result of this false land claim and now that the hearing was going ahead and that the Bank had stopped me from running my own affairs and trading which prevented me from being able to pay my interest payments. My father's letter covered the fact that the Rural Bank (Mr Cam Mitchell) have said that they will stand on him if I don't keep up my mortgage payments. Though he believes I would have had my farm paid off by now going on what I had pre-sold before shifting to the property if I did not have harassment. My father stated that he did not want to lose his property over a Maori land claim and Lange said people wouldn't lose their freehold property through Waitangi Tribunal claims. My father asked if freehold property is sacroscant why should Maori be able to put claim on it. He stated that he himself and others were harassed when visiting us.

26th May 1989, Mr Tapsell replied to my Father, stating, From the outset may I confirm that no one who owns a title registered in the Land Transfer Office is under any threat of forcible removal as a result of Maori claims under the Treaty of Waitangi, or of that matter, for any reason. I have told him that in order to try to assist him the Government would be prepared to buy his farm, at a fairly negotiated and mutually agreeable price. (Letter : 11)
This made it clear to me that the Crown now had no intention of letting me keep my farm . Tapsell, like the Crown knew as well as I did that while there was a claim pending, they were now the only possible buyers until the problem was resolved.

26th May 1989, Unknown to us that the Lands District Manager met with our solicitors and our solicitor was to discuss with us what our price was on the farm.

Tai Tokerau Maori Land Court file of the original 1939 Inquiry, Re-Manufactured :
I wrote to the then Minister of Justice, Mr Geoffrey Palmer, on the 3rd April 1989, and asked for various minutes. He had sent the letter onto the Maori Affairs Minister, Mr Wetere, who in turn contacted the Registrar of the Maori Land Court in Whangarei. 31st May 1989, I received the Minutes requested. The copy I received this time had various words altered from the copy I received two years earlier, being the Tai Tokerau Maori Land Court file of the original 1939 Inquiry, which to the un-weary or the outsider, still gives an incorrect view. (Being abstracts taken from a one-sided view of the Inquiry). The abstracts of the re-manufactured Tai Tokerau Maori Land Court file of the 1939 Inquiry that was alleged missing but a claimant supplied a copy being again altered to be more pro claim. It is this modern copy that has been re-written back in the Crown files (Land Court Minutes) making it look like the alleged reserves were meant to be.
Note - I have the original and also have four other manufactured versions.

Advised to find Missing parts of Pole :
June 1989, I was advised by Mr. Joyce QC, who had now been appointed by our Lawyer Mr. Duke, to find the rest of the Maori carved pole (Pouwhenua) which the Maori people said was still missing. (The base which was concreted into the ground making it a fixture). Mr. Joyce advised us that it would help us to prove that the pole was a fixture to the land.
Psychiatric Treatment Needed :
18th June 1989, Sue, our new worker (another Maori person), and myself went to look for the lost piece of the pole. Because some roading had been done in that area, I took the bulldozer down to push away some of the sand in the location where the pole had been erected in order to find the pole base. About 15 minutes later, Dr. Hogg (a retired resident European with his name on the claim) came to see what we were doing. Sue told him we were trying to find the remainder of the pole for the Court. He told her that I needed psychiatric treatment because I didn't understand the true history of the land but he knows it all and that I would have to be a fool to fight Maori about history because the Maori know all the truth in their hearts. Hogg wanted to know who my doctor was so he could visit him about psychiatric help for me. We found the pole; one piece had cement on it, which proved it was cemented into the ground.
Note - This Doctor Hogg also had Catholic Church connections which were used to put further attacks on me by various Priests.

Harassed by Te Roroa and Police :
Approximately two hours later, our worker and Sue went to drive home with the pole while I was taking the bulldozer across to Don Harrison's place for us to make an access road between both farms. As Sue drove passed the baches, Hughie Te Rore parked his car across the road outside his bach so they couldn't get passed. He told her she was not going anywhere until the police come because she had part of the Pouwhenua which belongs to them. Sue told him we had to find it for the Court. Hughie said he had spoken to Judge Spencer (who is the Judge on the Waitangi Tribunal Hearing) and he had not told us to find it. Sue explained that it was the High Court Judge and Hughie abused her. I was on my way up the road to see what was going on, so Sue backed down the road to pick me up. We then re-approached Hughie Te Rore and as we did, Hughie put his hand into the boot of his car grabbing something which appeared to be a gun butt under a sack. We backed off and drove back to the bulldozer and decided to tow the car home through the farm dunes.
Constable Brown arrived and got Hughie Te Rore to move his car, then came down to us. Brown stated that I was on the breach of breaking the law. I asked Brown if he was going to arrest me and told him I did not trust him. Brown stated that he has never lied and after all this is over, we would find him a well respectable person. I explained to Brown that the Lawyer had told us to find the pole for the Court and not to let anyone touch it. We told Brown that Hughie had something in the boot of his car which appeared to be a gun under a sack which he went to grab when we approached him, so Brown told us he would look into it. Then Constable Brown asked me what I was going to do with the bulldozer. I told him that I was taking it to Don Harrison's. He told Sue to follow him so she could get up the road without trouble. He did not stop to see what Hughie had in the back of his car, so once again this claimant got away with his hassling. We now knew this claimant was armed and prepared to use his weapon.

19th June, Shots were fired into the hill beside me while I was working in a valley.

Members of Tribunal visit Farm :
20th June 1989, The day before the Waitangi hearing started, the members of the Tribunal and some of the Maori Claimants, arrived to look around the claim area of my farm. It was clear the claim was now emotional among the Tribunal members.

First Waitangi Tribunal Hearing :
Over the next week, the first hearing was held at Kaihu. I attended all the hearings. I had trouble trying to get a copy of any of the information and when they would talk about the area in my property they would talk about it in Maori and then go back to English. We soon realised that this whole claim was now totally fabricated. All parties were re-writing the past history.

WAITANGI TRIBUNAL ADDRESSES AT THE HEARINGS
There were hundreds of pages of so called evidence presented to the Waitangi Tribunal on the Wai 38 claim being incorrect information, as it was a re-write of history. There was incorrect interpretations by changing one word in a sentence to give it a different meaning and plenty of "it is likely" etc.

Within days of Colquhoun's report coming available in January, Tapsell publicly said he was going to purchase my property. The Crown then notified us through the Justice Department about the claim going ahead. The Crown owned Rural Bank took control and froze my affairs. The State owned Insurance Company dis-insured us. The Government Valuation Department dropped the property's valuation to half destroying my means of re-paying my mortgage and replacing my farm. Later in the year the Waitangi Tribunal started its hearings.

The claimants then built their report around Colquhoun's Waitangi Tribunal Preliminary Report and the Crown built their report around both reports. All parties agreeing and alleging that our freehold title property was Maori land.

ADDRESS TO THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL BY DAVID
COLQUHOUN RESEARCHER FOR THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL
David Colquhoun, Researcher for the Waitangi Tribunal, did a Preliminary Report which he presented to the Waitangi Tribunal. His Research Report was revised on 12th June 1989 being Revised Edition, Doc Wai 38, of The Waipoua - Maunganui Aspects of the claim.
Following are some of the false statements on which the false land claim was built. Inserted are my Remarks.

1.2 The Claim:
The present claim was original three separate claims or notices of claims which were all brought together as one claim in December 1988.
In the centre of page 2, it reads -
These claimants are members of the Maunganui Reserves Trustees Committee. Their claim is that Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were wrongly included as part of the Maunganui block due to the Crown oversight or mistake. (Incorrect, there was never any Crown mistake). No remedies or recommendations were specifically sought in the claim. Obviously the claimants wish, if their claim is proven, to have the prejudicial effects of Crown actions ameliorated in some way. There is a strong feeling that only the return of the land will suffice. That, given the problem of Manuwhetai now being in European freehold title and Whangaiariki part of a deferred payment, leasehold, would be a new test for the Tribunal. (Note - The Tribunal was targeting freehold title land yet the Government was claiming (alleging) publicly that this was not happening). Heated controversy surrounds this claim. Confrontations between supporters of the claimants and the farmer owning Manuwhetai, Mr. A Titford, have led to threats, destruction of property, police involvement and considerable media interest. This was the first claim transferred to the Tribunal's RC ("ready claim") register.
Comment - Shows they were using the Te Roroa harassment and media to get this false claim off the ground. Note how he says would be a test case for the Tribunal and this was the first claim transferred to the Tribunal ready claim.

1.3 This report, page 4 and continued on page 5, reads :
The research has been done mainly from documents created over the years by Crown agencies. Most are at National Archives in Wellington and Auckland. Others are at the Department of Survey and Land Information or the Maori Land Court. Where possible these documents have been copied and bound in volumes accompanying this report. (Note - Why not mention that the Land Court was the claimants own sworn evidence)
Some important background documents have not been located. The Hokianga Maori Land Court Minute Books have long been lost and other records of the various Crown Officials working in the North are lost or only survive in Fragmentary form. Some records have disappeared more recently. The outwards letterbooks of the Inspectorate of Surveys, for example were at Lands and Survey some years ago but cannot now be found. They would be very useful in clarifying the policy and practice of survey work in 1875. The Maori Land Court file on the 1939 Inquiry into Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki can not be found, and the Tai Tokerau Land Court file on the Inquiry is also missing although in this case one of the claimants was able to supply a photocopy of the file.
As already shown none of these files are missing as alleged. They were only being alleged missing in order to re-write history to substantiate the false claim. As I have shown, the files are in tact. In doing so the Crown could then rip us off for our private assets. The photocopy supplied by one of the claimants is a shortened one sided version of the 1939 INQUIRY.

4.7 Colquhoun states - This section summarises the claimants case, the Crown case, the finding of Judge Acheson, and the overriding decision of Chief Judge Shepherd, and briefly compares these arguments against the evidence as set out in the previous chapters. (Note _ Judge Acheson only made an opinion for the Chief Judge)
The Crown and the Chief Judge down played the significance of plan 3297-8. There is no evidence to support Shepherds statement that the plan "was apparently made without the sanction and authority of the Inspector of Surveys as required by section 74 of the Native Land Act 1873" It would seem more likely that it did have that official sanction. It was done by a surveyor who was the brother of the Deputy Inspectorates triangulation and survey programme in the area. Further more the Crown failed to acknowledge Crown error in not making the plan available to the land court hearing on the Maunganui block. Finally it is hard to see how Shepherd could conclude the survey of Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki was not done with the sole intention of setting those lands apart from the sale. etc.
Comment - Totally incorrect. It was not even a Crown plan or even a survey plan as the Map was made by an outsider and nothing to do with the Crown or the owners of Maunganui as Parore used Surveyor W. A. Graham. It was not done by S. Percy Smith's brother Frank and it was not required for the Land Court. It did not even comply with the 1873 Land Act.

4.9 Conclusions:
Some concluding points can be made :
*Manuwhetai contains wahi tapu and is still a fishing and food gathering site. In the past both sites were used for living and cultivation's, especially Whangaiariki. This part of the coast was of importance in the social organisation and economy of the Waipoua and the Kaihu valley Maori.
Comment -Totally incorrect. Te Roroa have not lived on the land since well before Pre-Treaty (in fact pre Ikaaranganui times) except for their fence cutting and squatting in order to substantiate this false land claim in modern times.

*Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were not exempted from the sale of Maunganui Block to the Crown in 1876.
Totally Incorrect. No where in the Court evidence at the time can this alleged statement be substantiated. Infact by the chief's omission in their own letters in 1876 that no such alleged reserves were exempt from the sale of Maunganui. The title granted to Te Roroa and Ngapuhi included the area which they sold to the Crown.
The two areas are under European title. Manuwhetai has been freehold since 1914. Whangaiariki is part of a deferred payment lease. (This statement shows how private assets were directly being targeted).

*Survey plan 3297-8 showing Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki as "Native Reserves" provides convincing evidence that before the sale at least some Maori wanted the land set apart from the sale.
Comment - Incorrect. Never been a survey plan. It was only a map (proposal) on receipt at the Department. Plan of Native Reserves and filing number were put on the map by the Department for identification purposes only.

*Is impossible to say conclusively why the land was not set apart from the Maunganui block when the deed was signed. There is no documentary evidence to prove that Parore and Tiopira thought the land had been set aside, or, alternatively that they were eventually persuaded to include Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki in the sale.
Comment - Incorrect. See original documentation, Court Minutes of hearing, sale deed and the 1876 inquiry files also agreement made with counter claimants re Mangarata in return for giving up all claims on Parore's lands.

*The whole background of the purchase of Maunganui, described in the previous chapter, is important because it provides some explanation of why the issue of Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki is so obscure. Crown attempts to buy Maunganui provoked an intense interhapu dispute. Subsequent Crown actions before and after the sale exacerbated the dispute. The Land Court took short cuts in awarding title. It was these bigger issues of hapu means that preoccupied the Maori parties 1875, 1876 and later. More specifically plan 3297-8 was not sent to the land court sitting, or transposed onto the earlier survey plan of Maunganui that was at the court. Such circumstances could explain why the issue was left unresolved and the status of the lands confused.
Comment - Incorrect. Tribal dispute nothing to do with the Crown and the original evidence tells a totally different story.

*It is likely that land purchase agents involved tended to discourage the setting apart of small areas within blocks sold, or at least did little to make sure Maori interests in such wahi tapu areas were protected. This research has not established this was the case, but such actions would have been consistent with their overriding aim of largescale land purchase and lack of emphasis given to the protection of Maori interests, as described in the last chapter.
Comment - Totally Incorrect. No such proof.

*After the sale the two areas continued to be shown as Maori land on various government records. But this does not in itself prove that Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were Maori land for these records were in error, being based on plan 3297-8 rather than the legal deed of sale.
Comment -Totally Incorrect. The records of the time were not in error they are there for record.

*The claimants have always been adamant that Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki have always been regarded as Maori land. However, the first documented Maori claim that Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were Maori land is not until 1899. There was no need to make the claim earlier as their was no challenge to Maori ownership until the mid-1890's. There is also the possibility that the Maori claim has grown as more seemingly convincing evidence was uncovered in official records.
Comment - Incorrect statement.

*In 1895 the Crown made an investigation of its records after the land was opened for selection. Local Maori were not consulted and the selection went ahead.
Comment - Nothing to do with Maori as it was Crown land. Letter referred to was only an internal inquiry because of the Crown activity with the subdivision of its own lands.

*In 1939 Maori protest led to a court of inquiry. The Judge found in favour of the claimants but was overruled by the Chief Judge. The different parties all made errors in their interpretation of the evidence available. While the inquiry was going on the Hobson County Council was allowing further subdivision of Manuwhetai. -
Incorrect. The only evidence in error in 1939 was the claimant's lies at this Inquiry.
End of 1939 Inquiry Judge Acheson made it clear that his report was not public. His inquiry was held to report to the Chief Judge so that further investigation could be made which resulted in showing no valid claim. Note -- Judge Acheson Stated OPINION and did not state decision or recommendation.

This documentary research has been supplemented by information given by Te Roroa people but it remains very much a Pakeha account using records created by Pakeha.
Comment - The most important files were created by Maori sworn evidence in the Maori Land Court itself by their own peoples evidence. Yet now part Maori claimants are re-writing their own peoples history for their own financial gain.

The report has been written by David Colquhoun. Michael Taylor has assisted with some sections. Members of Te Roroa hapu have willingly contributed information. But it remains very much a Pakeha account using records created by Pakeha.
Comment - Pity these university educated fellas and Government can't read. So much for Crown experts. But their job is to re-write history.

---

When this so called evidence of David Colquhoun's was presented to the Tribunal, I brought the matter of the truth up before Colquhoun and a Michael Belgrave, (Waitangi Tribunal Researcher), who told me to hand the land back as it would make it easier for them. I raised the matter of history, and was told, We have the protection of the Waitangi Act and this claim will be successful. This is a test case for the Waitangi Tribunal and it will succeed.
David Colquhoun told me that Pakeha records can not be relied on and that's why the Waitangi Tribunal was set up, to look at the oral and unwritten evidence that the traditional owners have passed on down through generation to generation from their forefathers as their side had no written language.
Note - In David Colquhoun's report, he agreed with what the claimants had to say.

David Colquhoun also alleged that the original Memorial of Ownership for Maunganui has not been located, which is THE DEED OF SALE.
These files included the Tai Tokerau Land Court file and the Deed which was present at the Maori Court, Whangarei, in April 1987 where I got a photo copy of the file and the day Tom Parore, Head of the Maori Affairs at that time (family of claimants) told me he was going to use his influence and contacts in Government to get my land. It had now gone missing by 1989. A re-written version of the 1939 Inquiry was supplied by the claimants and used for the Waitangi Tribunal hearing. The original Court transcript of the 1939 Inquiry was present in 1987 at the Lands & Survey, Auckland. (Lands and Survey Head Office File 7/744) By 1989, it had also gone missing. Sam Brown was the Director of Lands at this time, being of Te Roroa family. At the time of writing this book, he is now Commissioner of Lands. Files had to go missing so that history could be re-written.

Between the time of the 1939 inquiry and 1987, Te Roroa have gotten family members working in key critical Government Departments. Also note that the Michael Taylor who assisted in writing the Preliminary Waitangi Tribunal Report happened to be the same person who was the Director of the Waipoua Archaeological Project where Pre-Maori history was obtained.

ADDRESS TO THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL BY DAVID
ANDERSON ARMSTRONG COUNSEL FOR THE CROWN LAW
David Anderson Armstrong, Counsel for the Crown Law, did a report for the Waitangi Tribunal being Crown Actions in Respect of Waipoua - Maunganui, 1874-1876, DOC #E2. Following are some of the abstract from the report.
Te Roroa Claim - Wai 38
IN THE MATTER of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 AND IN THE MATTER of claims by E.D. Nathan (Deceased) and others

1.1 My name is David Anderson Armstrong. I graduated from Victoria University of Wellington in 1984. Since that time I have worked as a freelance historical researcher and writer. During the last 2 years I have been under contract to the Crown Law Office in Wellington, during which time I have presented several submissions to the Waitangi Tribunal concerning Ngai Tahu and fishing claims.

1.2 This submission is based largely on documents already submitted to the Tribunal and incorporates some additional material which I have located during an extensive review of the sources.

1.3 My evidence relates to Crown actions with respect to the purchase of the Maunganui/Waipoua Block during the period up to 1876. It is therefore an analysis based largely on records generated by Pakeha sources. Subsequently events will be examined by other Crown witnesses, namely, Mr. Alexander and Mr Walzl.
Comment - Note how he says records generated by Pakeha. So much for sworn Maori Land Court evidence and files, etc.
Then on page three Headed Background: Te Roroa, it reads -

2.1 Although the history of Te Roroa prior to 1874 has been detailed in previous evidence presented to this Tribunal (Murray and Te Rore, Marsden, Colquhoun, et al), I feel it is worthwhile to very briefly restate some salient points here for the sake of clarity.
Comment - The Crown were not there defending the truth. They were now agreeing to the claimants re-write of history.

2.2 Warfare was perhaps the most important, although indirect, result of European contact before 1830. An early near monopoly over access to guns enabled the hapu of the Bay of Islands and Hokianga to con- solidate their power and to embark on a series of campaigns against old rivals in the South. It was, as Colquhoun notes, an escalation of the older pattern of inter hapu competition. Te Roroa were caught up in the turmoil, sometimes siding with Ngapuhi and sometimes in conflict with them.
Comment - Note how he says the matter goes back to before 1830 and was an escalation of the older pattern of inter hapu competition.

12. Conclusions:
12.1 Although McLean was adamant that the northern purchases be conducted with circumspection after 1873, the speed with which purchase agents were forced to work caused mistakes to be made with the agents acting hastily in large part due to the activities of rivals in the field. A large backlog of cases built up to be heard before the Court and the surveyors were also under great pressure. Thus in my view, the subsequent non reservation of Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki came about as the result of human error.
Comment - Totally incorrect and no proof of accusation. When one reads the Land Court Minute Books and Crown files one can see that they were very careful in what they were doing. For instance, the Kaipara Court sat in March & May 1875 and did not re-sit until end of January 1876 and not again until August 1876. Infact the Maunganui case could have been heard up to six months earlier that showed there was clearly no pressure. There was no human error as (alleged) in this matter as the whole matter was very clearly dealt with as Maunganui had been in dispute between parties (Te Roroa and Ngapuhi) and the counter claimants.

12.2 In my view Te Rore Taoho and Parore came to an arrangement with respect to Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki insofar as Te Rore's rights to these areas were acknowledged in exchange for his recognition of Parore's mana over the remainder of the block.
Totally Incorrect. There was no such agreement ever made and Parore Ngapuhi, and Te Rore were infact bitter enemies. Sworn Court evidence shows that Parore drove Te Rore away. Te Rore Taoho himself, states in his own sworn evidence, "I did not associate myself with the hapu at the Maunganui case. Parore was the head chief there on this day." (Kaipara Minute Book 6:305)
Te Rore Taoho's interests were taken into account at the sale of Maunganui and Waipoua as his name was put in on the list of names on Waipoua No.2, Te Roroa's one and only reserve to be retained from them. (Kaipara Minute Book 3: 174)
Te Rore stood aside on the issue of the Waipoua sale as Tiopira was the senior chief in residence there. Given Te Rore's knowledge of the Land Court and the implications of a Land Court hearing, I believe this is the only explanation that can be given for his absence in February 1876.
Note - Te Rore was not absent. He simply did not give any evidence. He was present as Te Rore Taoho and Tiopira wrote a letter to Sir George Grey dated 7th February 1876, stating that they had sold 100,000 acres of their land to the Government, etc. The letter was signed by Tiopira Kinaki, Te Rore Taoho (Te Roroa). This was the day before their opposition, Parore Te Awha (Ngapuhi) had completed his side of the sale of Maunganui on the 8th February 1876 to the Crown.
In my view Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki should have been reserved from the sale. There was a clear wish on the part of the vendors to exclude these areas, which was initially given effect to. Later, due to an error, the reserve maps were not present at the Court, and when the land passed to the Crown the reserves passed also. The sellers would, due to the obvious initial acceptance of their request, have perceived that their wishes with respect to the reserves were being met. Therefore the matter of the omission of these areas in purchase documents would not have indicated to them at the time of sale that Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were not excluded from sale.
Comment - There was no error. As I have already shown, this statement is false beyond any doubt. There was no wish on the owners of Maunganui (Te Roroa and Ngapuhi) to retain these alleged reserves. There was no agreement in the deed of sale or correspondence any where to exclude the alleged reserves.

12.3 The Court did not impose its decision on the claimants. It confirmed a voluntary arrangement reached between the disputing parties. However, the terms of this agreement were broken later when Preece and Kemp conducted their final negotiations for the land.
Comment - Incorrect. No terms of the agreement arrived at was broken.

12.4 Court procedures, as laid down by statute in 1873, were not observed by the Court. The names of all owners were not listed, and perhaps more importantly, requirements as to reserves were not followed. In my view no one was purposely excluded, and the reasons for Te Rore's absence do not relate to his opposition to the sale. His absence, in my opinion, was due to the fact that he deferred to Tiopira in respect of Waipoua, and he was not involved in the transaction relating to Maunganui, as the areas of most importance to him had been reserved, he thought, and the sale of the remainder of the block was Parore's concern.
Comment - Incorrect. Te Rore Taoho under sworn evidence later admits that he stood alone when the land was sold as Parore was head chief on that day. His name is shown on Te Roroa's reserve, Waipoua, agreed to by all parties. Te Rore Taoho had received extra timber and had given up his claim to Maunganui. Infact the alleged reserves map of Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki do not comply with the 1873 Land Act.

12.5 There is no documentary evidence that Te Roroa sought the exclusion of kauri at the time of sale.
Comment - Correct.

COMMENT : Crown Law Office Representative David Anderson Armstrong was under contract being paid by the Crown to re-write history and assist the corruption. He states that the evidence has been detailed by Murray, Te Rore, Marsden (claimants) and Colquhoun, etc al.
David Anderson Armstrong didn't want to know the truth either when I approached him. I was unqualified and a simple farmer. He stated that he is an expert on these matters yet his evidence is totally incorrect and manufactured especially in his conclusions.

Page 28 of David Anderson Armstrong's evidence Crown Council, S.E. Kenderdine from the Crown Law Office, signed the list of Crown Witnesses that are to give evidence at the hearing.

---

ADDRESS TO THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL BY DAVID
ALEXANDER COUNSEL FOR THE CROWN
Document for Maunganui, (Wai 38, Doc #E3) evidence : Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki since 1876, with Supporting Papers.
IN THE MATTER of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 AND IN THE MATTER of claims by E.D. Nathan (Deceased) and others

MANUWHETAI AND WHANGAIARIKI SINCE 1876
1.1 My name is DAVID JAMES ALEXANDER. I am an environmental and planning consultant based in Christchurch. I have a B.A. (Hons) degree in Geography and a M.Sc. degree in Conservation, and am a Member of the New Zealand Planning Institute.

1.2 For twelve years (1975 - 1987) I was a planner with the Department of Lands and Survey, closely involved in land title and land use issues. With the restructuring of that Department, I became a planner with the Department of Conservation for eight months before setting up my own consultancy. While a full time employee of the Crown, I worked in Canterbury and Taranaki, and had no dealings with the North Auckland Land District in general, or Waipoua in particular.
Comment - He once worked for the Lands Department.

1.3 The purpose of this evidence is to present new information surrounding events that have occurred to
Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki since their survey and their supposed inclusion in the sale of the Maunganui Block in 1876.
Comment - Incorrect. No new evidence was produced that wasn't already in the archives. The so-called new information was a deliberate mis-interpretation to re-write history.

1.4 Much if not all of the argument surrounding these two areas centres on whether or not they were included in the sale of the Maunganui Block. Events since then have not altered this, being a continual reiteration of two opposing points of view, neither party to the dispute significantly amending their stance over the years. Thus the core of the dispute hinges around the circumstances of 1875 - 1876, with all hat has happened since then being subordinate to that core.
Comment - His own so called evidence is mainly of events since 1876. He took no notice of his very own remarks.

1.5 For this reason, and because events since 1876 have been well covered in other evidence already presented to the Tribunal, I do not set out events in full detail. Instead in this evidence I provide a brief chronology, and then refer only to additional information which my researches have brought to light.
Comment - Simply went along with the conspiracy.

1.6 I also provide such information as I have been able to discover about the diversion of the Waihaupai Stream. Etc.
Comment - In the case of the Waihaupai stream it changed course in the big floods of 1923 naturally to its present day position according to Mr Hanson a former land owner to a part of my property.

Further on he states -
5.7 In the case of any transfer of land, or of any interest in land such as a lease, it is usual for the caveat emptor (let the buyer beware) rule to apply. This is covered by the practice of conveyancing, where a legal advisor for the buyer will check out whether there are any restrictions on the use of the land prior to a sale and purchase agreement being finalised. The sort of restrictions normally checked for are town and country planning zoning conditions, designations of intentions to acquire land for public works, and restraints on highway access. Such checks should, but only rarely do, also look at whether there are historical reasons for restrictions on land use. In the case of Whangaiariki such a check would have identified that the block contained an archaeological site 1, and that under the Historic Places Act that site could not be altered in any way without the prior approval in writing of the Historic Places Trust. Similar comments apply in the case of Manuwhetai.
Comment - Totally Incorrect. There was no such historic site or sites registered on my title in the Land Transfer Office on purchasing my land. My Lawyer Mr Duke checked everything out and there were no indications of any claim or any registered sites.
The Hobson Council had just passed a new scheme plan one month before I purchased my property, which showed the land (come Te Roroa false land claim) as residential and development zone. There was no objection from the public or Maori to the new scheme plan when advertised.

5.8 It is doubtful if it would have been reasonable for a conveyancing check to have identified that Whangaiariki (or Manuwhetai) was the subject of a Maori grievance. With the exception of Waitangi Tribunal claims lodged there is no authoritative register available about what grievances exist. And, prior to the claim being lodged with the Tribunal, any approach to the Crown to see if a grievance over Whangaiariki (or Manuwhetai) existed is likely to have received the same type of response that Maori petitioners were receiving, that the 1942 findings of the Chief Judge were accepted, and while further representations had been made, no new information had come to light since then to justify the Crown in changing its view.
Comment - There is still no new evidence today to support their false land claim.

7. CONCLUSIONS page 34
7.1 It is not the intention in this evidence to draw any conclusions about what did or did not occur in 1875 and 1876. This is covered in other evidence presented to the Tribunal. But there are a number of matters which have occurred since 1876 which now form an integral part of the debate about the status of Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki, and it is appropriate that some comment is made about them.
Comment - David Alexander ignored his own statement in paragraph 1.4, about events happening since the time of the actual sale in 1876 being subordinate to that core.
A comment on 7.2 in his evidence not shown here. He claims that the responsibility of this issue is the Land Registry and the Maori Land Court (evidence now alleged missing).
He also alleges wrongly that plan 3297-8 of the alleged reserves and associated field book No13 is Frank Smith's.

A comment on paragraphs 7.9 of his evidence through to 7.16. He only really covers Judge Acheson's side of the issue and only refers to Judge Shepherd as the Chief Judge.
David Alexander alleges that Judge Acheson made his decision in favour of the claimants. David Alexander deliberately failed to state that it was not a decision but an OPINON for the Chief Judge Shepherd who made his recommendation to the Government that there was no injustice which was upheld by Parliament.

IMPORTANT - David Alexander simply assisted the manufactured evidence by taking part in re-writing history for Te Roroa's false Waitangi Tribunal claim. DAVID ANDERSON ARMSTRONG AND DAVID ALEXANDER WERE BOTH COUNSEL FOR CROWN. So much for the Government protecting and defending Freehold title.

---

THE CLAIMANTS AMENDED CLAIM :
Because of these new Acts the claimants amended their claim as they went along. It was amended four or five times by June 1989. They now allege that - we the claimants collectively say that we are Maori and that we and our Te Roroa Ngati Whatua hapu have been and are prejudicially affected by various Ordinances, Acts, Regulations, Orders, Proclamations, Notices and other statutory instruments, by various policies and practices adopted by or on behalf of the Crown and by various acts done or omitted by or on behalf of the Crown which were or are inconsistent with the terms and the principals of the Treaty of Waitangi.
AND, without prejudice to the generality of our claim and reserving the right to seek leave to amend this statement of claim or to provide further particulars in the light of further evidence revealed by ongoing research and inquiries we particularize our grievances against the Crown as follows:
1. The acts and omissions of the Native Land Purchase Offices and their agents in promoting and orchestrating the purchase of Maunganui Block in 1876 leading to subsequent loss of the Waipoua Block and other surrounding blocks of the Te Roroa Ngati Whatua land;
2. The failure to recognise the setting aside of Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki Reserves within the Maunganui Block;
3. The reliance upon the enforcement of provisions of the Native Lands Act and other statues relating to Maori land which were contrary to the guarantees of Article 11 of the Treaty;
4. The failure to accept the findings of the Stout-Ngata Commission in 1908 in respect of the Manuwhetai Reserve;
5. The failure to accept the conclusions of Judge F.O.V. Acheson consequent upon the Land Court hearings in 1939 upon the petitions of L.W. Parore and J. Parore.
6. The failure to prevent the sub-division and sale of land within the disputed reserves of Maunganui even whilst Judge Acheson's Report was awaiting consideration and at a time when many of the men of our hapu were fighting in the service of the Crown in distant theatres of war;
7. The failure to adequately protect the wahi tapu on and about the sacred hill and bluff of Maunganui and the sites of ancient whare wananga at that place.
8. The diversion of the Waihopai river so that a fresh water supply was no longer available adjacent to the Manuwhetai reserve;
9. The continuing failure to maintain Manuwhetai as a reserve, to protect the urupa within the reserve and to prevent subdivision of the land (or subdivision preparations) in a manner which desecrated urupa sites and other wahi tapu.
10. The failure to adequately enforce the provisions of the Historic Places Act 1980 to protect archaeological and traditional sites within Manuwhetai, Whangaiariki and adjacent areas (including also Puketapu and other papakainga sites) and to prevent removal or Taonga from swamp areas;
11. Within the adjacent Opanake Block, the failure of adhere to agreements relating to the supply of water to members of our hapu and the use of the Public Works Act to extinguish rights over catchment roads; and the failure to return to the original Maori owners the former railway line land when that land was no longer being used for the purposes for which it was obtained.
12. Generally, the Acts, policies, practices and omissions of the Crown and its agents in effecting the loss of Te Roroa lands in the Maunganui area, and its failure to ensure that sufficient lands remain for the needs of the Te Roroa hapu in Maunganui.
They finished off claiming that they claim the full extent of rights to fisheries guaranteed by the Treaty of Waitangi, the extent rights to surface and sub-surface minerals guaranteed by the Treaty of Waitangi. And the asked the Tribunal assist and continue to assist with the necessary research into historical and legal issues raised by these claims. They asked that they Tribunal should make findings and recommendations which it considers just and fair so as to recognise their rights under the Treaty of Waitangi and to recognise their Mana Tangata, Mana Wairua and Mana Whenua.

Nathan claimants destroy Archaeological Sites :
The Waipoua aspect of the Waitangi Tribunal hearings took place at Matatina Marae in the Waipoua Forest in July and October 1989, the site of this marae was once originally a Pa site which had been completely leveled by the Nathan's claimants with a bulldozer in order to make a suitable site for their marae after returning to Waipoua from Wellington in 1983. The pa site is now completely unrecognisable. This was done without Conservation Department approval. One law for part Maori and one for white farmers.

Freehold Property not going to be Confiscated in Maori Land Claims :
Other landowners around New Zealand started to disbelieve assurances that freehold property was not going to be confiscated in Maori land claims. Mr. Lange made a statement in front of 100 Wellington Lawyers at a seminar at the Chateau Tongariro on the 23rd June 1989 that, Not one single inch of private land is under threat from the Waitangi Tribunal.

26th June 1989, Post Cabinet Press Conference. RT Hon David Lange, Prime Minister, stated - There is no power in law for the Crown to take any private land to settle a Waitangi recommendation. I hope they start to feel reassured out there in Monganui Bluff. I have written to them telling them what the state of their title is and that it can't be taken from them. Questions were then asked by the reporter, Mr Harman and answered by Mr Lange as follows : -
Q. Can you realistically see any settlement to that land dispute that doesn't involve the transfer of the title of the land held by Mr Titford to the Ngati Whatua people?
A. Absolutely I can see an alternative settlement. And that is not to transfer the land.
Q. Does the Crown compensate or what?
A. The Crown can do all sorts of things to try and alleviate the stress and upset and grievances. But I come back to it. The claim is not against the Titfords. It is against the Crown. And the Crown can't take the land.
Q. So what can the Crown do to ensure the Ngati Whatua, that their burial grounds for example are not going to be bulldozed, and that the various other things that have happened to them since Mr Titford moved onto that property are going to cease?
A. The Police will take action against anyone molesting the Titfords, and ought to. The Crown, if it receives a recommendation from the Waitangi Tribunal, has to do what it can to alleviate the situation. The Crown may wish to buy, from a willing seller, the land. That is a matter for the Titfords. It is not a matter of coercion. No one can take the Titford's land from them.
Q. Is there anything in Mr Titford's behaviour so far that demonstrates to you that he is neither going to be co-operative nor willing to hand that land over to the Ngati Whatua?
A. He is not going to hand the land over to the Ngati Whatua and he is not going to be asked to. The Crown will have to make its decision as to what's being done. Now my view of the Titfords is another matter altogether and it would not be charitable for me to go into it at any length.
Q. What is there to stop Mr Titford proceeding with the planned beach sub-division over the top to the burial ground which is what the Ngati Whatua are complaining about all the way along the line?
A. He needs planning permission - he could go ahead and do it.
Q. Isn't this Titford/Ngati Whatua claim exactly what the Waitangi Tribunal was set up to hear in that the basis of the claim in the 19th century was a mistake on a surveying map which European law has constantly judged to be out of its power to do anything about and that therefore the land rests with Titford although the Maoris claim all the way along the line that the map was mistakenly drawn and claim to have evidence to sustain that argument?
A. Yes there is. And the way the Government deals with that would be a test for the Tribunal.
Q. Is it possible that the Government might make representation to the Tribunal to place a covenant using the burial ground?
A. There are all sorts of ways in which that can be done. The Government itself could take steps pursuant to the planning process to have some protection afforded whai tapu or burial grounds urupa.
Q. If there was such a covenant placed over the land after a tribunal process, will the Titfords then get compensation by the Crown?
A. They could certainly argue it couldn't they. On the other hand if they were giving a benefit they were being given a boon of being able to subsidise something hitherto not sub-divisible, then of course I don't suppose they'd get a cracker would they, because they are having an enhancement of the worth of their property.
Q. If the Government's got all these remedies, why hasn't it applied itself to the situation of Monganui Bluff since the violence first started two years ago?
A. I've been corresponding with the Titfords and giving them an assurance of their title which assurances they have been careful not to show you. I wrote within the last fortnight saying it's about time you grabbed the idea that you have indefeasibility of title which is a legal way of saying they are protected. (Released under the Official Information Act - appendix C)

Waitangi Tribunal can't be Cross-Examined :
13 July 1989, Minister of Justice, Geoffrey Palmer, writes saying, As the Waitangi Tribunal is a tribunal with the powers of a Commission of Inquiry it is not the normal practice in any case to allow cross-examination. Some provision is made for the Waitangi Tribunal to commission claimant research to enable claimants to prepare themselves for a hearing. This provision is not available to third parties because the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is between the Crown and Maori. (Document E)
Again no rights for us land owners to defend our freehold title and its real history.

Crown gives Claimants a Grant for Research :
14th July 1989, Te Roroa were given a grant of $12,000.00 by the Justice Department for researching. I protested as the cash grant was being used to rewrite history.

Lands Department Meeting :
21st July, We met with the Lands Department in Auckland but not much progress was made. They advised us to continue and get a valuation done and then we could meet with Mr Tapsell to get it settled. It was then that I found out Sam Brown, Director of Lands, was of the Te Roroa tribe who are claiming my land. Unknown to us the Crown had conveniently already lowered the over all Government Valuation in July 1988 by $320,000. We didn't find this out until later. It was stated that the Crown was not able to compulsorily acquire the property rather negotiate for sale/purchase had to be on a willing seller/buyer basis.

28th July 1989, Huts, etc, were still on my land and I had organised a group of people to help remove them and all other rubbish off our land and put it all on the Council side of the fence. Permission to do this, was given by the Hobson County Council. I rang Sergeant Goodland and told him my intentions and he stated that he had told me to it long ago and said that they'll come and do the mediating if there is trouble. All of a sudden, Sergeant Goodland seemed to have a different view now that the Waitangi Tribunal hearing had started and was under way. I guess the Police had done their bit for the Crown.

29th July, Twelve of us removed everything off my property at the Bluff. Constable Dudley arrived and watched us for about half an hour. Because there was no trouble, he left.

Governmental coercion :
9th August 1989, MP, Winston Peters replied to a letter we had written to him a week earlier on the 2nd August. He stated, I would be interested in due course to hear how the Government intends to finalise the settlement on your property as anything less than a fair deal would in my view amount to governmental coercion.

10th August 1989, While visiting the claim area with a visitor from Canterbury, South Island, Jeff Hall (a pro Te Roroa claim supporter, European bach owner) ran out of his bach and stood on the road in front of us and issued abuse then attacked us. Jeff Hall had earlier wanted to buy a section off me earlier on but he wanted it for one third of the price of the others that had sold previously but fell through as a result of the claim. He got threatening when I would not sell him the section on his terms. Jeff purchased a section that was supposedly under claim by Te Roroa.

Pre-Maori Stone Formations :
More history came to light on the stone formations in the Waipoua Forest that Radio Carbon Datings, (1000 years old) and a report had been done, but it is to be restricted from the public until the year 2063. The stone formations were made prior to the Maori coming to New Zealand.

15th August 1989, Mr Tapsell answered a letter Sue had written to him earlier on the 8th May about these stones and the report that had been done. He stated - I have sought information from my colleague, the Minister of Conservation on the points that you have raised. He advises me that a series of archaeological surveys and investigations has been undertaken in the Waipoua Forest since the early 1980's. Initially the New Zealand Forest Service initiated and funded the work, and since 1 April 1987, the Department of Conservation has assumed responsibility for the surveys and investigations. A Te Roroa-Waipoua Archaeological Advisory Committee was set up to oversee work and advise on site management and research in the forest. The Committee consists of representatives of the tangata whenua, Department of Conservation (from 1.4.87), Historic Places Trust, Forest Service (until 1.4.87 and now Timberlands). It meets on a regular basis. From time to time it has been said that the sites are of great national scientific significance, but the Historic Places Trust and the Department of Conservation both feel that this is not correct - that they are of local interest, but that the traditional significance of the sites to the tangata whenua is extremely high. The project itself is seen as being of great significance because of the involvement of the tangata whenua and the entire exercise of recording, investigating and managing a well preserved historic landscape. I note in your letter that your own research has suggested that there may have been people living in New Zealand before the Maori. There is no evidence whatsoever to support that view. (Letter: 12)
Another cover up of New Zealand's true history. Note how this part Maori MP alleges that there were no people prior to Maori.

Involvement with a Farm at Taupo :
A proposition had been put forward between the Rural Bank and Elders Real Estate for us to look at a property at Taupo. The Rural Bank had an interest in the property and said that they would be prepared to work a solution. There was a conditional contract drawn up by Mr Peter Earl, Elders Agent, Elders Real Estate, Taupo, subject to us getting sufficient money from the Government. The price was $2,000,000 same as the valuation that had been done for the property concerned. The Rural Bank were prepared to leave money in at a real low interest rate long term. While we were able to find farms with similar carrying capacity as mine at around $1,500,000 they were too hilly for me and I want to run cattle, not sheep. Properties with my contour and soil type were in the $2,000,000 - $2,500,000 range.
For us this meant either the Crown assisted me in replacing my farm at this point or simply purchase the coastal area of my land at valuation (what it would have been without a claim on it), drop the police charges and leave me with Maunganui Bluff leaving me in the situation I first intended to be in as now land prices had increased again.
Before going to Wellington to see Peter Tapsell, Elders Agent, Peter Earl, met us in Auckland wanting a second contract for $2,500,000 but with the extra conditions that there was a crop of oats grown, of which we were given a photocopy of the proposal. (Document R.1) It was our intention to cut and re-sell this Taupo property if we ended up with it as it wasn't what I wanted but if it meant a way of resolving the Bluff situation I was prepared to go to this length.

The first contract had been signed conditional subject to selling my Maunganui Bluff property, but was refused by the vendors. A second proposal was done (not on an Elders form) and if it had became valid, it was also a conditional contract. The property was to have 230 acres of oats grown and the fertilizer and seed were to be supplied from Elders Limited and charged to me. Elders were responsible to oversee the sowing of the crop. This was left in the hands of the Rural Bank and Elders. But none of these conditions took place.

Rural Bank visit for the First Time :
The Rural Bank came and saw Sue and me on the farm after our visit to Tapsell and told us that they had been speaking to the Crown and it was going to be fixed. The Rural Bank Officer told us that the Crown were going to buy the whole farm and give the claim back to Maori, grow some of the farm in pine trees and sell the rest off by doing a subdivision of the whole property. He said I was going to get fair value for my place plus compensation over and above towards getting us onto the Taupo property and the Crown can not say now that we are not serious.

Meeting with Tapsell in Wellington :
5th October 1989, A meeting had been arranged in Wellington (Parliament) so Sue, Don Harrison, my mother and myself, went to see Mr Tapsell. Present at the meeting besides us were Mr Tapsell, his Secretary Kathy Smith and Kevin Cayless from the Lands Department. The meeting took place at 3:00pm. I stated to Tapsell that my Lawyers say we have to take the Government to Court but we do not want to do that yet because I believe you are a fair and reasonable man.
Tapsell said there was no need for Court and they will be fair with their negotiations. He told me they were not interested in my valuations and when I said that would put us out on the street with the clothes we stand in and with a debt he told me that that's all he can offer. It was beyond his powers and he has no authority to do anything else. He said it was my property and I could do whatever I want with it. Tapsell told me that if I go broke, it is all my own making and that he was sorry. Don Harrison told Tapsell he looked sorry but that did not solved the situation. I told Tapsell that when I get home, I'll have a bankruptcy notice served on me through his Government not upholding the law.
He kept on saying he was sorry and there was nothing he could do. My Mother stated that they will lose their freehold property because they went Guarantor. Tapsell told her he was sorry, there was nothing he could do and it's your problem. He told me I could sell the land to the claimants and I told him I have tried but they want it for nothing. Tapsell wanted to know what I paid for the property when I bought it and said that I knew of a Maori claim before I bought the place. I told him I never knew about it until I bought it and it was his Government who created the problem.
He stated I could have done the subdivision somewhere else and I explained that I moved away from the claim area but still sabotaging and burning, etc kept happening. Tapsell told Don that he was not interested in his land and asked Don why does not he let the claimants have his land. I asked Tapsell about the carbon datings in the Waipoua Forest on the stone formation and said they prove there were people in New Zealand before the Maori. Tapsell said he was not interested. Tapsell told us that the Tribunal could only make a recommendation, as they do not have the powers to give the land to the Maori people. The Maori's will be compensated for it in money, they will not get the land. I explained the claimants do not want money they want the land and they will use force if they have to.
Tapsell once again said he was sorry, there is nothing he can do, it is out of his hands. He stated that they do not have the police to protect us all the time. He told me it was my problem if they want the land. I explained to Tapsell that from evidence we have located through old identities, that I doubt if it was even a mistake by the Crown. As evidence shows it was Maori fighting Maori and they themselves did not know what they wanted. Tapsell said no, it wouldn't have been the Maori's that were fighting, it was white man that would have ripped them off. The Maori people would have known what they were doing. I told Tapsell I would sell him the farm for what they are offering and keep the coast but he insisted that they do not want the farm, they want the coast. I could keep the farm. He kept on that it was our problem and they cannot do anything about it.

One proposal I put to Tapsell was to swap our farm for a farm property owned by the Crown, but he was not interested, it was their offer or nothing. Tapsell had no plans of buying the property fairly and there were to be no negotiations. It was his offer only. His way was to take the property in any way possible without paying a fair price which had resulted in tactics used up to this point.
Our valuation reports that had been done by Northland Valuation Consultants at great expense which we presented to him showing the value of the potential only for the coastal area at $620,000 or $700,000 including the base price for the land plus also the value of the farm itself outside the coastal area and claim totaled $1,350.000 all up. There was also on the farm in excess of $350,000 of capital stock plus in excess of $100,000 in young stock. The potential on the beach front and sales already made would have covered our debt but this had been destroyed by the false land claim and tactics used. The Crown could have had both the claim and the subdivision for valuation. Two reports I had done show this along with the earlier Government Valuation which the Crown deliberately lowered for their offer. I would have owned my farm out right by this point. My true equity with all my machinery and livestock would have been about $1,000,000 - $1,200,000. Farm prices were by now lifting fast.
Tapsell wasn't interested he expected me to lose all my equity at this point and only to cover cost of the debts I had as a result of the false Maori land claim due to sabotage, Police charges, etc. Also survey costs of the second subdivision in order to try and get around the claim problem. Most of the money owing was to the Crown owned Rural Bank, and the Crown wanted to break me by buying the property now at less than half its true value. After all I had bought and paid for this potential and had given up my fishing compensation to take this opportunity to go farming in the first place. Tapsell wanted it for way less than half its value.
It was either accept what Tapsell gives us or go without. His price was $740,000 which meant he wanted the claim coastal area for nothing and we would end up with nothing towards replacing our farm simply because he was wanting to take our farm to subsidise the claim. Tapsell was of the view, alleging that the coast was already Maori land, some how mistakenly included in my title.

We met MP John Carter of the National Party and had dinner with him at Ballamies in Parliament. Mr Carter told us he was going to help get the matter fully exposed and called MP Winston Peters in for some advice. Mr Peters told us we should work out the cost of all the sections which we could have gotten in the subdivision, subtract expenses, then add 15% on top of that for stress as well and that is what we should be asking for, for the property plus compensation for any other losses. We worked all this out in Mr Carters Office a long with our valuation report and gave it to him. Carter said he was going to see what he could do.
Nothing came of it. Carter was all talk and ended up backing the Te Roroa false land claim.

Rural Bank Advance Deposit Money for Taupo into Elders Trust :
9th October 1989, Saw Mr Ewing at the Rural Bank and told them it was a waste of time trying to deal with Tapsell. He stated they have been assured that the Crown was going ahead and we will be getting fully compensated. Tapsell was not the only person in Government. He stated that the Bank will see what they can do and have a go with the Taupo issue and our valuations, etc, we had done with the Government. I said I would go ahead with the Taupo property only if I could buy it out right or have a deal with extremely fair terms (at very low interest). So it was suggested by the Rural Bank and executed that they will see what they can resolve with the Government and that a deposit should be paid into an Elders Trust Account being $200,000 as this would show the Government that the matter was being taken seriously. The conditions on the Rural Bank agreement form read -
1. A registered variation of mortgage. On the Bank's standard form, is required to record a priority sum for the purpose of section 80A, (2) of property law act 1952 of $1,200,000. (It was previously $800,000).
2. Solicitor to give written undertaking that this advance plus interest to be repaid in full on or before the 6th December 1989. (Note -That was if nothing happened).
3. Advance to be held in trust by Elders Pastoral and only released upon written approval from the Bank. Comment - As explained and agreed with me, the Bank would take care of the money until it went ahead. They contacted my Lawyer and I had nothing to do with the matter or deposit any further. (Document R.2)

I signed it and left it in the hands of the Rural Bank, for them to deal with my Solicitor, the above option and to see if it could be finalised or come up with a solution. The Bank were acting on promises from their contacts in the Government.
Meet with Lands Department but to no avail :
We met with the Lands Department in Auckland with our Solicitors and went through all matters to no avail. It was at this point that we found out that the Crown had lowered the Government Valuation in July 1988 destroying my equity in there view. Mr Joyce QC was of the view that every attempt we have made to try to resolve the situation from when going to the property has been discredited by someone. His view was that if the Crown really meant what they said about freehold title the only solution would be to compensate us, as the persons effected, for damages and leave that person, the owner, with the land. Mr Joyce and Mr Duke advised us to do nothing further concerning Taupo property.

Taupo Property Sold :
November 1989, Peter Earl, Elders Agent contacted me and advised me that the Taupo property had been sold to the neighbouring property, Lochinver Station. Unknown to me, Elders Real Estate had taken the deposit out of the account deducting the commission for the sale that never happened and the balance went back to the Rural Bank as they were the creditors on the other side. The Bank later claim that they never gave Elders permission to take the money. The whole matter was left to the Bank to arrange and they were to take care of the deposit. (Document R.2)

Surveyor Sues me :
November 1989, Our Surveyor, Hodges & Elrick took me to Court. My sales had fallen down as a result of the claim so the family lent me the money to pay. Settlement was $40,000, which ended up being $27,000 cash plus one section at the Bluff. The Rural Bank had refused to pay for the survey on the second subdivision even though they wanted me to proceed. The Rural Bank then refused after this Court hearing to release the section for payment as they had first security and were of the view that the Crown will be acquiring it in time for the claim. They were of the view that we, the Family, should pay Elrick cash for the survey work and no land should be handed over. It was at this point that the Bank told us they had got nowhere with the Crown, re Taupo etc.

Conservation Department goes to Court to obtain Injunction :
10th November 1989, The Conservation Department went to Court and obtained an injunction against me to stop me from working in the general area of my subdivision and the claim area. They told the Court that my property contained a number of archaeological sites. There were two pa sites, being two open settlements (which contained a number of living and working areas) and middens (which are refuse sites from food collection). Also they alleged that there is a historically known urupa (Burial Ground) (archaeological site) in the area of the dune just behind the beach. However they stated that it is not customary to give them a NZ Archaeological Association Site Number due to issues of cultural sensitivity. This happened to be a hill I had already leveled off, earlier. There were no bones.
Up until 1989, there has been no record of this land ever being a registered reserve or a recorded as a burial ground. My land had now become a site all conveniently registered for a false Maori land claim.

The Injunction :
16th November 1989, Mr Joyce, QC, appeared in Court in Auckland on my behalf. In the Conservation Departments evidence to the Court, sites seemed to be conveniently popping up where ever I had built my farm tracks. There were no sites found in the claim area as alleged or even shown on the photos supplied. The only site they took the photographs of was of a midden outside the alleged claim area. The fact was that the Conservation Department, like the claimants, did not even know where the boundaries of their alleged claim were until I fenced it later.
On Leigh Johnson's, (Conservation Department Representative) first visit to see me, there were no sites where we were working when he walked over the land except one pa. But later, after seeing the claimants, they were everywhere because the claimants said so. He had given me permission to do my track building earlier, which I had started doing.
The outcome of the injunction meant even though there wasn't anything to be seen, I couldn't do anything on my own freehold land and if I did so, I would be found $25,000 and face jail. This meant that I could do very little on my own property. SO MUCH FOR FREEHOLD TITLE.

Road Block :
29th November 1989, I blocked the road to Maunganui Bluff as the road is on my property and it was the only way I could protest about the corruption. I put a macrocapa log across it in protest as we were getting no where and were being held to ransom by the Crown and Maori. Later that afternoon I was flown to Auckland by television New Zealand to do a live interview with Mr Tapsell on the Holmes show. The Holmes show would not let me cover my side of the valuations or let me get into any real history, they would only discuss Tapsell's side. Tapsell alleged that I knew of the claim before I purchased the property. I told him I did not know of a claim. Tapsell was referring to Tom Parore's threat which took place after I had purchased the property. Tapsell stated that I must have been the only person in Northland that did not know because every single person in Northland knew of a claim on the property since 1937. Tapsell told Paul Holmes that negotiations were happening tomorrow. Of course nothing ever happened. Nearly ten months had passed since Tapsell's original visit in February. It was clear that the Crown were only interested in Te Roroa's false land claim and were ignoring all the other important history.

Sue Writes to Tapsell :
Since Sue came from Northland, she wrote to Mr. Tapsell on 30th November under an alias name and told him that herself and all the people she knew, never knew of any claim until recently. She asked why the Maori's have the right to claim freehold property. She stated that she believes Maori's can now say an area on someone's property is of spiritual importance to them and the owner is not allowed to touch that area and the Maori's don't have to have evidence.

Council Agree to Support my claims before Government :
The Hobson County Council which has now changed over to Kaipara District Council, came out and had a meeting with me over the road and they got a Surveyor and found out that the road was not on the legal line. They suggested and signed an agreement between themselves and myself, that if the road was left where it was and I re-opened it, they, the Council, would support my claims before Government and advise me on how the land could have been subdivided. The agreement was signed by P.A. Brown (Mayor), W. D. Milner (General Manager) and myself and witnessed by Don Harrison's brother.

MP Carter alleges to Pursue the Issue Vigorously :
7th December 1989, National MP, John Carter writes stating that he had looked into our situation and up until now he had some doubts as to the rights or wrongs of the advice that I had given him in regard as to why the subdivision hadn't proceeded. He stated that it was now clear to him that the advice I gave him was accurate and he will be pursuing the issue vigorously. He said that the wider issue is one he is trying his best to resolve, as it is an extremely difficult matter. (Letter: 14)

Tapsell states Maori have No Claim to Freehold Property :
8th December 1989, Mr Tapsell answered Sue's letter of the 30th November 1989 stating, With respect I must tell you that I find it extraordinary that you are so poorly informed on the matters relating to the land at Maunganui Bluff. Mr Titford has a legitimate title to his farm. He owns it in fee simple. The Government has neither the wish nor the power to take it from him. The Maori people in the area have no claim to freehold property. I have said that over and over again. Their claim is against the Government. They alleged that at the time the land was sold to the Government a reserve area was wrongly included in the title and there are good grounds for believing that they are correct. You are quite wrong in believing that Maori's can lay any claim against the owner of a freehold title. That is not and never has been the case. (Letter :13)
But as earlier recorded shows, he is totally incorrect.

22nd December 1989, Mr Rex Smith, District Manager of the Department of Lands wrote to the Acting Director General of Department of Lands, Mr Cayless stating that he has left the 'ball in the court' of us and our Solicitor. He stated that the Valuation N.Z.'s report has included an estimate of the value of all the residential properties which are also included within the boundaries of the Manuwhetai 'Reserve'. The total value of these is 1.22 million dollars, and when combined with the balance of the 'Reserve' which lies within the bounds of my property there is a total figure of 1.4 million dollars. Smith states that he has asked Valuation N.Z. for an assessment of the value of the total 'Reserve' area because the Minister's decision to enter into negotiations with me is based on somewhat shaky reasoning. He states - it is the Manuwhetai 'Reserve' that is the source of Maori concerns and the claim to the Waitangi Tribunal for the return to Maori ownership. Why then not purchase the whole of the Reserve - presumably it is simply a matter of money? And yet if the reserve area is not to be purchased in total how will the Maori claim be satisfied?
(Released under the Official Information Act - Crown file 744)

By the end of the year, Tapsell had increased his offer to $750,000, which I could not accept either as it still put me out on the road with nothing.

1990

Bill of Rights Act, 1988, Section 19 :
1. Everyone has the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of colour, race, etc.
2. Measures taken in good faith for the purpose of assisting or advancing persons or groups of person, disadvantaged because of colour, race, etc, do not constitute discrimination.

This Act further protected those that had taken part in attacks against us on the grounds it was done so in assisting and advancing their group. Which meant they could get away with their terrorism.

15th January, Hughie Te Rore died of Cancer. From this point on we did not suffer as much terrorism as we did before but the damage had already been done.

Court Charges go ahead :
22nd January, After nearly two years, I appeared in the Whangarei District High Court for three of the charges of $80,000 willful damage to the Pouwhenua, $80,000 theft of the Pouwhenua and $1000 theft of a flag. It was a trial by jury. Roderick Joyce, QC, was my defence Lawyer. On the first day of the hearing supporters from as far as New Plymouth and Tauranga from the One New Zealand Foundation came and stood outside the Court with banners in support of our situation. One protester against us and the One New Zealand Foundation was Maori person, Mike Smith, who was an employee of the Crown at this time who since attacked the pine tree on One Tree Hill, Auckland. The Police did not want me to speak to the One New Zealand Foundation members. They prevented me from doing so taking me inside and locked me in the cell. Thank you One New Zealand Foundation for your support.

The Crown Solicitor stated at the hearing that one of the two Crown witnesses (Hughie Te Rore) had died. So the main witness for the Crown was now the head claimant, Manos Nathan (part Maori, part Greek person), whose father, Ned Nathan, who headed the push for the modern Waitangi Tribunal claim for my land. Manos Nathan was not present when any incidents took place but he was the person who carved the pole.
When the flag I pulled down was produced in Court, their witness (Shona Te Rore, Hughie Te Rore's widow) said it wasn't the flag at all as their flag had been embroidered not painted, but after a while she admitted it was their flag. The trial by jury went for a week. Because the carving had been cemented into the ground, it became the property of us, the landowner. I never at any time gave them (claimant's) permission to enter the property or put up the pole. The jury found me NOT GUILTY. The claimants sides cost was covered again by the Crown while I was left with a very large bill costing us tens of thousands of dollars as a result of this false Maori land claim as well as being charged on the grounds it was Maori land and under claim to the Waitangi Tribunal.

21st February 1990, Commissioner of Crown Lands, Johnny Edmonds writes to the Minister of Lands stating - The Waitangi Tribunal may only consider Maori claims in respect of grievances against the Crown and not against private individuals; The Crown has no legal authority to compulsorily acquire privately owned land to resolve Maori grievances against the Crown; There are various ways in which the Crown can address proven Maori grievances against the Crown. The return of the land originally 'misappropriated' by the Crown is only one option and may only be pursued if that land is in Crown ownership; Land in Crown ownership is disposed of at market value unless there are special circumstances which require a departure from this practice. This practice applies irrespective of whether the disposal of the Crown land is to a Maori, Pakeha, Community Group, Local Authority etc. (Released under the Official Information Act - Survey and Land Information file 7/774)

6th March 1990, Cathy Smith Private Secretary of Mr Tapsell's writes to the Commissioner of Crown Lands stating the Minister met Mr David Roberts from the Auckland Branch of Federated Farmers to discuss the Titford case. Basically the approach made was that Mr Roberts was endeavouring to see whether the Crown's offer could be raised to enable Mr Titford to leave his property with money in hand. Figures of $1.3m have been mentioned.
The Minister has asked me to let you know that his view is that this latest offer should be the last offer to him i.e. there should be no further upward movement.
I do not think it desirable that the minister's views about the offer be conveyed to Mr Titford of his solicitors, but we could clearly leave it up to them to advise whether or not it is acceptable, but at the same time ensure that they are aware that they can come back to you if they wish to discuss things further in the future. (Released under the Official Information Act file 17A)

Federated Farmers Declines Support :
20th March 1990, We had asked Federated Farmers for Assistance with our situation. The Provincial President, Mr David Roberts wrote stating that I was a speculator who has had my fingers burnt rather than a farmer who is the victim of an injustice and it makes the Federations ability to help very difficult. I later rang Mr Roberts and he stated that I had, had too much publicity, so they wouldn't and couldn't touch it.
When I purchased my property nearly four years earlier, the Government Valuation was $860,000 and my nett valuations for mortgage purposes was $867,000. How could Federated Farmers say I was a Speculator over $7,000.

Notified that my Lawyer can no longer Act for Me :
21st March, The day before the Court case for resisting arrest, unlawful possession of a firearm and assault was to be heard, we received a letter from our Solicitor, Mr. Duke, dated 14th March, to say that he had received a letter from the newly Fletcher owned (ex-Crown) Rural Bank saying that his firm was liable for my original debt of $750,000 and the $200,000 Taupo deposit. This and the Maori Land claim had resulted in Mr. Duke having to tell me that his Firm could no longer work for me. Until this letter, I was unaware that the Taupo deposit had been lost.

Taupo Deposit taken by Elders :
We know that Mills & Duke later went to Court over the Taupo deposit and lost. A couple of years later we find out through our new Lawyer, Clive Jackson in Auckland, that Mr Duke had failed to carry out the Bank's instructions and it is said that he had given the deposit to Elders instead of putting it into their Trust account, and Elders had taken the deposit. But later the Crown and National Bank made me liable for the Crown Rural Bank's failure to protect the $200,000 in the end and they took approximately $500,000 off me as a result.

Last three Court Charges Heard :
21st March 1990, I contacted the Court Registrar to see if the case could be delayed until we got another Lawyer, but was denied, so the case had to go to Court the next day regardless to whether we had a Lawyer or not. We were able to find a Lawyer in Whangarei, Mr Carrigan from Thorne, Dallas & Partners, who also contacted the Court but the reply was that the case could not be delayed. Mr Carrigan knew nothing of my case. Because we did not have enough time to fully brief the Lawyer, he was not very hopeful. We then learnt of a truce which was used for Te Kooti (Maori who fought the Government last century), so Mr Carrigan planned on going to Court and putting forward this truce to see what reaction we got but if that failed then I would have to defend the charges myself the best I could with him present to assist on guidelines.

22nd March, We appeared in Court in Dargaville, and the proposition of a truce was presented to the Judge by Mr Carrigan. To our surprise it was accepted but I had to sign a Bond on the grounds which would justify the making of an order for a bond for keeping the peace for twelve months which stated that I was liable to pay $1000 if I breached the order. This also meant that I could not say or do much publicly about the injust claim lodged on my land. So the matter looked like the Police had won so the Crown could save face. This way it meant the public thought that I was guilty and had been dealt to when in fact I was innocent and had no conviction. The Crown won this round of publicity a long with propaganda. There was no conviction against me but the Police had also admitted to a mistake.

23rd March, I received a letter from Mr Duke's Lawyers, Wynyard Wood, stating that Mr Duke can no longer act for me and I should seek independent legal advice. They told me that if I did not make immediate arrangements to pay the Bank they would have to now sell the farm. They stated that I should move quickly to negotiate a realistic settlement with the Crown whereby it took the property over and cleared the Bank debt. (Letter : 14A)

Tapsell uses Propaganda to Incite Violence :
The following statements from Tapsell's visit in February 1989 appeared in the North and South magazine dated April 1990.
Mr Tapsell, Minister of Lands and Police, told the North and South magazine that, 'he was surprised that Titford did not know there was a long standing Maori claim when he bought the land.'
'the property is a completely run down farm, with fences down, weeds everywhere and its sandy, rubbishy country, and the buildings on it aren't worth threepenny bits, the house is a shack.'
"the Government had no power to acquire the land nor had it any wish to be involved anyway. But Allan was a young man with a wife, and no doubt in time children, and that the Maori people there with long-standing grievances would not let it go, that he would always be at risk. I pointed out to him that the day would come when he would be frightened to let his children walk down the road. There was no way in an out-of-the-way place like that we could provide 24 hour police protection. He must live there in harmony with his neighbours or defend himself the best he can.'
'There is no practical outcome except that he sells the land to the Government. The bitterness which I saw won't go away voluntarily, he will face trouble sooner or later, or his wife or children will.'
'Let the system take its course. The vast majority of the Te Roroa people are going to be utterly law-abiding, but the good name of the Te Roroa is hanging on what the least responsible or most idiotic of their number might do. That is the danger...you only need one drunk one night or one bitter person to take some action.'
About the subdivision area, Tapsell told the magazine, 'It won't work. It will never be a safe environment for the Titford family or any other Pakeha group who try to suburbanise that beach area. Like it or not, and Pakeha New Zealand won't like it at all, that's a fact.'
'Allan Titford has clear title and that means, regardless of the finally established facts of the Maori claims, he can keep the land as long as he chooses - he has the title, it is sacrosanct, it is his land.'

Huia White of Te Roroa tribe told the magazine, 'That land will always be ours, even if the decision goes against us. We'll tell our kids about it and the struggle and make sure that they pass it on to their kids. Legally, they might say its his, but morally it's ours.'
It was not even her family's land tribally and when title was awarded they sold it the next day to the Crown in 1876. It was now trial by Media.

Tribunal sends Kit Toogood :
Kit Toogood (son of Selwyn Toogood) was employed by the Tribunal to come and see what we had to say which was a brief of the evidence in this book. It was he, who allowed us to bring this up at the fifth Waitangi Tribunal hearing at Kaihu on 24th April, 1990. This was just after the Crown and claimants had just conceded to the statement of facts and to the false land claim.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
24th April 1990, Before the Waitangi Tribunal, the Crown Law and Counsel for the claimants conceded to the claim in a statement of facts.
The Fifth Hearing of the Waitangi Tribunal :
I had brought the true evidence in this book briefly to the attention of the Waitangi Tribunal and Crown Law Office, that the accusations about me and the evidence alleged missing in these opening addresses and reports is not all missing and what's being said is grossly distorted. By this time I had about two thirds of the evidence that is in this book.

Land owners had a brief chance to express our concerns and I raised the matter that this is a false claim as far as I am concerned but they had already conceded to the Titford and Mr Harrison's property's. It was clear when my evidence was brought up at the Tribunal that they were not happy. The bulk of the claimants disappeared, the media present was silenced by the Crown Law as a request by the claimants. It was only a few weeks after this, that Mr Toogood was no longer being employed by them. We noticed all the way through this story, any one that does favours for the Crown against us or others or favours for Maoridom, get favoured in Government and are still there in most cases. Those that stuck up for justice are no longer employed. Those that helped us on other things such as valuations and reports were totally ignored.

Approached By Crown Law Representative, Shonagh Kenderdine :
After I had my say I spoke with the Crown Law Representative, Shonagh Kenderdine, who I understand has now become a Judge. She told me I had no right to look into history as it is wahi tapu (sacred) and the matter has nothing to do with me as it is between the Maori and Crown only under the Treaty of Waitangi principals. She suggested that I hand all of the evidence I had over to the Crown and tell them exactly where I located it then they might treat me more fairly. If I do not, then the system will deal with me. Kenderdine stated that I have already had police charges against me and might think I am smart that I won but the Crown will wait, as all they need is a conviction. I asked her about my freehold title and being compensated on the valuations for that part of the land wanted for this alleged claim so I can carry on farming there. That way they've got what they want and I've got what I set out to do. Shonagh Kenderdine stated that the Minister (Maori MP, Peter Tapsell) said there will be no compensation for any subdivision or potential I might have had. She stated it is already Maori land in the eyes of the Minister and the Crown, and they have already agreed with this claim, so it does not matter what I say. The Crown will be acquiring the whole farm as that's the cheapest option. She stated that I am only a third party, a Farmer and speculator trying to make profit out of Maori. She stated that I could have given the Maori the claim land and that way we wouldn't be here today and it would have saved the tax payers a lot of money. I asked what about the mortgage and she told me to hand the farm and livestock over to the Bank as this way the Crown could wipe its hands of it. She stated that the Bank's already got control of me as the Crown owned Bank so in theory it owns the land anyway, unless I somehow pay the Bank off. I told her I have no intention of giving in and if I am pushed from my farm, I hold the Crown, legally responsible for present, past and future damages. I asked her how can the Crown Law Office, over rule Judge Shepherd's recommendation in 1942 which Parliament upheld the recommendation and the fact that the 1939 claim wasn't valid and now the Crown turn around and concede to this false claim without the matter going back before Parliament and having a fair and balanced trial of defence. She stated that the Crown and Government can do as they like, when they like. Shonagh Kenderdine had also told the Waipoua Farmers they wouldn't be affected by the claim on their farms in Waipoua No.2. Block. They were or had been at this time in the process of freeholding their farms and had Rural Bank and Landcorp write off's and reductions.

The claimants complained about what I had to say, so the Crown and the Waitangi Tribunal, deliberately had the media suppressed.

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
The statement of facts which the Crown and claimants agreed to at the fifth hearing at Kaihu on the 24th April 1990 On the 15th May 1990 the agreement was put into a JOINT MEMORANDUM BY COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANTS AND THE CROWN IN RELATION TO AN AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS WITH RESPECT TO THE LANDS KNOWN AS MANUWHETAI AND WHANGAIARIKI. Reads as follows -
BEFORE THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL Wai 38
IN THE MATTER of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975
AND IN THE MATTER of a claim by E.D.Nathan (Deceased) & Ors.

Received Waitangi Division 16 MAY 1990 Dept of Justice WELLINGTON

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE LAND
(1) The lands the subject of this Agreed Statement of Facts are those commonly known as Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki.
(2) The legal description of the respective lands are as follows :
Manuwhetai That parcel of land contained in CT 1893/57 being Section 19 Block XII Waipoua Survey District containing 110 acres 1 rood 12 perches more or less.
Note - They stated Allan Titford's Certificate of freehold title but they didn't include all the other 38 section owners freehold title numbers needed to make up the 110 acres being the original area called Manuwhetai.
Whangaiariki That parcel of land contained in CT 13C/709 being part Section 64 Block 1 Kaiiwi Survey District containing 22 acres 1 rood 28 perches more or less.
Note - Crown states Mr and Mrs Harrison's certificate of title number.

Page 2
THE SPIRITUAL, CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE OF MANUWHETAI AND WHANGAIARIKI

(3) The lands known as Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki are wahitapu of great spiritual significance to the Te Roroa people.
Totally Incorrect - original Court evidence shows this is not so. Only been called and made wahitapu for Te Roroa's False land claim.

(4) They contain urupa, in which were interred at the time of the Waipoua I/Maunganui sale, the ancestors of Te Roroa.
Totally Incorrect. No evidence or proof of any Maori burials or bones there at the time of the sale in 1876 or since on Manuwhetai or Whangaiariki only French Kanaka bones outside my property. The Maori Land Court had never recognised these areas as burial grounds. Also it has never been registered or gazetted as such.

(5) They contain ancient Pa and inhabitation sites of the Tupuna of Te Roroa.
Totally Incorrect. Their own forefathers early sworn Court evidence in 1876 shows this is not so.

(6) They include areas in which the famous taua of Taoho was trained and drilled.
Totally Incorrect. There is no original documented evidence of this whatsoever. Taoho died after the battle at Moremonui in 1807. The training and drilling statement was verbal evidence created by claimant, Turo (Lovey) Te Rore at the Waitangi Tribunal.

(7) They contain areas of garden for the cultivation of Te Roroa.
Totally Incorrect. According to their own forefathers sworn evidence they did not live or cultivate on this area south of Maunganui Bluff.

(8) They provided access to the significant coastal fishery at Maunganui Bluff for Te Roroa.
Totally Incorrect. Their own forefathers sworn evidence shows Te Roroa in 1876 lived and fished North of Maunganui and Waipoua and in the Kaihu valley.

THE RESERVATION OF WHANGAIARIKI AND MANUWHETAI

(9) The rangatira Tiopira Kinaki, Parore Te Awha and Te Rore Taoho all had legitimate interests in the Waipoua 1 and Maunganui Blocks at the time of investigation into title in February 1876.
Comment - Incorrect. But they all had interests in Maunganui a long with Ngatiwhatua whose claim was dejected at the hearing of Maunganui a long with Te Roroa's. Even though the evidence influenced the Judge's decisions Te Roroa would not accept it so they came to an agreement between themselves and Ngapuhi. There was to be one reserve only of 250 acres being Taharoa at the Kaiiwi Lakes for Parore.

(10) The interests of the rangatira Te Rore Taoho were centred in and around the areas known as Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki.
Totally Incorrect - His interests were in Waipoua No2 and Opanake at present day Kaihu. In later years, Te Rore Taoho on 30/1/1897 under oath at the Opanake No.1. re-hearing stated, I did not associate myself with the hapu at the Maunganui case.

page 3
(11) It is likely that land purchase officer Brissenden agreed with the rangatira concerned that Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki, being areas within the direct influence of Te Rore Taoho, should be excluded from the sale.
Totally Incorrect. There is no agreement with any Crown agent or any evidence that Te Rore Taoho was to have the areas of Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki excluded from the sale in 1876.
In later years in Judge Mair's judgement on 3rd Feb 1897 he stated - "Evidence was given as to occupation (Opanake) as it was contended that these hapus were the constant allies of Te Rores father, Taoho, who was a famous warrior, and that their rights were recognised at the hearing of the Maunganui and Kaihu No.1 blocks adjoined to Opanake etc." (Kaipara Minute Book 6: 314)

(12) It is likely that Te Rore Taoho took no further part in the Native Land Court Inquiry and the sale of the Maunganui and Waipoua 1 because he believed that the areas in respect of which he claimed a direct interest had been excluded from the sale.
Totally incorrect. Tiopira handed in the list of names for ownership of their reserve, Waipoua No.2, on the 3rd February 1876 which included Te Rore Taoho. He had taken part in the deposit monies . Te Rore like all other Maori, knew full well how to assert a claim which he had done on another matter before the Native Land Court.
By his own sworn omission in 1897 Te Rore Taoho stated, "I did not associate myself with the hapu at the Maunganui case. Parore was the head chief there on this day."

(13) A dispute developed between Parore Te Awha and Tiopira Kinaki over boundaries between the land claimed by each.
This also involved Ngatiwhatua being a supporting party to Tiopira Kinaki which involved the land between the north boundary of Maunganui and the Kaihu block along the coast in the area including Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki. Parore Te Awha did not want Te Roroa or any counter claimant's claim to succeed in this area. As result of this conflict the gifting of Mangarata in March 1875 to Ngatiwhatua by the Ngapuhi Paramount Chief, Tirarau in return for giving up all their claims to Parore's lands including Maunganui. But some of Ngatiwhatua tried to claim again to Parore's land, Maunganui, at the land Court hearings in 1876.

(14) The disagreement also concerned the general area within which Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki are situated.
This was the very reason why the Maori Land Court had to sit on this case of Maunganui and Waipoua as to sort out and establish proper ownership of Maunganui beyond doubt as this area had been in conflict for many years in the past between Te Roroa, Ngatiwhatua and Ngapuhi back to before the 19th century Maori Land Wars which was sparked by this dispute originally. True ownership had to be established in order to be able to deliver the proper title of Maunganui.

(15) (a) The survey of Blocks by Messrs. H. & D. Wilson was halted in February / March 1875 as a result of the disagreement. (b) The area which remained unsurveyed as a consequence contained Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki.
Parore did not want the Crown Surveyors or any one else on his land. Te Roroa and others were trying to establish claim on this area. As a result, S.P. Smith later compiled plan 3253 in the Survey Office, completing the over all survey. There was no need to complete the survey along the coast in the area of Manuwhetai or Whangaiariki as it was nothing to do with those who were awarded title to Maunganui.

(16) Chief Surveyor S.P. Smith subsequently agreed that the uncompleted portion of the survey, being an area of straight coastline, could, for the purposes of the Native Land Court inquiry into title, be completed by way of a simple sketched line.
S.P Smith was referring only to the coastline not the modern day alleged reserves, Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki.

(17) Chief Surveyor S.P. Smith agreed to arrange for surveyors to return to complete any internal surveys at a later date.
S.P. Smith was not referring to the alleged reserves of Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki. He was only referring to the coastline of the Bluff itself as the line was added in for the Court. The area along the Bluff below the trig on Maunganui Bluff was sketched in as it was impossible to survey.

(18) This was done with respect to Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki by F.P. Smith in September 1875. Smith completed a plan (ML3297/8) of the reserves and forwarded this to the Inspector of Surveys of Auckland on September 15.
Totally incorrect. The Crown Smith's, Frank and Percy, had nothing to do with the alleged reserves. Field Book No 13 may have been signed out to Frank Smith (which was normal practice on behalf) but the work in Field Book 13 and the map and work is not drawn by Frank Smith's hands as the writing and signature are different. This so called date and signature added to the unsigned map of Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki and others to do with Field Book 13 (according to ex Lands and Survey Staff) were added by the Deputy as it can be seen that there are other notes all through the Department by the same hand. The unsigned Map of Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki was notified by the Inspector of Surveys Office to the Provincial Surveyor as it was in conflict, but was never acted upon by the Provincial Surveyor.
(1) Because whoever had it made, never acted on it as it didn't even show who had it made.
(2) If it was a Crown survey, authority would have had to have been given by the Inspector of Survey Office for it to be made. There is no record of any authority for its making.
(3) It was not even a certified plan just a Map (proposal).
(4) It does not comply with the rules of the 1873 Lands Act.

Page 4
(19) Through a combination of factors, the agreement to reserve Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki from sale was never given positive effect to in the formal order of the court as to title dated 3 February 1876 or in the Deed of Sale dated 8 February 1876. These factors included -
Totally incorrect. There was never any agreement or formal order of the Court or agreement in the Deed of Sale in 1876 to this effect or to even substantiate this statement.

- The belief of Te Rore Taoho that Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki had been excluded from the deliberations of the Crown and the sale negotiations with the Crown,
Totally incorrect. Te Rore Taoho on 30/1/1897 under oath at the Opanake No1 re-hearing stated, "I did not associate myself with the hapu at the Maunganui case. Parore was the head chief there on this day."

- His subsequent non-appearance in court,

- All of the parties were preoccupied with the more immediate dispute between Parore Te Awha as to entitlements and later as to the consideration each received,
The very reason for the Maori Land Court hearing in the first place was to sort out all these matters at the hearing in 1876 to the ownership to Maunganui as Te Rore (Te Roroa) and Parore were bitter enemies. Parore Te Awha and Tiopira Kinaki argued over this land and boundaries along with Ngatiwhatua.

- The fact that Brissenden who had negotiated the sale, and who was likely to have agreed to the reservation of Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki, was replaced by Preece in March/April 1875,
Totally incorrect. There is no evidence of Brissenden who was likely to have agreed to any such reservation of these alleged reserves. Infact evidence is to the opposite effect.

- The pressure under which Native Land Purchase Officers generally were put to purchase land.
Totally Incorrect. There is no evidence to support this theory in the matter of the sale of Maunganui or Waipoua No1 to the Crown as the evidence shows the matter had dragged on for some time.

- A likely clerical error which lead to the maps ML3297/8 not being despatched from Auckland to Kaihu so as to be before the Native Land Court when it sat in Kaihu on 27 January 1876.
Totally Incorrect. There is no such evidence of any clerical error what so ever as the map 3297-8 didn't even measure up to all the rules necessary under the 1873 Land Act.

page 5
(20) The Crown and the claimants are therefore agreed that the lands known as Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were intended by all parties to be reserved from sale. By a combination of factors including human error, that intention was not given effect to.
Totally Incorrect. They may allege this today by re-writing history to force us from our freehold title lands, but the true history doesn't show what they are now alleging as real history shows this is not the case.
DATED this 15th day of May 1990.

Signed - J.V. Williams, Counsel for the Claimants Signed - S.E. Kenderdine, Counsel for the Crown

---

So as it can be seen the Statement of Facts compared with real true history is a re-write to fabricate history.
Facts that Prove the Statement of Facts Wrong :
Fieldbook No.13 does not prove that Frank Smith was the Surveyor of Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki.

The map of Manuwhetai went into the Inspector of Surveys unsigned and was only a proposal. The map does not tie into any of the Crown's plans or the geodesic survey information and was passed onto the Provincial Surveyor.

Crown Surveyor, Frank Smith, brother of S. Percy Smith, only did the Triangulation Survey down to Maunganui.

J.S. Smith, father of Frank and Percy, had died 17 months before the map of alleged reserves was made. (Death Certificate)
The name J.S. Smith (F.S. Smith?) was added to the map of Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki as a note by the Lands Department itself. (Plan 3297-8)

We know from the Correspondence by the Crown that no alleged reserves called Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were agreed to or arranged for. (Correspondence Relative to the Employment of Native Land Purchase Agents, 1874 - 1876)

We know from recorded history the Crown Smith's were finished at Maunganui by April 1875, four months before the map of Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki was even made.

We know there was a dispute between Parore, Tiopira and party (Ngatiwhatua) and that Parore agreed to have the matter of Maunganui settled in the Native Land Court.

We know that on the 24th March 1875, Mangarata (east of Dargaville) was given to third parties (Ngatiwhatua) in return for them giving up claims on Parore's lands. This included Arama Karaka of Otamatea near Wellsford. (Kaipara Minute Book 3: 100)

We know from Tiopira's letter to Judge Fenton that Wi Pou had a claim in Maunganui but he later never pursued his claim to the Land Court.

We know that counter claimant Arama Karaka (Ngatiwhatua) and others tried to re-instate a claim to Maunganui after his people accepted Mangarata in return of giving up claims to Parore's lands. (Kaipara Minute Book 3: 165-167)

J.W. Preece raised the matter of Mangarata being given on condition that they should not interfere any more with Parore's lands. (Kaipara Minute Book 3: 169)

We know that Judge Symonds endorsed the voluntary agreement Tiopira (Te Roroa) and Parore (Ngapuhi) came to concerning Maunganui and Waipoua with the agreement to Waipoua No.2 as Te Roroa's Reserve and Taharoa the only reserve in Maunganui for Ngapuhi. (Kaipara Minute Book 3: 174)

The Deed of Sale to the Crown of Maunganui included the area of Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki.

Te Roroa sold their total interest in Maunganui to the Crown one day after being awarded title to Maunganui along with Parore te Awha which included Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki.

At the 1876 inquiry there was no mention of Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki being excluded from the title of Maunganui.

Preece's letter of 12th February 1876 to the Under Secretary clearly shows and covers all the events and that there was only one reserve being Taharoa. (Alleged Improper Inquiry, 1876: 124-126, Letter:9)

Preece advised Parore to permit the survey to continue, and trusted his claim to title to the Native Lands Court, where he would be sure to secure his rights, whether the land was surveyed by the other claimants or not. The case was to have been heard in May last, but the feeling was then still running high.
(1876 Alleged Improper Inquiry: 124, Letter: 9)

Tiopira's (Te Roroa Head Chief) letter of 5th May 1876 to the Native Minister stated Te Roroa's terms that they accepted. No alleged reserves mentioned only those agreed to. (1876 Alleged Improper Inquiry: 118-119, Letter:5)

Judge Symonds evidence sworn before Magistrate Barstow on 6th June 1876 stated - Ngatiwhatua seemed dejected at their claim being rejected, but Tiopira and people seemed well contented when I left which was after Parore had been paid. (1876 Alleged Improper Inquiry: 131)

Opanake case 3rd February 1897 in the judgement by W.T. Mair it is stated - Evidence was given as to the occupation, as it was contended that these hapus were the constant allies of Te Rore's father, Taoho, who was a famous warrior, and that their rights were recognised at the hearing of the Maunganui and Kaihu No.1. blocks.
(This statement covers Te Roroa and the counter claimants, Ngatiwhatua, five hapus).

1942 Judge Shepherd was unable to recommend that the land be returned to the claimants and gave several reasons. (Paper: G6A)

There were a number of other people in the 1876 Inquiry that gave similar statements and none mentioned anything of any alleged reserves known as Manuwhetai or Whangaiariki.

Government blames Tribunal for its Decision :
Later in 1992 the National Government blamed the Waitangi Tribunal for its decision. Yet it was the Government Ministers & Bureaucrats that had promised the claimants our land by making false statements publicly, along with the Crown Law Office who had conceded to the Statement of Facts the false land claim being two years earlier before the Tribunal had even finished its so-called hearings. The Government were now making out through propaganda that it was assisting us, removing us land owners and by buying our land when infact it was forcing us out under duress and "ripping us off" for our freehold title and Minster's of Government also made defamatory statements and accusations about the Harrison's and Titford's in Parliament in order to cover this conspiracy.

Historic Places Trust & Department of Conservation :
During May 1990, I spoke to the Lawyer of the Conservation Department, Kaye Green, on the telephone and taped the conversation. I asked her how the statement of facts which was produced at the Waitangi Tribunal, effects us in the future and the fact that they've now said that the area is a wahi tapu, what does that mean if I want to subdivide it.
She told me I can't subdivide. I explained to her about Tapsell's offer and how the valuations were dropped so he was really only offering $75,000 for the coast. Kaye Green stated that she agrees that I'm in a difficult position. She stated that now the Crown have come out with a preliminary finding that Manuwhetai was a wahi tapu and it was wrongfully not given to the local people, that they as the Trust would have to pay attention to that and therefore would not be able to give me permission to do anything in that area. She stated that things don't seize to be wahi tapu just because they might have removed the burials and taken them somewhere else. They're still every bit of tapu if they ever were.
I pointed out that the land has never been registered or known to anybody as wahi tapu and told her the fact now that they agree with the claimants that it's wahi tapu, that sort of destroys my possibility of subdividing it and Kaye told me that basically that subdivision would be very difficult.
Kaye Green told me that I should see if I could get someone like Rod Joyce (QC) or somebody like that because at this stage she thinks that something like a declaration in the High Court, that the Crown owed me compensation for the debtrum that I have been put through and that will actually be one of the ways to go. She stated that she thinks the Crown owes me compensation for general suffering and emotional damage. I explained that the Crown have already told me they will never be paying us compensation. Green suggested a tort, whether it's just a claim for damages for the Damage the Crown have done.
Kaye Green told me to get myself a Lawyer and ask them what they thought about a claim for negligence against the Crown, the Crown was negligent in actually allowing a piece of wahi tapu land to be sold to a private individual. She said the Crown should have taken more care and as such I have had severe emotional damages inflected on me by the Crown in negligence. She stated that she didn't have this conversation, remember that, as she's not supposed to be giving me legal advice.
Kaye stated - you need to find yourself a lawyer and you need to look at a claim for damages, for a tort, not for paying the property or anything like that, but the Crown has damaged you by in-negligence and by its lack of concern for your well being. That would get them, cause there's going to be other claims like this, so they might as well work out a system anyway. You're just the first in a long series. In which the land had been taken by the Crown and sold.
(TORT means - in law. A wrongful act involving a breach of legal duty imposed by the State which result in injuries to another for which the injured party may institute a civil action for damages. A tort is an offence against an individual, whereas a crime is an offence against the State for which the State inflicts punishment. A tort differs from a breach of contract in that the legal duty breached by the tort is one imposed by the State, whereas in a breach of contract, the obligation breached is one which the contracting parties have voluntarily assumed).
A freehold titled landowner like myself can't take action against the Waitangi Tribunal.

Sue writes to National Party Leader, Jim Bolger :
28th May 1990, Sue wrote to Mr Bolger, Leader of the Opposition asking him should Maori be allowed to get away with trying to forcibly take the land from the legal owner and does he think people with Freehold land, who are affected by Maori's claiming their land should be compensated for the lose of production, income, etc.

National Party Leader Bolger Replies :
20th June 1990, Mr Bolger writes stating, As you will be aware, the Waitangi Tribunal has no jurisdiction to recommend to government that private land be returned to Maori claimants, regardless of the merits of the case. The only compensation they can offer is monetary compensation which is paid for by the government. I can understand, however, that you and your husband feel pressured by the local Maori to voluntarily leave your land, and this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. I am aware that the government has offered to buy your land from you and your husband at a price which you consider to be unacceptable. The appropriate amount for a sale is of course a matter for direct negotiation between yourself and the Minister and his officials, and I would be concerned if the government was taking too much time to deal with this matter. (Letter: 15)

Sue wrote to Bolger a few more times covering history but he never answered any more of her letters. It was Bolger's Government later on, that really put the pressure on us forcing me off my land under duress.

Meeting with Ross Meurant :
19th June 1990, Don Harrison and I went to see National MP Ross Meurant at his office in Dargaville after being asked by him to come and see him. We expressed our concerns about the false land claim and that the Crown had conceded concerning our titles, etc. Things hotted up between Don and Mr Meurant which resulted in Don being asked to leave Meurant's office. Meurant rung the police so Don and I left. We were just coming out of his office when Sue met us on the footpath. Within a few minutes a Maori Police Constable, Tai Toka, arrived and started accusing me of causing trouble. He told me that I was trespassing on the road and also that I should leave NZ as I have no right to be here. We kept trying to tell him that it was Don Harrison that he was supposed to be talking to but he wouldn't listen. He kept on to me about the land claim while he kept physically nudging me with his elbows trying to get me to react so he could arrest me and he was also bunting me with his helmet also. A lot of people in town had noticed what was going on and stopped to look. All worked up, he told me he would kill me. Sergeant Goodland turned up with another Constable. Don and Sue told Goodland that it was Don who was asked to leave Meurant's office not myself so Goodland went to see Ross Meurant. Goodland returned and told the Constable that he'd take care of the matter. We asked Goodland to ask the Maori constable to apologise for threatening to kill, but Goodland just laughed.

Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer makes Promises :
5th July 1990, The new Prime Minister, Geoffrey Palmer, wrote stating - In regard to the Te Roroa claim which affects your land I can assure you the Waitangi Tribunal cannot order the taking of your land. Government will not take any steps to "starve you off your property" as you allege in your letter to the Queen. It may be advisable for all concerned to wait and read what the Waitangi Tribunal says about the Te Roroa claim. (Letter: 16)

Meurant writes to us :
18th July 1990, Received a letter from Mr Meurant along with a copy of a letter to Mr Meurant from MP, Peter Tapsell concerning our property. Meurant's letter states - Please find enclosed a copy of the reply I have received from the Minister of Lands, to questions I put to him concerning your lands. Notwithstanding the fact that I said, following my meeting with you and Mr Harrison in my office on the 19th June this year that I would meet with you both again, in view of your conduct in my office on that occasion, threatening me, and your conduct later when you remonstrated and insulted the Police Officer in the street, I advise you that I will no longer meet with you again concerning this matter. (Letter: 17)

Mr Tapsells letter written on the 11th July to Mr Meurant states - I accept your advice that the Crown (meaning presumably the Crown Counsel in the Maunganui Bluff claim before the Waitangi Tribunal) has conceded that the Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki blocks should not have been included in the original Crown purchase of 37,592 acres in the Maunganui Block, completed in 1876. While Crown Counsel has conceded this point the Tribunal itself has not reported to the Government yet on this issue. Until it does the Government is not in a firm position to give any consideration to any remedies to resolve the grievance that it may recommend. I have publicly stated on many occasions that landowners have nothing to fear from decisions of the Tribunal in respect to land for which they have clear title. In statements I have made the following point :
Claims to the Waitangi Tribunal are claims against the Crown and not claims against individuals or their property.
The Tribunal has recommendatory powers only except where claims involve Crown assets transferred to State Enterprises. These latter are subject to a resumption clause and a Tribunal recommendation is binding (this is not applicable to the Maunganui Bluff case).
Where Government accepts the Tribunal's recommendations for settlement of a proven grievance then any remedy will come from the Crown's estate or from other resources of the Crown if this is more appropriate. Properties will not be compulsorily expropriated from private individuals to settle grievances.
Those persons with freehold title to their lands hold these as of right. The discovery of a justified treaty grievance against the historic record of that land does not change the fact that the title has issues and is indefeasible.
Turning now to your specific questions.
(a) Yes, Messrs Titford and Harrison are deemed to own the land described in any titles they may possess.
(b) Those titles entitle them to the enjoyment of the fee simple or lessees interest as the case may be,
(c) No, the Crown does not consider "the land in dispute" to be anything other than as its title describes it.
(Letter: 18)
Note - How can Tapsell state that landowners have nothing to fear from the decision of the Waitangi Tribunal, yet this is why I lost my land and farm in the end as a result of a false Maori land claim.

Crown again uses Dirty Tactics :
26th July 1990, The trial to determine who the Pouwhenua ought to belong to was to be heard. I was rung by Sergeant Goodland and told that the hearing was not going ahead today and not to go to Court in Whangarei. Because I didn't believe him I contacted the Court who said they think it will go ahead so I went to the Whangarei and was told when arrive there that there was no hearing as it will be adjourned and I will be contacted so I went home. Unknown to me, the hearing did go ahead on this day anyway.
A few days later we heard from the claimants that the carving was returned to them because I didn't attend the Court hearing. I contacted Goodland who laughed and said it belonged to Maori and I shouldn't have been contesting the matter any way. The Judge who sat on the hearing was Judge D.C. McKegg. The claimants were represented by Mr Hewson and it is stated that "Mr Titford did not attend the hearing, nor did he have any representative attend."
The decision of Judge McKegg was, I am entirely satisfied from the evidence that I have heard and from the surrounding circumstances of this case, that Te Roroa never intended that ownership of the Pouwhenua should pass to Mr Titford. Such would be an unthinkable intention having regard to the cultural significance of this article. The Pouwhenua was erected only after agreement was reached at a general meeting for the removal of other signs and for it to be put in their place. Given the exposed nature of the land concerned, and the size and weight of the article, it is entirely understandable that those erecting the Pouwhenua were obliged to place a concrete footing at its base to ensure that it remained upright. In the circumstances, that degree of annexation must be the least extent that one would expect. The Te Roroa went about the erection of the Pouwhenua in an open and ceremonial way and were prepared and did absorb the costs and the time and trouble related to it. I am satisfied that Te Roroa Hapu Ngati Whatua is entitled to the possession of the Pouwhenua and I formally make an order for the delivery of the Pouwhenua named 'Pinea' to the Hapu accordingly.
Comment - There was nothing verbal or in writing to the effect that, I gave them permission to erect the pole at all. Also there was no deal of removing the signs as it is well known publicly in the media that I pulled down the signs as I didn't want Te Roroa there on my land at all as that is why I cut down the pole. The Police and the Court had told me the case was off obviously to cover for Te Roroa.

Rural Bank now Fletcher Owned :
August 1990, We had a meeting with the Rural Bank as they were wanting their money back, and it was mediated by the Rural Support Group. It was suggested that I was to give up the farm to the now Fletcher owned Rural Bank and that I keep the claim area only being one third of my original coastal subdivision area as they the Bank didn't want it with the claim being on the area, being 5% of the property. The Bank wanted to sell the farm off at discounted rates to recoup their money. They offered us $150,000 for the farm and the stock (worth around $500,000).
As the dairy business went down shortly after and they didn't think it was worth doing this due to the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq as the dairy prices had dropped, as they would not recuperate the amount of the debt which was now over $1 million. (Letter:18A)
With the $300 - 400 thousand still owing as a result of the claim and police charges I had to pay all outside debts such as family, Lawyers fees, etc. This meant the Bank wanted everything except the claim, for their mortgage. I was to be left still owing about $150,000 after all money was gone including $150,000 they were going to give me. I would have been left with 95 acres of disputed land on the beach front, which Tapsell had offered me about $150,000 so I would have ended up once again with the clothes I stood in.
This meant I was to forego equal to a farm and livestock which I would have owned outright and end up with nothing. This is covered in the Valuation section of this book.

Winston Peters makes Promises for National Party :
24th August 1990, At a pre election meeting held in Dargaville, Winston Peters stated that there would be no private land either in Maori or European ownership, that would be capable, under a National Government, of a claim to the Treaty of Waitangi. The Government should pay "fair and reasonable compensation" in the Maunganui Bluff land dispute. It is a clear case which has a precedent in New Zealand law, where some person wrongly got on the title. The system is clearly at fault and the Government is responsible as the party in charge. Compensation amounting to only thousands of dollars should not worry a Government which has been happy to spend $110 million on propaganda. The National Government later failed to keep their own promises also.

 

HISTORIC PLACES TRUST

Susan Bulmer, Archaeologist presented a report
dated November 1990 to the Waitangi Tribunal :

1.1 My name is Susan Evelyn Bulmer, and I am an archaeologist employed by the Science and Research Division, Department of Conservation, in Auckland.
1.4 I have throughout my professional career been active in the implementation of indigenous peoples' involved in archaeology and site protection, and I bought this background to my involvement with the Waipoua project. I have always acted on the belief that archaeology is not only the domain of scientists, but belongs to all people, especially to those whose heritage is its subject

further on states -
7.0 SITES AT MAUNGANUI BLUFF AND IN THE VICINITY OF WAIPOUA
7.1 There are a number of cases of site damage and destruction at Maunganui Bluff and in near Waipoua with which the Trust has been involved.
(1) Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki Areas being Claimed in Titford and Harrison properties (11) Puketapu pa Titford property (111) Hood Road pa - quarry site (V) Maunganui Bluff Reserve old radar site

7.2 Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki
In December 1987, following newspaper publicity about the case, a member of the local Maori community, Mr Ropata Parore, came to the Regional Archaeology Unit and asked us to record wahi tapu at Maunganui. An extended discussion was held about the legal protection available for wahi tapu if they were archaeological sites. The Unit was often involved on such requests and considers them to be routine.
Note how this claimant, Ropata Parore, had my land made an alleged site for their false Waitangi land claim so they could prevent me from doing any thing with my freehold title property making it valueless and useless to me.

7.3 A Regional Archaeology Unit staff member, Leigh Johnson, who has wide experience in Northland was assigned the work. He was asked to contact the local Maori people, the Secretary of the local Committee, on the advice of Parore. This was to be done by Johnson as he was travelling north on another assignment on the 24 December 1987. We had agreed with Parore that we would carry out the survey urgently as there was risk from the landowner's proposed subdivision, and following the initial contact by Johnson the time- table for the survey would be set, probably during January.
Note how claimant Robert Parore is dictating to the Historic Places Trust. Robert Parore is a cousin to Tom Parore (head of Maori Affairs who was in the Department when the files went missing).

7.4 Johnson was also asked to contact Taylor at Waipoua, as he was travelling through, as a matter of courtesy, to let him know that another archaeologist was working in his vicinity. (At this stage it was not known to me that Taylor was involved with sites outside the Waipoua Forest).
Comment - I had already contacted Mr Taylor who had identified two sites on my property, one in the claim and a larger outside on the farm covering 4 -5 acres between both of them. I understood matters were resolved then.

7.5 It was also agreed that a registered letter would be sent to Titford informing him that there was protected archaeological sites on his land and suggesting that the Unit provide a survey to ensure that sites were not damaged. This letter sent on 21-12-87, but there was no response. A copy of this letter and all other correspondence related to this case and to the next one, Puketapu pa, have already been deposited with the Tribunal. A memo prepared by K C Green, 9 Nov 1989, for the Crown Solicitor on the history of these cases is Appendix V11.
Comment - The claimants were now getting the Historic Places Trust to manufacture sites covering several hundred acres on my farm to support Te Roroa's false land claim.

7.6 At a meeting in Auckland (14-1-88) concerning his work programme, Taylor said that he was already recording the sites at Maunganui, on Titford's land and elsewhere, so I agreed to let him proceed and that Johnson would not to carry out the planned survey. According to Taylor (pers.comm. 1988) Nicholas Twohill, who was his assistant at Waipoua, had carried out about two weeks' survey of Titford's property, including a map of N22/1.
Comment - After the first original letter Mr Taylor showed me the only two Pa's or sites of concern on my property. End of matter until the claimants wanted the whole area made a site.

7.7 On 18 February 1988, after a meeting of TRWAA, I visited the wahi tapu at the beach at Maunganui with Hugh Te Rore and Taylor. I assured them that as a burial ground the site is protected under the archaeological provisions of the Historic Places Act, whether or not it has been recorded.
Comment - As a result of Te Roroa's false land claim for my beach front and property, a year later in 1988, the Department now registered the whole area as a burial ground even though this is in conflict with recorded history and there is no such proof.
By making it an archaeological site this destroyed the re-sale value of my property and means to owning my farm and livestock that I had purchased with my property.

7.8 Taylor was on 1 September 1988 asked by Titford to survey coastal area of his proposed subdivision, including Manuwhetai reserve.
Comment - Incorrect. I didn't want them back on the property as sites had already been identified. They told me they were just simply going on the property whether I say yes or no as it is under claim for return.
I had inquired earlier of Taylor, when the initial bulldozing had been done by Titford, what further field survey was needed in the area. He then reported that all significant sites had been recorded. This turned out not to be true.
Comment - Historic Places Trust were making the entire area an alleged archaeological site on demand of the claimants. to destroy my means of paying for my farm.
Taylor was not able to go to carry out the survey in September, so referred the request to the Regional Archaeology Unit, and Leigh Johnson was sent on 22 September. Eight sites were recorded, including extensive terrace sites on ridges (Johnson's map appearing, unattributed, as Lawlor 1989:Fig 7). On that occasion Johnson discussed the sites with Titford, pointing out the location of the sites and explaining that an Authority to Modify would need to be obtained from the Trust. Mr Titford started bulldozing the sites the next day and by the time the Historic Places Trust wrote to him on 26 September, nearly all of the sites were destroyed (Johnson 1988).
Comment - Leigh Johnson gave me the go ahead then suggested I get claimants permission to work on my land. My Solicitor advised me to do my work straight away. Johnson conveniently came back alleging there were sites where I had already bulldozed. Mr Taylor had earlier mapped the property as their statement 7.8 shows on coming back they conveniently put all their sites alleging that they were under my road.

7.9 Puketapu pa
Taylor visited Titford's property on 7 January 1988, found that he had bulldozed the pa site N22/1 some 3-4 days earlier, and a midden N22/6. He asked Titford to stop damaging the sites and to apply for an Authority to Modify from the Trust, which was done on 28 January 1988. Titford alleged he had not received my registered letter, sent 21 December 1987, until after that.
Comment - The pa sites themselves are still intact. I only put a road up the hill for access and weed control. This can be seen from Aerial photos before I came. Also I stopped when asked by Mr Taylor.

7.10 In reference to the bulldozing of Puketapu, I visited the site at the request of TRWAAC on 18 February, accompanied by Taylor and Mr Hugh Te Rore of Maunganui. I had also been asked by the Trust to investigate whether Mr Titford should be given an Authority to Modify to complete the roads he had started over the top of the site, and whether the site should be repaired in some way. It was apparent that the site was too extensive to be fenced, but that the gorse, which was the reason given that the roads had been made, was not very extensive and could be controlled by hand spraying. These recommendations were reported back to TRWAAC and forwarded to the Trust.
Comment - Too much gorse to control by hand and the road was far enough in the particular area before any one came on the scene.

7.11 It is alleged (Lawlor 1988) that the Historic Places Trust endangered the pa site and treated Titford discourteously by delaying unduly in making a decision about his January Authority application. I know of no instances of discourtesy on the part of the Trust or its representatives. In fact, much of the delay was caused by a series of errors and failures. Firstly Titford had given the Trust the Wrong site numbers and grid references, presumably supplied by Taylor. I requested corrected site numbers, grid references, a map of site, an archaeological site description and the legal description of the land, but it took until July before these were eventually assembled. In the meantime I held further discussion with TRWAAC at the May 1988 meeting about possible solutions and recommendation. The site map had to be re-drafted as it had been supplied in sections and not as a total site; this appears, unattributed, as Lawlor 1988:Fig.6.
Comment - The Historic Places Trust were using stalling tactics while they were inventing new sites to support the Te Roroa's false claim. Infact I did not give them any numbers. They supplied me with the numbers for the sites in writing.

Further on in report - MEMORANDUM RE MATTERS TO BE DEPOSED TO BY KAYE GREEN

1. My name is Kaye Chandler Green - I am Co-manager and Legal advisor to the Regional Archaeology Unit of the Department of Conservation in Auckland.
2. The Regional Archaeology Unit act as scientific advisors to the Historic Places Trust and enforces the provisions of the Historic Places Act 1980 in reference to Archaeological sites on behalf of the HPT.
3. Around December 7, 1987 - I noticed newspaper and television publicity concerning the dispute between Mr A. Titford and the local Maori Community centering on the wahi tapu on Mr Titford's property at Mangonui Bluff.
4. On December 1989 Ropata Parore visited the Regional Archaeology Unit Office, to request the Regional Archaeologist, Dr Susan Bulmer, to record and register the Archaeological sites on the two wahi tapu blocks Whangaiariki and Manuwhetai. Mr Parore had photographs of a midden that had been destroyed my Mr Titfords proposed subdivision. Dr Bulmer turned the case over to me for follow up and action.
5. On the 16th December, I rang the Executive Officer, Hobson County, to enquire about the state of the planning application for Mr Titfords proposed subdivision. Attachment.
6. On 21 December 1987 a registered letter from the regional Archaeologist was sent to Mr Titford pointing out the presence on his land of Archaeological sites protected under the Historic Places Act 1980, and offering to record his sites for him. Attachment.
7. On 24 December 1987 I instructed Leigh Johnson staff Archaeologist for the Unit to investigate Mr Parore's information. I understand that Mr Johnson visited Mr Hugh Te Rore at Mangonui Bluff beach camp and discussed the location of the wahi tapu which were urupa.

Comment - As Kaye Green works as Legal Advisor for the Crown owned Conservation Department in Auckland, you can see they were taking notice of propaganda using the media and the claimants false claim. Parore and Hughie Te Rore were dictating to the Department by getting the Department to invent sites which assisted in making my land a alleged wahi tapu, sacred site, all without any physical proof. We had caught Te Rore with bags of mitten shell. It was shortly after the Historic Places Trust made my land into sacred sites, that MP, Peter Tapsell and other MP's came on to the scene and used the media was stating 'why should the tax payer pay anything but the Government valuation and terms'.

---

New Government :
Labour lost the 1990 election and now the new Government was the National Party. We thought with a new Government matters might change and the truth be told.

The matter now became a Justice Department matter. The Minister for Justice was Doug Graham, whose family has also had a long association and related via cousins to Te Roroa and association with the Bay of Plenty Maori, Tapsell's people. Doug Graham & his forefathers have always been known to favour Maori issues and made alot of money out of it in the past by doing so. Doug Graham also happened to later become the Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. So as one can see all they needed to do then was to continue telling lies, re-write history and sabotage me. Through Governmental coercion they made Harrison and Titford, the bad guys in the eyes of the public. Thereby cheating us, and preventing and taking my means of paying my mortgage, forcing us to subsidise the false claim out of our own equity. At any time we wanted to raise the issue with the Crown, it was always passed onto these corrupt Ministers who controlled the Departments that mattered.

Other people in the public were also assisting Te Roroa and their false land claim and paid by the tax payer, were Doctor D.V. Williams, who accessed archival material, and J.V. Williams (part Maori and, Counsel for the Claimants) who works for the Barrister & Solicitor & Notaries Public firm, Kensington Swan, of 22 Franshaw Street Auckland. Joe Williams would quite often joke to my face at the hearings about the claim and that I also had a claim. He always seemed to know my financial situation and details. Later it came apparent to me that this was the same law firm who the Rural - National Bank dealt with.

Mr and Mrs Titford are the Legitimate Owners :
28th November 1990, Director of Lands, Mr Sam Brown, wrote to the Minister of Lands stating - This report is to brief you on Mr Allan and Mrs Susan Titford of Maunganui Bluff near Dargaville and the difficulties that they have experienced with the ownership and use of their property. He states that we purchased two adjoining properties totaling 709 ha capable of carrying 7000 stock units and the price paid was $600,000 which compares with a (later) 1988 Government valuation of $545,000. The property had previously had 7 subdivided beach sections (totaling 2.15ha) which were sold off prior to my purchase. Together with a subdivision which forms a 34 section coastal residential zone within the Hobson County. He states - Both Titford and the Bank are reported to have been impressed with the sub-division potential of a further 37 ha adjoining the coastal residential zone. A 184 section concept subdivision plan was prepared and Titford claims to have pre-sold $60,000 worth of sections within the first 6 weeks of offer. The Bank appears to have based it's loan assessment and approval on the potential to quickly sell-off sections and reduce the indebtedness to more conventional levels. Mr Titford was confident of eventually "freeholding" the 680 ha balance of the farm, with money to spare to aid in its re-development. Our view, formed from Valuation NZ reports, is that this was always a marginal proposition because of the high development costs, low local sale prices and the long time-horizons needed to quit the sections. However under optimum conditions it was a possibility and the farmer and mortgagee were certainly entitled to assess their own risks.
Unbeknown to Mr and Mrs Titford they purchased a property that contained an area of 44 ha known as the Manuwhetai Reserve. This has been the centre of controversy going back to the time of its original acquisition by the Crown.
The controversy arises from a difference of opinion between the original owners and then the descendants of the original owners and the Crown about whether this reserve and another one close by (called Whangaiariki, 9.1 ha) were to have been set aside from the sale as Maori reserves, or not.
The areas are considered by local Maori to have been sacred and it is inconceivable to them that the original owners would knowingly have included these in the original sales.
He goes on further to say - Confrontation and retaliation had rapidly escalated and got out of hand. Volative personalities on both sides have been involved. Between December 1987 and September 1988 Police were called out by both Mr Titford and the protesters to 21 separate incidents involving accusations of theft, sabotage, trespass, arson, tampering, harassment, threats of bodily harm, and threats of arson. Mr Titford himself was arrested in a 1989 incident but we believe, was discharged without conviction.
The confrontations have damaged (we think beyond repair) the Titfords' original sales plans which in turn has prevented reduction of their mortgage to the extent that they are now in financial difficulties with their mortgagee. In addition cashflow has been seriously affected so that money to maintain the farm and the farmers has dried up resulting in a deterioration of the property and personal as well as mental hardship for the Titfords.
It is clear that regardless of the merits or otherwise of the Maori case that Mr and Mrs Titford are the legitimate owners in "fee simple" of the area which contains most of the Manuwhetai Reserve.
The Titfords are entitled to rely upon the Crown's guarantee of title for the quiet enjoyment and occupation that goes with it.
Equally clearly, because of trespass, they have not had this enjoyment, and although Mr Titford's reputedly confrontational style appears to have exacerbated matters locally, in fact they have been caught up in an issue which was not originally of their making.
Although it is theoretically possible for the law to ensure landowners' rights against trespass, in fact non-co-operation with the Police and continued unlawful and unproveable incidents of retaliation by both parties has made the practical policing of this situation and the guarantee of rights of title, practically impossible.
He goes on further to say that their valuation was $740,000 based at the time of 10.5.89 and our valuation was $2,080,000 based at the time of 1.10.89. The Crown reassessed its valuation in December 1989 to $815,000 and nothing came of the offers because the Crown and us were too wide apart in price.
Mr Brown states - Mr Titford has subsequently offered a range of other alternatives.
Although we believe that the previous Minister's offer was based upon a humanitarian concern for the Titfords, the legislative authority for purchase is contained in Pt 111, Section 40 of the Land Act 1948. Under this section "the (Land Settlement) Board - (now the Commissioner of Crown Lands), may with the approval of the Minister purchase any private land ------ for the purposes of settlement as farming ---- or for any Government purpose".
Although rumours of a mortgagee sale have been rife, the Bank expressed a certain confidence in their position claiming that their mortgage and collateral security over 500 beef cows and progeny was adequate to protect their interests and repayments. They too have protested the Valuation NZ subdivision figure as being exceptionally low.
In Sam Brown's summary he states that we bought the property with the intention of selling off enough beach sections to retire the initial mortgage. He states - The property has good title and was legally acquired by the Titfords but it is caught up in a Waitangi Tribunal claim against the Crown.
Mutual confrontation and retaliation has polarised the community, chased off potential buyers and left local relationships so strained that it is unlikely that they can be repaired.
The Titfords' sales programme has been utterly prejudiced and as a result they have not been able to reduce their overscale Rural Bank loan to manageable proportions.
Although some of the personal animosity is self-inflicted, the degrading of the Titfords' initial plans and enterprise has come about through no fault of their own.
Personalities aside they deserve a considerable measure of sympathy as they find themselves in the unique position of being legally in the right, but without the option to exercise their rights fully.
Our estimation is that the Titfords' will eventually be bankrupted and sold up long before the Tribunal's report is out.
Under Sam Brown's recommendations he states - The Crown's best option is to do nothing. If the Crown does purchase and the Tribunal does not find in favour of the claimants then the Crown will almost certainly be faced with a loss. (Released under the Official Information Act - Office of Crown Lands file 7/774)
Part of this letter has been withheld by the Crown under sections of the Official Information Act.

1991
19th March, We received a letter from John Delemere, Manager, Claims and Negotiations, (later to become Maori MP in place of Tapsell) from the Department of Justice saying he had discussed the situation with Sam Brown (being of Te Roroa), Director of Lands, Office of Crown Lands and the Minister of Justice confirms that the offer of $815,000 remains tabled. The offer can be in a form that meets my needs, such as cash or towards the purchase of another property in a different location. (Letter:19A)
I phoned John Delemere about the $815,000 and asked him what it meant. He told me he thinks it was mine to buy another farm but he would have to look into it.

19th March 1991, A letter from Director of Lands, Sam Brown to Minister of Lands on a report about us. The report reconsiders the issues raised in the Commissioner of Crown Lands report in November 1990. Mr Brown states - Because of Titford junior's situation, Mr Titford seniors property is now in danger of foreclosure should the mortgagee exercise his right to do so. As Mr Titford senior is advance in years, that prospect weighs heavily upon him.
The Maori claim is being investigated by the Waitangi Tribunal but despite this, a campaign of trespass and interference against the Titfords has continued. The matter has grown more urgent as threats of life-taking reprisals are alleged to have been made by supporters of both sides.
He then goes on to state about issues which make resolution of this case difficult stating - That to purchase the property in anticipation of a favourable recommendation by the Waitangi Tribunal for the claimants : Could burden the Crown within unsaleable property if in fact the Tribunal recommends against the claimants.
Could influence the Tribunal in its decision on this part of the Treaty of Waitangi claim, by giving the Tribunal an "easy" way out.
It will also diminish the principle that claims to the Waitangi Tribunal are claims against the Crown and that those who hold sound tenure to land are guaranteed of the sanctity of title and need have no fear of compulsory appropriation of their rights in settlement of a proven Maori grievance.
Under the heading of 'on the other hand' he states - There are very real fears for the Titfords and the claimants' physical safety because of the threats made against one another.
Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the local situation it is clear that the Titfords have never had the "quiet enjoyment and undisturbed occupation" that they are entitled to. It could be argued that it is the Crown's responsibility to uphold those entitlements even to the extent of resuming the title itself. The only certain way to ensure peace is to remove the Titfords from the present situation.
Further on in the letter Mr Brown states - Several other initiatives have been proposed by supporters of Mr and Mrs Titford. One includes the exchange of their farm for another in a new locality. This would enable them to "start again" and has been referred to by Mr Titford as "a farm for a farm" proposal. This initiative was not developed further and is not one that is favoured by the Commissioner in this set of circumstances.
The responsibility for the reports and recommendations of the Waitangi Tribunal is that of the Minister of Maori Affairs who with the Minister of Justice finally brings recommendation to Cabinet.
He goes on to give their best advice but this has been withheld under the Official Information Act under section 9(2)(g)(i). Then he states - Notwithstanding this advice to you, we believe the Government is in a "damned if it does, damned if it doesn't!" position, especially if serious harm comes to either of the parties.
An equitable solution to the disturbance of tenure and Mr Titford's financial plight may be for the Crown to purchase the land from either Mr Titford or the mortgagee at a sufficient price, which is close to valuation and will allow the Titfords to exit from this deal with their original deposit, adjusted for inflation.
The Titfords' initial deposit is thought to have been approximately $46,000, which if inflation-adjusted for 3 ½ years at say 10%, would raise the deposit to $65,000 (rounded up). Also, Rural Bank has allowed some over-extended farmers (in the past) a $20,000 exit assistance to enable them to re-settle elsewhere with some dignity.
We do not believe that "extra compensation" for "lost opportunity" is payable in this case, as the opportunity that was available will be built into the takeover valuation.
Further on under the heading 'the course to follow if the Crown acquires the Titford property' Sam Brown states - The Crown should endeavour to separate out sufficient land to provide for the original area of reserve and for any extra land for access if required. This should be held for eventual transfer to a successful claimant or to others.
It is not clear from information available whether this claim is for area-specific, location-specific land or whether the setting aside of the correct acreage in the general location of the original reserve area, will be sufficient to meet the claim. This factor could have an important bearing on the eventual cost of any settlement for if the claim does not need to be exactly location-specific then the Crown could offer to swap "land for land" (i.e. Crown land from Titfords, given to replace the land already sold to beach section holders) thus avoiding having to purchase the beach holders' interests and adversely affect them if they were to be displaced in settlement of a claim.
As to whether there may be historic or spiritual grounds for an exactly location-specific settlement needs to be discussed and negotiated without prejudice with the claimants as a "land for land" settlement in respect of the reserve could result in the least-disruption and least-cost option all round.
If the Crown is able to make a satisfactory preliminary provision for the "Manuwhetai Reserve" on a "land for land" basis, then the Crown should hold the land to see whether the adjoining Waitangi claim for "Whangaiariki Reserve" can be satisfied at the same time.
The aim should be to make provision for these if possible, even ahead of the Waitangi Tribunal report and sell the 650 ha balance as soon as possible.'
Although it is likely that this balance will be run-down and will be severely discounted because of its history, it is nevertheless capable of being developed into an economic farm and should recoup part of the costs of this proposal as a result.
If the Tribunal claim is eventually unsuccessful then the Crown should vest the "reserve" land as Crown land in the Runanga-O-Ngati Whatua or the Taitokerau Maori Trust Board as kaitiaki (guardian) to be held on indefinite trust for the Maori people of Taitokerau and their invitees.
Sam Brown goes on to say that alternatively the Crown should offer $415,000 (less costs of survey, transfer and administration) for the reserve area only and that would be an option to consider if rational parties were involved but trouble is likely to continue with me as the neighbour.
He then follows on stating about the Whangaiariki Reserve stating - Whangaiariki has not been the centre of Maori protest that Manuwhetai has. Similarly Mr Harrison does not seem to have been the butt of dissension that Mr Titford has been. We would not recommend a settlement of the Harrison case based on the "Titford model" proposed above but would recommend instead : A direct Crown negotiation to purchase the Whangaiariki Reserve area and land for legal access from Harrison or If it can be negotiated with the claimants, it increase the size of Manuwhetai Reserve by a similar area to that included in Whangaiariki, the extra land for this exercise to come from Titford's residual, or exchange land from the Titford residual with Harrison, to make the Whangaiariki Reserve area available for return to Maori simultaneously with that of "Manuwhetai Reserve".
Mr Brown then states that if the proposal is completed tasks to be advanced further would be to negotiate with the Rural Bank over whether it will consider an exit allowance as part of an exit package as they see it as being an important extra incentive to persuade us to accept.
He states - They will be a need to consult with the claimants and with Harrison to see whether a "land for land" deal is possible in the event that there is a favourable Tribunal recommendation for the claimants. (Released under the Official Information Act - Crown file 7/774)

Council Injunction :
25th April 1991, Kaipara District Council had not up kept any of their promises agreed to about the road, which I had blocked earlier. Claimant harassments were still continuing so I re-blocked the road to Maunganui Bluff. The Council got an injunction from the Court to stop me touching my own land. On 27th April they came and patched the road so it was passable but they covered up the culvert and because of a lot of rain that night the road washed away, making it unusable. The Council claimed the road as of right whether it is on my land or not even though it was not on the legal line. It was my view then that they should put their road back on its old proper line. Later on, in another area of Northland at Whananaki, where the same situation happened on Maori owned land, the Council there had to put the road back on its proper legal line. This shows how the apartheid system works in New Zealand. One rule for Maori and one for whites and others.

Doug Graham becomes Involved :
16th May 1991, Minister of Justice, MP Doug Graham writes stating that the Government wishes to try to resolve the problems relating to the Manuwhetai Reserve as a matter of urgency and he has been authorised to enter into negotiations to effect the Crown purchase of the Manuwhetai Reserve at a fair figure. He stated that the Crown accepts that the Manuwhetai Reserve should not have been included in my freehold title. He said the amount of the purchase will need to be negotiated and that Cabinet has also asked the Minister of Lands and the Minister for State Owned Enterprises to make inquires with Landcorp to see if there is a suitable farm property available which might be of interest to me. (Letter:20)
The Tribunal had only finished its hearing of the claim at the end of May 1991 and was still to make its report and decision, and here was a Minister of Cabinet saying the area was a Reserve. Mr Graham alleges Manuwhetai was wrongly included in my freehold title, yet the Crown sold the area concerned with its own freehold title back in 1914.

30th April 1991, Sam Brown, Director Lands of the Office of Crown Lands wrote to the Minister of Lands, Rob Storey, stating that on the 29th April 1991 officials from the Treaty of Waitangi Policy Unit and from the Office of Crown Lands briefed the Minister about us to seek the Ministers direction and as a result the Minister asked for a Cabinet paper to be prepared in order to seek authority for the Policy Unit negotiators to begin consultations without commitment to determine whether a settlement might be possible. Mr Brown attached a draft Cabinet paper for the Ministers signature which stated - The subjects of this paper are Mr and Mrs Allan Titford of North Auckland who have had extreme difficulties with local Maori who will not allow them peaceful occupation of their freehold property.
The claimants maintain that part if what is now the Titford property should have been set aside for Maori occupation. This appears to be true and Mr and Mrs Titford are the innocent victims of this alleged negligence.
He states that the proposal is that Cabinet approves of the Treaty of Waitangi Policy Unit of the Justice Department entering into preliminary consultations on behalf of the Crown with us and our creditors to see if a settlement is possible. He states that It was unbeknown to me at the time of purchase that there was a dispute by local Maori. He states that I was allegedly granted a grossly overscale loan by the Rural Bank on the basis that I would be able to develop quickly a substantial beach subdivision of over 150 sections and be able to sell off enough of these within 6 months to totally repay the Rural Bank loan with some to spare. Mr Brown states - However matters of conflict and bad publicity have overtaken Titfords' efforts so that no sales have been concluded with the result that the Titfords' indebtedness to Rural Bank and probably to other creditors, has grown to the stage where their liabilities probably exceed their assets so that they are now technically insolvent.
The Rural Bank appears to be reluctant to force a mortgagee sale although it claims to have sufficient securities (including a security over Mr Titford's father's property) to protect its position. This is probably because of a fear of adverse publicity and conflict with farmer groups and the fact that the Bank could inherit the "Maori problem" that the Titfords have. The Bank naturally supports the Titfords' view that they have lost a substantial amount as a result of this debacle which is not entirely of their making.
Under the heading "the do nothing option' Sam Brown states - Under this option it was proposed to take no action, and let market forces work, at least until the Waitangi Tribunal had reported and the Crown was able to determine whether there was a (Maori) case to answer. This option was rejected by the officials on the basis that the titfords have been under considerable personal stress for a long time and the local situation is now so volatile that severs injury may be done to the parties and/or to archaeological sites that are on the reserves.
Subsequent to the officials' report to me, they have learned that Crown Counsel defending the Crown's position at the Waitangi Tribunal hearing of Wai 38 has conceded the facts of the petitioners claims to "Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki Reserves" (Tribunal Document E20 refers). Even although the Tribunal has still to report, this concession by Crown Counsel appears to clear the way for the Crown now to assess how the grievance against the claimants may best be address, even ahead of the Tribunal's final report. Allied to this, it may also be possible to find a solution for the Titfords situation.
Under the heading 'the limited purchase option' Sam Brown states - Under this option officials explored the possibility of purchasing the "Manuwhetai Reserve" only, for transfer to the claimants. This option would minimise the cash outlay (although it would not have been the cheapest option) and it would leave Titfords in possession of the balance of the property which would still have remained an economic unit under a normal farm financial structure. This option was rejected by the officials on the basis that to leave Titfords in place at the Bluff, would be likely in the future, to damage any accord reached.
Brown carried on further to state that the officials do not believe that extra compensation for lost opportunity is payable in this case, as the opportunity that was available will be built into the takeover valuation.
In the summary Mr Brown states - Having been thwarted in this bid by vigilante action and trespass by the claimants and by the fact that prospective buyers may have been sacred away by the controversy that ensured, the Titfords have not been able to fulfill their mortgage objectives. As a result they are now in financial difficulties which will not be easily overcome. (Released under the Official Information Act - Crown file 7/774)

18th June 1991, Sam Brown, Director of Lands wrote to the National Property Manager of Landcorp Management Services stating - Although the Tribunal has not made its report to Government the Crown has already conceded the claimants case that the Crown was in error in not setting these reserves apart. The present position is that these reserves are now part of the titles legitimately held by Mr and Mrs Harrison and their neighbour, a Mr Allan Titford. The Crown recognises the integrity of those titles and is on record as confirming, that those who hold clear title to their land need have no fear that they will be compulsorily exappropriated to satisfy a Treaty of Waitangi grievance. What I am able to advise you (Confidentially at this stage) is that the Crown has decided to negotiate with Mr Titford to see whether it is possible to purchase his area of "reserve" on a voluntary sale basis. This is to be done on the basis that Mr Titford has indicated a willingness to consider such overturns. In the event that the Crown is unsuccessful then it is extremely unlikely that it would resort to use of the Public Works Act to acquire the land compulsorily. (Crown File, TC 38)
In other words the Crown and Te Roroa could wait until we were forced off.

Land Corp Properties not For Sale :
I suggested through Mr Carrigan, four properties owned by Land Corp that might be suitable.
4th September 1991, Mr Carrigan (Lawyer) received a letter from Mr Doug Graham stating that he understands that I would prefer that they purchase my farm or trade another property owned by the Crown and if so then it would be necessary for him to report back to Cabinet. He said that a full analysis of the proposals therefore, is a prerequisite for Cabinet consideration. He said that I would need to provide him with sufficient details so that a report can be prepared. He wanted to know the value of the existing property as at today's date, a detailed assessment of any damages I consider I am entitled as a result of the Reserve being included in my land. Mr Graham said he had been advised that Landcorp own 4 properties in the South Island and he has ascertained from Landcorp that, that Corporation does in fact own those 4 properties but they are not for sale. He said he was not prepared to allow the matter to drift indefinitely and was anxious that the Crown should treat with the Maori claimants as soon as possible but obviously it would be preferable if negotiations were concluded with me before that occurs. (Letter:22)
This is still before the Te Roroa report and Waitangi Tribunal decision had come out in 1992. No Landcorp properties were ever provided by the Crown for us to view. But later on in 1995, Federated Farmers were alleging wrongly and making accusations that there were properties offered for exchange which they alleged that I had turned them down and also that Doug Graham had offered to swap the claim area for an equitable piece of beach front land elsewhere.

Government Minister caught Trespassing :
September 1991, We caught National MP, Rob Storey, (Lands Minister) trespassing on my farm. Mr Storey later made a comment to the papers that it was unfortunate that an argument which could have been settled amicably, had escalated and built up unnecessary ill will. He stated to us, his visit to Maunganui Bluff provided a useful opportunity to look at the area and its sub-division potential at first hand. He promised to look into the matter.

10th September 1991, Rob Storey (Lands Minister) wrote to Doug Graham, Minister of Justice stating that he had visited the farm and that his impressions of the problem are now somewhat different to those he had prior to his visit. He stated - Titford's farm is of a much better quality than I had anticipated and he has done a great deal of development work. The farm property should, under normal circumstances, have been capable of carrying the debt loading provided that some of the sections were sold. The sections in my view probably were saleable and the Wahi tapu site had it been identified early in the piece, could have been separated from the Titford property, the majority of the sections still being available for sale, and his current difficulties would almost certainly not have developed. Titford now wants out, and the main question to be resolved is how much equity he would have had in the property had the problem of the Wahi tapu land not developed. (Crown files)
The Minister admits that my place would have worked if not for the Te Roroa claim.
Note that if a property ends up becoming a wahitapu the Crown consider it as having no value. In this case being the most valuable part (half) of my asset.

Secretary of Justice writes to Minister of Justice :
9th October 1991, A Memorandum for the Minister of Justice, Doug Graham, was written by Neil Martin for Secretary of Justice which stated that the Tribunal registered the claim on 22 April 1987 and the final hearing was held in June 1991. The Crown has conceded that both properties were wrongly alienated by Crown actions. He states - When Mr Titford purchased his property it was with the view to sell some 250 sections that he believed would have netted him a profit of over six million dollars. Mr Titford's purchase of the farm was conditional on planning approval for his subdivision scheme which he duly received. The confrontations at Maunganui Bluff began when it was realised by the Te Roroa people that Mr Titford's subdivision encompassed the Manuwhetai reserve. At the time Mr Titford purchased his farm the claim was not registered with the Waitangi Tribunal although Te Roroa had taken their grievances up with the Crown many times over the past 100 years. Mr Titford was, however, unaware of the history of the Manuwhetai Reserve. (Crown Files)

Crown under no Legal Obligation to Pay any Damages :
22nd October 1991, MP, Doug Graham writes stating that he had obtained an opinion from the Crown Law Office on the issue and the advice is that the Crown is under no legal obligation to pay any damages as the Crown has not acted negligently in any way that has affected me nor has the Crown interfered in any contractual relations that I had or have with any purchasers of my sub-divided sections. He said that due to an error which occurred over 100 years ago, my title included a parcel of land intended as a reserve. No one now can challenge my right to my property. He stated that the Crown has at no time prevented me from enjoying my property and liability is therefore denied. He said whatever justification the Maori claimants might believe they have to interfere with my property, the fact is that they have no legal right at all and there is nothing further the Crown can do to assist me. (Letter:23)
As shown, the Crown's view was tough luck.

Mr Carrigan's view was, while we had a just claim, ones title is not protected and it would cost me somewhere between $500,000 - $1,000,000 or more to bring a case like this against the Crown as it would have to be laid out in full detail like in this book. Mr Carrigan's view was you will still lose because of the enormous costs and expense in doing this. He also thought it could take 10 years to get to Court as the Government would probably use every dirty tactic to prevent it while still in power as you are up against the Justice system itself.

John Delemere writes to Register General of Lands :
13th December 1991, Memorandum from John Delemere, (Manager, Claims & Negotiations Treaty of Waitangi Policy Unit) to Brian Hayes (Registrar General of Land) stating that Whangaiariki and Manuwhetai Reserves are subject to a claim by the Te Roroa people and during the Waitangi Tribunal hearing the Crown conceded that both reserves were wrongly alienated and should never have been sold by the Crown. He also states that the Minister of Justice has been negotiating with the current owners of these two reserves in an attempt to see if it is possible for the Crown to acquire the properties for possible revesting in Te Roroa. (Crown files, TC38: 182)

 

1992

Hiwi Tauroa, ex-Race Relations Conciliator :
We had a visit from Hiwi Tauroa, Maori person. On arriving, he asked why haven't I blown a black bastard away or kill someone by now. I pointed out that there are so many involved in the claim, how can I get all the trouble makers at once. We talked for a while and he said who he was and that he had been sent by Doug Graham. I explained the real problem was the Crown, as they haven't protected my title or told the true evidence, history. He also took me to see a claimant, Lovey Te Rore, at Kaihu, to try to resolve the situation by getting Te Roroa (Te Rore) to purchase it and save face for the Crown. I told Mr Tauroa I no longer wished to sell the land (the farm part of it) which I originally wished to retain but would sell the coast for the debt along with some compensation. He suggested that the Maori buy the land from us but of course they won't do that. Lovey Te Rore knew as well as I did that it was a false claim. Lovey Te Rore wouldn't get any more involved other than what they were doing as he wanted the Crown to give the land to his people. In that way it would be gifted. I told Lovey that I have a freehold title and have bought and paid for it and that his people had plenty of money why didn't they simply buy it after they had sold their lands in the first place. Lovey told me that they would simply bankrupt me to get it. I told him that I know the truth and I then vowed to Lovey Te Rore that if he or his family ever get the land as a result of unfair means, without my terms, or the Government took it off me for his family, that they would simply have to pay for it one day as he and his family have threatened and attacked us. UTU. Tauroa said it was for me and the claimants to sit down and fix the situation. I told him we have tried this and it is an utter waste of time as the claimants expect me to give it to them in exchange for no more harassment or sabotage and where does that leave me for paying my mortgage and costs of the whole affair. But if Hiwi Tauroa came up with some plan that was fair I would look at it.
Lovey Te Rore whose real name is Turo Raniera Te Rore, admitted to me and my wife that the land had been sold in 1876 but claimed his forefathers people wanted it but the people at the time wouldn't let them have it and the Waitangi Tribunal has given them a chance to get it.

Crown puts Hard word on our Lawyer :
When visiting our Lawyer, Mr Carrigan, in early 1992 in his office in Whangarei, after our visit from Mr Hiwi Tauroa, Mr Carrigan advised us in person that after Doug Graham's earlier letter of 22nd October 1991 to us, his firm Thorne, Dallas & Partners, Whangarei, would no longer be able to act. He himself would love to carry on and assist us but because the firm he works for receives legal aid from the Justice system, the firm have told him that if he wished to act any further, he would have to leave the firm, as the hard word had come from the Crown to the firm that if any one assisted us at all, their legal aid provision would be over. He told us, that he knows for sure that we would never get legal aid to fight the Government.

February 1992, I was applying for a resource consent to work my quarry in order to sell gravel to raise some money and I received a letter from the claimants Lawyer of Kensington Swan, opposing my application. This Law Firm also happened to operate for the National Bank. The person making the submission and opposing was Lovey Te Rore on behalf of Te Roroa hapu. The reason for the opposing was - The area to which the application relates appears so close to wahitapu (including but not limited to Whangaiariki, Manuwhetai, Puketapu Pa and Ngakiriparauri swamp) that those wahitapu are likely to be disturbed as a result of the quarrying activity. The wahitapu mentioned above are the subject of a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal (WAI38) by myself and others on behalf of Te Roroa and the granting of the application may jeopardise resolution of the claim and would be contrary to the principles to the Treaty of Waitangi. (Letter:24B)
The pa and swamp referred to is some 3km from the claim, being in the middle of my farm.

 

 

 

Summary of Crown Response: Te Roroa Report 1992

Waitangi Tribunal Recommendations

Crown Response

Status Summary

Recieved by Government on 1 March 1992. Claim lodged in November 1986

1. Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki reserves to be returned to tangata whenua as hapu estates	An offer to purchase has been made to the owners of private land on which these Maori reserves are located. At this stage negotiations are continuing.	Partly implemented, further action necessary
3. Maunganui Bluff Scenic Reserve be vested in tangata whenua in accordance with precedents set by the return of Hikurangi to Ngati Porou and Taupiri to Tainui.

The above document was supplied to the One New Zealand Foundation.
Note - Only four months after this partly implemented, further action necessary, our house was burnt.

Doug Graham writes to my Father :
5th March 1992, Minister Doug Graham answered a letter from my father dated 21st February 1992 stating that the claim by Te Roroa is against the Crown not me and neither the Claimants nor the Crown can force me to return the reserve. He stated that my title is guaranteed by the Government and if anybody interferes with my rights to my property then the full force of the law will be applied. (Letter:25)
The Law kept charging me on the grounds it is Maori land.

Waitangi Tribunal Delivers Decision :
3rd April 1992, The Waitangi Tribunal decision was made, with a cost of over $2 million of taxpayers money for the hearing of this false Maori land claim. In reality it had cost me the loss of my farm and the right to farm in New Zealand.
The Tribunal decision of the blocks Whangaiariki and Manuwhetai contained in the Harrison's property and my property was, We adopt Judge Acheson's findings in 1942 when he said that the "circumstances of this case ... cry aloud for redress for the Natives. The two reserves are theirs and should be returned to them, no matter what cost to the Crown this may involve. The decision of the Waipoua No.2. block containing the five Aranga farmers properties was, That the Crown enter into negotiations with the claimants for the return of lands alienated in Waipoua No.2. block in its entirety to provide an economic base for the re-building of the Waipoua Settlement.
Because in our case the word negotiate wasn't mentioned the Crown simply just made us offers and would not negotiate. This was because the Tribunal stated that the land belongs to Te Roroa. In fact, there was no such decision in 1942. Later, the Aranga Farmers received near full compensation and were allowed to keep their livestock and also got legal expenses unlike us.

Approached by Judge Spencer :
On the day of the hearing, Judge Spencer came over to me and my friends, and stated that the Waitangi Tribunal isn't allowed to take any evidence that I have presented. It can only look and take on board, evidence Maori, Crown or the Waitangi Tribunal itself presents. He also commented that he had adopted a part of Judge Acheson's decision for return on the above terms as it was the only choice as the Crown and claimants had conceded in the statement of facts. Judge Spencer stated to us as Judge Acheson had stated in the past - No matter what cost this may involve as this now should get Don Harrison and myself a price so we could replace our farms and be compensated for damages. He couldn't say Justice between the two races because his decision is only allowed to refer to the Maori or Crown.
In fact, the decision was already made two years before the Tribunal decision. Judge Spencer wished me all the best. Yet the Crown and Government were dirty enough to turn around and slam this Judge Andrew Spencer in his decision when they themselves had conceded, through the Crown Law Office along with the claimants by conceding in writing to our land held in both mine and Mr Harrison's freehold titles stating our total freehold title numbers.

Elsewhere in the world, Tribunals have to take all recorded facts of evidence and events into account, but why not the Waitangi Tribunal. Well it has been set up on racist apartheid grounds only between Crown and claimants of Maori descent, which makes it a law unto itself. In that way, people like myself can be "ripped off" on racial grounds.

It is claimed in the claimants report by T. Hughie Te Rore and Sharon Murray from 1928, the grievance was carried by Te Rore's son, Raniera Te Rore, Paiwiko Anania and L.W. Parore, who believed Manuwhetai had been awarded solely to his father.
The claimants report is written around and is basically the same as Colquhoun's report.
Page 120 - They state Whangaiariki is still Crown land but it is now held on a deferred payment lease. The present leasee's are D. and B. Harrison. Since 1986 Manuwhetai has been owned by Mr A. Titford. When he made moves to subdivide it into beach sections the local Maori's protested. They erected signs, warning prospective buyers that the land is Maori Reserve.
They state that trespass notices were served under Police protection but no evacuations actually took place. A Pouwhenua named "Pinea" was erected on 20th January 1988 on Manuwhetai to symbolise the Maori links to the land but on 18th April 1988 Mr Titford and others cut the Pouwhenua and took it away from the site. Note - I cut the pole down myself with no one else there and the pole was left laying in the area where it had been erected.

SOME EXTRACTS FROM THE TE ROROA CLAIMANTS REPORT
The Te Roroa report, Waitangi Tribunal report 5, Wai 38, 1992 :
A few abstracts showing how the Tribunal distorts real history.
Page 66 alleges, During the negotiations and survey, Te Rore Taoho, who lived at Opanake, seems to have conceded his authority to his nephew Tiopira in a rangatira way, expressed in the old saying: "You obtain the mana for all of us". Although Te Rore had received a payment of tamana, it is said he was against the sale. Note - how they state, "seems to be".
They state that the Crown researcher expressed the view that some kind of understanding may have been reached prior to mid 1874 by Te Rore and Parore as to the area over which each was to exercise predominant rights of ownership, with the only area of dispute seemingly centred in the Waikara - Maunganui Bluff area.

Page 67, They go on to say that Te Roroa had kept their fires burning on this ancestral land as Tiopira said in the Native Land Court, "Parore never fought us about the land between Waikare and Maunganui", meaning presumably the whole coastline from the Kaihu Block to Maunganui Bluff. They state that it seems like that Parore asserted a counterclaim to Maunganui in 1875 because he was affronted that Tiopira had agreed to sell and procured the survey without speaking to him and he had not received any tamana (payment) and that Parore had some rights in the land but not a clear title and the Crown must (or should) have known this.

Page 68, They state that it was probably Rewiri Tiopira who instructed the surveyors in Waipoua, but Te Rore Taoho who lived in the area must have known about the Maunganui survey. They state incorrectly that the reserves were cut out by Frank Smith and was notified to the provincial surveyor and entered in the Maori Land Plan Register under Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki. (page 69) Registration under these names did not indicate that they were linked to the survey plan for Maunganui (ML 3253) although this number is on the plan. They claim wrongly alleging that the plan was not sent to the Inspector of Surveys for approval and the native reserves were not marked on the map of Maunganui before it was sent to the court on 14 January 1876. Comment - which we have shown is incorrect as Frank Smith had nothing to do with them. See Maori Land Court file alleged missing. (Document F)

Page 70, States that the Crown failed to abide by the oral arrangements to exclude certain wahi tapu areas from the sale and they failed to control the survey and furnish approved survey plans that defined boundaries for purposes of title and sale in accordance with the vendors wishes and intentions.

Page 72, States that Parore wrote to Judge Monro stating that an arrangement had been reached (presumably between him and Preece) that he should have Maunganui and Tiopira should have Waipoua. Parore wanted the Waipoua and Maunganui cases heard together. They state that Judge Monro had the reputation of passing cases quickly through the court and awarding title only to chiefs and he was also known to favour the sale of large tracts of Maori land to colonists.
Dr D. V. Williams in his evidence for the claimants pointed out, Monro "was an ideal Judge to suit the interests of the Crown's land purchase agents"

Page 73, States wrongly alleging that after the battle of Ika-a-ranganui Te Roroa claimed they had never been driven off the land and were still living on it and Parore had gone to live at Waipoua and the land from Wairau to Wairoa was under his mana. Te Roroa living on it were under his protection.

Waitangi Tribunal report on page 121, 122, and 123 - is a re-write of history. Note - It was wrongly alleged in the 1992 Waitangi reports, page 122, that plan 3297-8 was never sent to the Inspector of Surveys Office. Conveniently alleged missing.

Pages 127, and 128 concerning the Bluff itself. They state that Tiopira may have assumed that Maunganui Bluff was excluded from the sale along with Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki or he may have been confused by the pressures being exerted on him by the native land purchase system and not realised that Maunganui Bluff was included in the sale. The claimants state that from evidence given on the traditional history of Maunganui Bluff and its material and spiritual importance to Te Roroa, Ngati Whatua, they believe that it would have been Te Roroa's wish to retain it forever and the Crown had absolutely no business to purchase a place of such significance.

Page 245, they go on about Puketapu Pa on my property outside the claim area saying that I had scarred it with my bulldozer (alleging) as a deliberate and direct attack on the site. They go on to say (alleging) that on Manuwhetai I bulldozed tracks, destroyed recorded sites, modified traditional burial places and constructed a track through the lake without Historic Places Trust authorities.

Page 269, states that Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were shown as native reserves on cadastral maps and plans prepared by Lands and Survey Department and up to 1927 on Hobson County Council maps. They state that Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were listed as whenua rahui (reserve) on the 1886 Hobson County Maori rate roll and Manuwhetai was reclassified as Crown land on the 1902 valuation roll but Whangaiariki was still Maori land on the 1913 valuation roll.

Page 271, They state that when the commission sat at Dargaville in March 1908 it heard statement from Wiremu Rikihana and the entry in the minute book on Whangaiariki stated: This is not utilised - but being a reserve out of a sale it should still be reserved. And on the entry of Manuwhetai stated: This is a "wahi tapu". Better make sure that it is a Reserve. Surrounding land all sold to Crown. They state that beside Manuwhetai in the commission's interim report is the remark: "Reserved from sale to Crown as wahi tapu".

Page 277, They state that allegations in Acheson's case are one sided and unfair. His report was based on the oral evidence presented to the court as well as official records. He evaluated the evidence with cultural sensitivity and he stands out as a lone voice in the government establishment of his day. He had an empathy with the people and he listened to their grievances. He saw it as being essential that the honour of the Crown and the standard of British justice should be upheld.

Page 280-1, Tai Nathan (Tuck Nathan) asked the Ministers of Lands and Maori Affairs for redress in accordance with Acheson's recommendations. (Note - No recommendation as alleged). The Ministers looked into the matter and searched records of their departments without uncovering any significantly new information. The commissioner's response with respect to the purported use of part of Manuwhetai as a burial ground was that they have no evidence to support use of the area for this purpose. The Field Inspector commented on 16 January 1939 that there was no evidence of a burial ground present at that time, 'the bodies having been removed to Mitimiti Cemetery many years ago'.

Page 292, it states 'we adopt Judge Achesons findings in 1942, when he said that the "circumstances for this case.......cry aloud for redress for the Natives. The two reserves are theirs and should be returned to them, no matter what the cost to the Crown this may involve."
In fact what Judge Acheson said in 1939 was - In the opinion of this court the essential need is to uphold at all times the Kings honour and the standard of British Justice in dealings between the two races in New Zealand. Comment - this wording was left out of Waitangi report. The circumstances of this case of "Manuwhetai" and "Whangaiariki" cry aloud for the redress for the Natives. The two reserves are theirs and should be returned to them, no matter what cost to the Crown this may involve.
The Waitangi report deliberately forgot us land owners as we're not claimants of the part Maori race.

NOTE - Judge Acheson's opinion was based on what evidence given in 1939 which left many points un-answered. THIS WAS ONLY A OPINION for the Chief Judge who had to complete a further investigation and recommendation for the House of Representatives.

Page 293, The Waitangi Tribunal, return of Waipoua No.2 block stated, "The Crown enter into negotiations with the claimants for return of lands alienated in Waipoua No.2 block. In its entirety to provide an economic base for the rebuilding of Waipoua settlement." This land contains some of the land where the Aranga farmers were.
Comment - That decision allowed the Aranga farmers to stay or to be fully compensated. Which is what happened. They were lucky as the Waitangi Tribunal didn't state their land was Maori land out right like ours. This is why the Aranga farmers were treated differently by the Crown.
Yet Maori sold these farms to Europeans from whom the Crown purchased after the second world war then resold them again to Aranga Farmers through Land Corp.

Pages 301, 307, and 308, it is alleged that Crown had failed to protect Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki and other Wahitapu, and a list of other aspects of their over all Wai 38 claim on behalf of Maori due to this re-write of history.
This was done for propaganda to make the land owners the bad guys and hide the over all truth.

---

MP's Meet Landowners :
15th May 1992, Federated Farmers organised a meeting in Whangarei between Federated Farmers, landowners and National MP's, John Banks and Lockwood Smith. The landowners were able to ask the MP's about their land. Federated Farmers put the idea to Banks and Smith that the Government amend the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 so that private freehold land was excluded from the ambit of the Tribunals recommendatory function. The MP's said that they would take submissions and the suggestion of changing the Act, back to Cabinet. I pointed out that it would be a waste of time as that doesn't stop what has happened to us on the south side of the Bluff from happening again. A freehold title can be made worthless and valueless by Maori alleging sacred sites with false claims and doesn't stop land owners from being harassed for their lands.

Doug Graham has Venue searched by Police :
22nd May 1992, Federated Farmers finally convinced Doug Graham to come to the Kaiiwi Lakes Domain to meet all of the landowners affected by the Te Roroa claim. Before Mr Graham came near the place, he had the building searched thoroughly by the Police. When asked by Mrs Harrison, Do you think we've got a bomb in here? Constable Brown responded, It wouldn't be very nice if there was one. Our baby who was only 2 months old, was lying on a bench seat and Constable Brown asked Sue to lift the baby so he could look under the seat for a bomb. There were about a dozen armed policemen (hand guns) and earlier on in the day there were Army helicopters flying around. After the police had finished their searching, Doug Graham entered.
Landowners asked Mr Graham questions and Graham stated, The Tribunal's recommendation had raised expectations the Crown could not meet. There is no existing law that allowed the taking of freehold title land for settlement of Maori claims. Some of you have been through hell and ask "why doesn't he buy my farm." But the Crown can't allow itself to get into the position where people, by harassment, drive the Crown into buying affected land. It's a problem and I don't want this to be a precedent. Because of tensions that had developed, this claim must go to the top of the list for resolution. I hope all involved would want to stay on their land, but for those that have had a gutsful, it might be appropriate for the Crown to buy the land and make up any shortfall in price.
Sue asked Graham that he says the claim is between the Crown and the Maori then shouldn't the Maori people have harassed them instead of us. Mr Graham agreed and stated that he had made that known to the claimants when he met them earlier in the day. I myself didn't bother to say or ask any thing as I could see the Crown, were black mailing us for my land and also that a law change to the Waitangi Act, will in future make no difference if there is no law and order as the whole situation suited the Crown in order to get Private Assets.

Justice Department want to Sight my Historic Papers :
1st July, I spoke John Delemere (Justice Departments Treaty of Waitangi Policy Unit) told me that some one would come up to see us tomorrow or for sure the following day and would like us to have ALL our historic papers and information ready for them to look at. I told John Delemere that I still have the 1939 Inquiry and that I also now have a copy of the full minutes of the 1860's hearings (Kaipara Minute Book, 1876 Inquiry, etc) of the Maunganui and Opanake Minutes including pages which were not in the Waitangi Tribunal evidence that were alleged missing. John Delemere told me that they will look at all this when they come to see us.

I was expecting to see them on the 3rd July (Friday), but John Delemere rang to say they couldn't come until after the weekend.

Burnt Out & Pushed from our Land :
4th July 1992, While moving stock a lot of Maori people were going down to the Bluff. Some of them issued abuse on passing and one of them invited me to come down. I found out it was Danny Hall's birthday and they were having a party down the beach tonight. While I was talking to Mr Wheeler on the phone later in the day, he suggest that we should go out to Katui for dinner with them. On the way out to dinner at about 7:10pm, we passed a vehicle parked up the road.
We left Katui at 11:11pm and got home around 11:30pm. When I opened the door of the house I found the house full of smoke. Once the door was opened, the smoke alarms started ringing. The smoke was thick and filled the entire house. Sue left the baby in the vehicle and came to see what was happening. I opened the door into one of the spare bedrooms on the south side of the house and the room bursted into flames with intense heat. I found my shotgun so I fired a number of shots hoping that one of the neighbours would hear our shouts for help as the phone was not working.
In a mad rush we grabbed what we could and threw it out the door. The whole house was totally engulfed within a matter of minutes and the heat from the fire was getting intense, so we moved what possessions we had managed to save further away from the house. After awhile, the neighbours above us turned up. They said that they heard the shots and looked out to see what was going on and when they saw the fire, they rang the fire brigade and it was on its way.
The Fire Brigade, Police and Mr and Mrs Wheeler all turned up at the same time a couple of minutes later. It was too late for the Fire Brigade to do anything, so all we could do was watch our uninsured house and belongings burn to nothing. Now with a small baby to look after, we were homeless and with no insurance due to Te Roroa's false land claim as the Crown owned State Insurance had earlier cancelled we could not replace our home.
The police wouldn't let us go back to move anything further away from the house so a lot of the items we saved, got burnt anyway. We had managed to throw out an armful of baby clothes for our baby, but we weren't even allowed to save them.
The policeman stated that it was a crime scene and told us to leave. Sue told the Constable that our baby only had the clothes she had on and that there is some outside the house going to get burnt. So he said that he would go find some but not to tell anyone because his instructions were that he's not meant to do that. He brought back enough baby clothes to last a day and then told us to leave. Mr and Mrs Wheeler said we could stay with them.

Early the next morning, Gordon Wheeler and myself went to the farm. Inspectors were at the scene most of the day. The neighbours behind us had said that they heard our dogs going crazy about an hour before the fire.

An electrical fire was ruled out as the house wasn't long re-wired. As I felt then and as I still feel today, I know that the fire was an attempt in order to destroy information and to force me permanently from my land. While I know the first house fire was Te Roroa connected as it has been admitted to by some of them, they have never admitted to the second one and why should they burn it down when the Crown was in the process of coming to see us.
MP, Doug Kidd, Lands Minister, had told the claimants on 3rd April 1992 that they would fix the situation within 6 months from the decision of the Waitangi Tribunal. I firmly believe the fire was clearly arranged by some one within the system due to attacks in the media that followed and to destroy my historical documents and records. But more so to get me off the land so they could make out to the public that they were helping me out by acquiring and buying the farm.

Doug Graham made a statement to the media that the land claim dispute was being regarded as urgent so he was going to sent the Secretary of Justice, Mr David Oughton up to see us.

 

More Propaganda Attacks :
8th July an item appeared in the Northern Advocate with MP Peter Tapsell slandering me.
The Headline was - Tapsell tells of confrontations with Titford. Tapsell described me as "confrontationalist and provocative." Tapsell stated that he tried to reach a mutually acceptable agreement with me by offering me a sum of money far in excess of what the land was worth or what I had paid. He stated that I had declined the offer and wanted an amount far exceeding the value of the property. (Note - I had two lots of valuation reports to support my price). He claimed that I had been egged on by some of my neighbours and in contrast that the local Te Roroa people had been incredibly patient and restrained but accepted that one or two of the younger ones might have said some silly things. Tapsell stated that from reports, responsible people had been coming to believe Maori people in the area had been terrorizing my family and burning down my house but said there was no evidence Maori had been involved in the fire.
The Northern papers were willing to run attacks on me but weren't willing to run the truth concerning the real history or valuations which told the truth, etc.

On another television news item at the time of the fire reported by Layton Smith, Doug Graham stated, that privately owned land can not be used to settle claims. He said that in my case negotiations over the past 2-3 years have not proved successful because we are miles away on the price. He said the fault lies with the Crown and the Crown have an obligation to fix it. They are not forcing the farmers to sell if they don't want to and Maori claims relate to private land but the claim is against the Crown and the Crown has to resolve it the best they can.
There has NEVER been any such negotiations, it has always been accept what's offered or go without.

Under Secretary of Justice, Visits Farm :
9th July 1992, The Under Secretary of Justice, David Oughton (later to be employed in the Treaty of Waitangi Policy Unit), came to look at the situation. With him he brought along, John Delemere (Manager of Waitangi Treaty Policy Unit), Hare Tawhai (Senior Resource Officer), Tom Winitana (Chief iwi Advisor), Raymond Hikuroa (Consultant) and Sam Brown (Director of Lands, Department of Survey and Lands Information who is of Te Roroa tribe). They also visited Don Harrison's property and Basil Finlayson's property at the Kai iwi Lakes. You will notice all the people Oughton brought with him are part Maori.

10th July, Mr Oughton and his crew had a look over my property with me. He also met with the Maori claimants. Oughton told me that they will get back to me in a fortnight and have the situation fixed in about 6-8 weeks but I must leave the media alone as the Crown will take care of that and if I did, the Crown, will simply walk away. So in the meantime we continued living with Mr and Mrs Wheeler. Three days later, I was rung by the Department of Justice and was told to get a Lawyer ready to have a meeting the next week and they would pay the legal expenses. I asked them about getting a house put on the farm for us to live in, but they said, if all goes well, it should be sorted out in approximately three weeks.

Private Land should Never Form Part of a Claim to the Tribunal :
13th July 1992, An article in the Northern Advocate - MP Winston Peters stated that a Maori claim on part of my farm should never have gone to the Waitangi Tribunal. He said it is clear it has been a mistake, an improper dealing of title which should have been corrected by the Land Transfer Office in consultation with the Minister of Justice and Lands at the moment the question of claims arose. Peters said he blames the parliamentarians who failed to take action when they should have and the only way to correct the situation would be to pay me the value of the property at the time the controversy first arose. He stated that a failure to put into legislation that claims on private land could not go before the Waitangi Tribunal and fuelled racial tension and what we have had is incredible political inertia leading to a buildup of racial animosity. Peters said that both Te Roroa and myself were right although private land should never form part of a claim to the Tribunal.

Advised to Engage a Lawyer :
14th July, Secretary of Justice, Mr Oughton, writes stating, that on his visit I agreed to provide all information needed to enable the Crown to formulate a fair offer for the property. He stated that I may wish to engage legal representation based in Auckland who has more extensive experience in complex negotiations. (Letter:27A)
I knew from this letter that all Auckland Lawyers could be under the influence of Doug Graham's, Government, Bank or claimants so we phoned and asked Clive Jackson as his partner had connections with the Clyde Dam affair in the South Island.

Investigated by Detectives about Fire :
16th July, Two Detectives (Saunderson and Davies) came to Mr Wheeler's place to take statements from myself and Sue over the fire. Detective Saunderson interviewed me in the kitchen and Detective Davies interviewed Sue in the Wheeler's bedroom. The interviews went on for about four hours. They had a map of our house and we had to show them on the map where all the furniture, etc was in the house and asked us what happened on the night of the fire. We were both asked the same question - "Where in the house were all the historical papers?" (How would the Police have known that information was there. This once again told us that the fire was Crown related). Sue pointed on the map showing Detective Davies where the historical papers were. Davies asked her if they were all gone and Sue told him we have copies of all the important information scattered around the country. The Detectives promised to send us back a copy of our statements which they made in writing, but we have never received them. The statements were written in their hand writing and signed by us.

Meet with Government Officials :
21st July 1992, In the presence of our Solicitor - Clive Jackson, Greville McCollough, David Oughton - Under Secretary Justice, John Delemere, Sam Brown (related to the Te Roroa claimants) being - Director of Lands, Raymond Hikuroa, my wife Susan and myself, a meeting was held at Mr McCollough's house. Mr Oughton stated that the situation would be fixed within six weeks and I was again instructed not to talk to the media, especially Layton Smith of TV 3. David Oughton stated to me that there is so much to this case that the Crown need not worry about the truth as I will never be able to explain what really happened. (Referring to the original history). He then wanted to know where I got my Historical papers from. But I would not confirm the where-abouts, stating I still had copies. I explained what my plans were for the farm and the land before the claim occurred and how I had given up my fishing and quota.
They looked at all my information I had and looked at my original valuations. I pointed out how I could have owned the farm and livestock by 1989 if Tapsell had been fair and accepted the valuations. We told them what we had been through with the police charges etc. David Oughton asked us if we would like Sergeant Goodland removed from Dargaville as he can organise that to happen. But I said no.
I told them about different farms for sale in New Zealand and about a farm we liked in Tasmania. Oughton told me to get an agreement on that property in Tasmania but make it conditional.
I had explained to them that if I couldn't replace my farm, I didn't want to sell Maunganui Bluff except for the claim and coastal area which I intended to sell in the first place any way. They told us to move everything unnecessary off the farm so it won't get stolen and they would pay these removal fees. They were going back to work out some figures and will get back to us by the end of the week.
I asked Oughton about getting a removal house put on the property for us to live in incase the Crown don't purchase it but Oughton assured us it would be fixed within a few weeks so there would be no need. The meeting finished at 7:00pm. Oughton himself stated he didn't want to get too involved as he was retiring (he later took up a job in the Treaty of Waitangi Policy Unit). They told us we would be fully compensated if we didn't say anything to the media we would get treated very fairly.

Mention of a Walk a Way Price of $3 Million Dollars :
6th August, The Crown hadn't done anything yet so I rang them and David Oughton told me that they were thinking of a walk away price of $3 million. He told me to go and have a look at the farm in Tasmania and stated to me it would be better for me to stay totally away from the farm now. I told them that I have to go there to move our stock. Oughton stated that the Government could pay Don Harrison or some one else to look after the farm.

19th August, We went to Tasmania and got a conditional agreement on a suitable replacement farm running the same amount of cattle there as suggested by David Oughton. This agreement cost me $700 Australian. (In the end to no avail). The Rural Bank paid for the air tickets for us to go to Tasmania, and John Delemere of the Justice Department organised and acquired our baby's passport.

4th September, Upon returning to Gordon Wheeler's house, I rang the Government Officials and was told that it is now going to be a lot longer. Someone from the Department of Justice is going to come and see us tomorrow. While we had been away we found out there had been another attempt on our files as some were now missing from that source but the person concerned assisting the Crown didn't know I had other copies.

 

Crown Anxious to get Historical Papers :
The following day we were visited by Raymond Hikuroa. He told us that the two local MP's (Meurant, Banks, now Minister of Police, and Carter) are stopping them from doing anything on my place because it's too expensive and would effect voters opinion in their seats in Northland. After our meeting Raymond Hikuroa said that he is going to tell them that the Tasmanian farm is the cheapest option to sort out the situation fairly. He asked us, once the situation is over, can the Crown, have all the historical papers.

18th September, David Oughton rang and he told us that I would still be getting around $3 million to walk away with after debts. He stated that a report is going to Cabinet on Wednesday the 23rd September 1992. We had heard nothing on the 23rd September so Sue rang the Department of Justice on the 24th September and spoke to John Delemere who told her that the Ministers will hopefully be looking at the report over the weekend or next week. The Crown's promise to have the situation fixed in 6 weeks was long gone.

28th September, The Crown tell us they don't intend to do anything for about another six months yet. So once again we asked the Government for a house to be put on the farm while they "mucked about", but they would not agree. David Oughton told me that we will have to go on their terms only now. The Bank wouldn't let me sell my own cattle to build a small house on my own property. I now knew for sure the house fire was to force us off the land.

Harrison and Myself Attacked :
3rd October 1992, I decided to go to the farm around 2:30pm. I was on top of the Bluff and I saw a fire being lit under the boundary road fence at the Bluff. I looked through my binoculars and saw it was Jeffery Hall. As I drove down the hill I stopped to look at the cattle in the claim area from the hill above and saw Don Harrison on his horse. Don spotted me and yelled to me to get a rope as there was a cow stuck. Don was keeping a watch around the place as I wasn't living on the farm now.
While pulling the cow out we spoke about the fire being lit down the road. I suggested that we go and look at the situation in case the cattle get out onto the road. When we arrived at the scene, we were confronted by Jeffery Hall with a flounder spear. Hall lunged at me with the spear staking me in the elbow and as he did I grabbed it and broke it to prevent myself being injured as he had speared me in the elbow.
This then resulted in a fight as Jeff was very irate and he even put his dog onto attacking me. Then a car turned up with reinforcements for Jeff. Don and I got up and went to leave but were attacked by a group of seven armed Maori's with battens. Danny Hall (no relation to Jeff) and two other Maori guys started clubbing Don. They supplied Jeff with a weapon too and he also was clubbing Don. Three other Maori guys came after me with square 4X4 timber. Danny Halls aunty, Lucy Te Awhitu, yelled, "Don't worry about Don, kill Titford." They whacked me across the back and arms several times but I managed to get away with a few scratches and bruises. Don had a lot of bruises, a broken leg and a bloody face. (We had been set up by this mob). The police never spoke to me about the incident and again as usual they didn't want to know my side but they spoke to Jeff Hall, Mr and Mrs Te Awhitu and Don.

Plans to use Harrison's & my Properties for Genetic Breeding :
5th October 1992, A letter was sent from John Davy of AHEAD (NZ) LTD to Mr Oughton, Ministry of Justice with relative information on the project AHEAD which over $750,000 and 5 1/2 years expenditure and research has gone into. He stated that they are looking for land of approximately 400 acres and Don Harrison's property would be ideal for this project. (Crown files TC38/02)
AHEAD is Agricultural Horticulture Export Advisory Development Services. They plan to set up and manage a self financing Agricultural Science Park to advance the economics and exports of participating countries and also to help with the progress and advancement of third world and developing countries. I would included livestock breeding such as the establishment of a genetic cross breeding and rearing programme using all the latest technology to produce Friesian/Holstein Dams and Australian/Sahiwal Sires Cattle for export and to develop milk and meat management programmes from breeding to market.

Harrison and Myself Charged with Assault :
7th October, Sergeant Goodland and Constable Grindle arrived with a summons for me to appear in Court on the 15th October for allegedly assaulting Jeffery Hall but because I wasn't there they served it on Sue. Don Harrison had to go to Court too for the allegedly assaulting of Jeff Hall and Jeff had to go for assaulting Don later on. Danny Hall had been charged with assaulting Don. No one was charged with assaulting me. The police never even took a statement from me as they weren't interested in what I had to say. I phoned Goodland about the issue and said I wanted the others charged for assaulting me but he stated he had been instructed not to.

9th October 1992, Our Lawyer, Clive Jackson, received a letter from Mr Ewing of the Rural Bank stating that the Bank would not assist in allowing us to sell off some stock to erect a small relocatible house on the property after the burning of our house. They now wanted me to sell all the stock at the earliest possible opportunity. Mr Ewing stated, It seems to be inappropriate for Mr Titford to continue to farm the property in view of the stated interference that he is receiving from other parties while he is trying to farm the property.
It was obvious the Fletcher owned Rural Bank had joined the conspiracy by stopping me from living on or occupying my own freehold title farm.

12th October, We were advised by our Lawyer to get photos of the fence so Mr and Mrs Wheeler, and Sue with our baby drove down to the Bluff to get some photos. As they stopped by the fence, Jeff Hall came out of his bach with a batten. So they decided to leave and come back another time. As they drove passed Jeff he started jumping up and down and waving the batten around abusing them.

Proposal to build Maori Pa :
12th October 1992, John Davy of Adept International (NZ) Ltd sent a fax to the Minister of Justice, Doug Graham, stating - I was unfortunate that during my stay in Wellington for discussions with MAF that we were unable to meet. We are for a reasonable price ready to purchase or make an offer to purchase Don Harrison's property of approx. 900 acres from the Crown should the Crown continue on a path of purchase from Mr Harrison. In doing so we would enter into a legal assignment of approx. 50 acres with access and be prepared to help build a Maori Pa on that land. (Crown files)
Note - John Davy of Adept International (NZ) Ltd had also been meeting with Te Roroa claimants.

Court Hearing :
15th October 1992, At the Dargaville Court, Don and I chose to have a trial by jury as we knew there would be no justice before a Judge as the Crown would have influence to get a conviction on me no matter what. We were remanded to appear for a depositions hearing in Dargaville on the 2nd December. Both Jeff Hall and Danny Hall were granted legal aid where as Don and myself had to find our own legal expenses.

17th October, Moved to my Parents place being a two hour drive each way from Auckland to the farm.

Crown not going to be Blackmailed :
21st October 1992, On a news item, Doug Graham stated that the Crown are not going to be blackmailed into paying much more of the taxpayers money thats required. The Reporter asked him if people could be pressured into wanting to leave their land and Graham told him yes, it can happen and unfortunately it did happen to Titford. Doug Graham stated that mine was a sad case where the Maori were correct and so was I in my allegations. He went on to say that if an agreement couldn't be made then the law will protect my interest in my title.

2nd November 1992, We had asked the Rural Bank for some money to defend the assault charge in the High Court. Mr Ewing wrote and told our Lawyer, Mr Jackson, that the Bank won't pay for this and that the legal costs should be funded by the Crown or Legal Aid which we could not get and if we could get it the Crown charge it against our property.

National Party's first Offer :
2nd November 1992, An offer from Doug Graham which stated that the Crown wishes to purchase as going concern all of the property, plus the stock, understood to be approximately 800 head of breeding cows and 400 calves on the basis to pay the sum of $1,472,500 for the land, to pay a sum determined on the current market value for the actual stock numbers on the day of sale with the actual numbers and the current market price set by an independent valuer agreed to by both the Crown and myself but shall not in any event exceed the sum of $450,000. Note - There were infact $780,000 worth of stock on the property.
To pay the sum of up to $47,000 for the reimbursement of disbursements that are incurred as a result of the Crown's purchase of the property; and to make an ex-gratia payment of $250,000 as a contribution towards costs that may have incurred as a result of the Te Roroa claim and as a contribution towards losses incurred due to an inability to obtain insurance for house and contents which were destroyed by fire. He stated that the offer constitutes a policy decision particular to the circumstances and does not, and is not intended, to include any payment on the basis of any perceived legal liability. (Letter:26)
Graham's offer totaled $2,219,500 but by the time all debts were paid I was left still owing money.
As Tapsell had done in the past Graham made his offer after I had been charged by the Police. Now Graham was wanting the livestock included along with the land.

5th November 1992, Our Lawyer wrote to Mr Graham explaining that I had spoken to Mr Oughton some three weeks ago and I enquired as to some indication of what offer would be made and that Oughton advised me that while he was not in a position to make any firm commitment, I could expect to "walk away" with approximately $3.5m. Mr Jackson also stated that I had followed up my discussion with Mr Oughton and Mr John Delemere and repeated my advise that the offer of $3.5m would be insufficient to purchase the Tasmanian property or, indeed, stock it and Mr Delemere's response reassured me that matters were still very much negotiable.
Mr Jackson pointed out that we accept that discussions with Mr Oughton and Mr Delemere could not in any way be deemed to form a binding contract in a legal sense but their comments contributed to an expectation in my mind that I was likely to receive an offer of at least $3.5m after repayment of debts and I was shocked at the level of the offer which equates to approximately $350,000 being 1/10th of the figure earlier mentioned. (Letter:27)

Crown Offer will still leave me Landless :
11th November, The Lawyer received a letter from Mr Graham saying that the Government were prepared to increase the ex-gratia payment slightly and this was their final offer and if it was not accepted then all offers by the Government for the purchase of the property are withdrawn. (Letter:26A)
Comment - Doug Graham's offer would leave me with $150,000 or about 5 to 6% replacement cost to replace a farm with livestock.
Still the total offer of $2,469,500 was not enough to replace the farm or livestock after covering costs which were caused by the claim, the Crown and Te Roroa. If the claim hadn't interfered with the land sales I would have had no debt and would have owned my farm and stock, but I now had a large debt as a result of the false claim. The debts had now climbed to around $2.25million. I was being forced to pay for the Te Roroa land claim by losing the farm plus livestock in order to compensate for the Waitangi Tribunal claim on the coastal area. (Being my original means of paying for my farm). Graham was expecting me to lose about $2.9 million in Private Assets.

Depositions for Assault Charge :
2nd December 1992, The depositions hearing for the assault charge was heard. Danny Hall refused to give any evidence and now denied being at the fight altogether. He said his Elders had dealt with him so he's not saying anything. Don and I had to appear in Court in Whangarei again on the 15th February 1993 to set a date for a trial by jury.

Contract to Kill Me :
We then heard that there is a contract out to kill me if I don't give the land back as apparently the Crown had told Te Roroa I would have to go completely before the land could be returned to them. We also heard this from a couple of different sources and one to a member of my family from the Police themselves.

Reasoning why we Rejected the Crown's Offer :
4th December 1992, Clive Jackson, wrote to Doug Graham and stated that I must reject the offer he had made to me of $2,469,500 as it would only leave me with approximately $522,500 after paying off Bank debt. Note - There were other debts still to come out of this $522,500. The calculation of this was farm valuation - $1,472,500, stock valuation - $450,000, compensation - $500,000 = $2,422,500, less debt of $1,900,000 = $522,500.
Comment - Out of this there was still Lawyers fees of $160,000, and $200,000 owing to family as a result of the claim. The Crown were only interested in the Bank debt that was secured to the Bank. So I might have been left with $150,000, being equal to less than a quarter replacement value of my livestock let alone a replacement farm. This meant I was losing about $2.9 million over all.
Mr Jackson stated that the Senior Rural Bank Officer involved with my account has recently confirmed to us, he believes I would have repaid my debts within two years from the date of purchase from the profits on the original subdivision and this Subdivision involved approximately one-quarter of the Manuwhetai.
Mr Jackson said that I had in excess of 100 enquires for the sections before the claim came of issue and I only needed to sell 16 - 20 to pay off all indebtedness. He stated that assuming there was no further subdivision, I would have been able to carry on a successful farming operation with no debt and would have had a well improved farm property, substantially higher stock numbers than I have now, better plant and machinery and a comfortable income in excess of $100,000 per annum for the last four years. In such circumstances, one could assume that my assets would have been no less than:-

Main farm property without subdivision area - 1,450 acres @ $1,200 per acre, say	$1,750,000
1,000 head cattle at average $600 per animal	$600,000
Plant and machinery	$200,000
Miscellaneous assets	$200,000
Total	$2,750,000

He goes on to tell Doug Graham that if I took the $500,000 valuation placed on the beach subdivision area by my Valuers and takes the $500,000 compensation already offered and added them to the sum of $2,750,000, then a basic of assessment of compensation figure would be $3,750,000. Clive Jackson explained that no allowance has been made for the fact that I purchased the property with the intention of remaining there for my lifetime. That I had spent two years looking for a special property and that the Rural Bank has recently pointed out that this property is unique on the West Coast because of its beach front contour. Mr Jackson also stated that no account has been taken of the fact that they do not have a willing seller, but one who is being forced to leave the property because of a Maori land claim against freehold title.
Mr Jackson pointed out to Doug Graham that the Crown valuers had confirmed that the property has been valued on the assessment of its present worth to date to an outside purchaser and that he has deducted from such value a substantial risk and profit factor. And the valuer had confirmed that he has made no provision for the fact that requirements for consent to subdivision are substantially more onerous today then they were in 1986. Mr Jackson pointed out that I believe it would be extremely difficult to farm further else where in New Zealand because of the various threats by claimants and other persons associated with them.
Mr Jackson then explained about a property in Tasmania and how much it would cost to purchase it and also told Graham that another option is to leave me with my livestock and all the farm except the claim area and the Government take the claim for all debts owing. He went on to explain about the Public Works Act 1981, that we would be entitled under Section 62 to the full open market value of the land and Pursuant to Section 62(c) no account could be taken of the fact that the value of the land may have bee reduced by the prospect of the work.
He also stated, Further, heads of compensation under the Public Works Act 1981 would also arise. This is a case where the land owner is required to give up the whole of the land. That means that disturbance payments under Section 66, compensation for the loss on repayment of Mortgage under Section 67, compensation for business loss under Section 68 and assistance to purchase a replacement property Section 74 would be payable. This must be so whenever a land owner is required to give up the whole of his property. It must particularly be so in this case. Here there are additional reasons making it imperative for the family to move from the District and, indeed, from New Zealand. These reasons are the threats that have been made to the family and the dreadful history of attacks on person and property which have occurred over the last few years. Mr Jackson then goes on about the way we were treated by the police and how we had no protection form them. (Letter:27A)

1993

Bribes Offered by Detectives :
4th January, I was told by some persons who I have occasionally done business with, that they had been approached by Detectives, who had offered them $5,000 in cash for statements, to say anything about me to help set me up for the Crown. They were advised that if they told anyone or it gets back to me, they would be set up and locked up themselves. The Detectives were wanting these people to say that I was insane or anything which may be useful to help the Crown to get the land.

Nothing less than an Exercise in Political Hypocrisy :
9th January, An item in the Northern Advocate stated that Hobson Alliance candidate Frank Grover is disappointed the Government has done nothing about changing the law to prevent the Waitangi Tribunal making recommendations about privately owned land claimed by Maori. He disagreed with comments by Hobson MP Ross Meurant of not wanting the Government to buy Aranga farms under claim but using the Land Transfer Act to remedy the matter, allowing the farms to be sold normally after a time. Grover stated that my affair and the Aranga farmers was "nothing less than an exercise in political hypocrisy."
He stated that although I was offered $2.5 million for my farm by the Crown, this will leave me worse off than I was when I first bought it and what ever the rights and wrongs of the case I simply want the Crown to put me in the same position I would have been in if my farm had not been affected by Waitangi Tribunal rulings. Frank Grover stated that is the lawful right of every property owner in this country, what-ever their race or political views. He stated that I had been effectively run off my farm and given clear instructions to stay away from it and he asked where my property rights were now and what the Government was doing to protect my farm and family.
Mr Grover pointed out the law said the Crown would guarantee the title of every freehold property in New Zealand. But the law also said the Waitangi Tribunal could make recommendations as it pleased over freehold land in order to rectify Maori grievances. That was what had happened at Aranga. The law needed to be changed to prevent that happening again.
Mr Grover stated that some months ago, Prime Minister Jim Bolger and Justice Minister Doug Graham had indicated the law would be altered to stop the tribunal making any recommendations over privately owned land but nothing has since been done. Clearly this was just another soothing syrup dosage to calm our community down.

Bank wants to Sell Stock or Lease the Property :
February the Rural Banks suggestion to me that they wanted to sell all my livestock and lease the farm out as they could get $750,000 for the stock which was more then Doug Graham's $450,000. They were still paying us $250 a week to survive which was being added to my debt. We weren't allowed to get an unemployment benefit because I still technically owned cattle and land. I said no to the Bank's suggestion because if I can't replace my farm I don't want to sell the land or livestock except the coast as originally intended for all the debt. My view to the Bank was I don't wish to sell the livestock or farm as I want to carry on being a farmer in the end and if I buy another farm I need the livestock.

March, Don Harrison had been given an offer from the Government to purchase his property, but he turned it down also because he would not be able to find a suitable replacement for his farm with the Crowns offers.

Government Amends Treaty of Waitangi Act :
31st March, The Government made a one clause amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act to prevent the Tribunal from recommending acquisition by the Crown "of any land or interest in any land held by any person". But of course this doesn't stop the Crown coercion like what happened in our case from being repeated by making a property a sacred site to obtain private land and assets.

Rural Bank Organise Valuer :
26th May, Went to the farm and met Alex Laing the Valuer from Ernst Young, who dealt with the Clyde Dam situation in Otago. He came to value the farm and the subdivision areas for the Fletcher owned Rural Bank. I was to show him over the property. This valuation was being done for the Rural Bank and they would not give me a copy of it unless I agreed to pay for it. The money they paid for it was added onto my loan repayment in the end so I was forced to pay for it anyway. Mr Laing didn't want to know about my earlier valuations done at any time in the past, which I tried to explain to them, as they wanted to do it Independently from their point of view.

Protest March :
5th July, Fed up with land claims a group of us (17) affected by Maori land claims, did a protest march up Queen Street in Auckland. We weren't able to advertise the march as we were being stopped by the Crown. The police escorted us up the street and the television cameras were there. We had now been homeless for one year. We were told by a person in the television station that their films were confiscated by the Police after the march and edited.

Adept International writes to Delemere :
5th August 1993, Mr Davy of Adept International (NZ) Ltd wrote to John Delemere of the Department of Justice stating - Sorry about the long delay since our last discussion re Don Harrison's or Mr Titford's properties north of Kai Iwi Lakes in the Kaipara District. We confirm our interest in leasing with an option to purchase or straight purchase from the Crown just as soon as matters are settled. (Crown files, TC381027)

 

Harrison Signs his Property Over to the Crown :
In August, Don Harrison signed his property over to the Government, but he was not happy with the offer and he stated to the media that he will be a bitter man for a long time. With Don selling, I knew this would get the claimants more active in their attacks towards us as that is what they and the Crown had wanted.

Because of death threats and public abuse we were forced to move to Tasmania. We knew if something was to happen to myself the real history and truth may never get told. I knew I would never be able to put it together in New Zealand due to pressure.

Bank Manager advises me to Plead Guilty :
The Court case for assault was set for the 10th August. At a meeting at our Lawyers Office in Auckland, Mr Ewing stated to us I should simply just plead and should have pleaded guilty on all the previous charges. That way it would have saved me a few hundred thousand dollars in Court defence so far and assured me that if I had done so, the Crown would have felt that they had won a victory and I would have been compensated properly by now for my farm. The only difference being, that I may have had a few convictions against me and I couldn't become a Politician or work for Crown Departments.
Mr Ewing told me that if I don't plead guilty, don't expect any more allowances from them to live on as public opinion is now more than ever for the claim to be returned to Maori and against me. I explained to Mr Ewing that I only wish to sell if I can replace the farm of my choosing, otherwise I don't intend to sell the land as it is a false claim. I pointed out to him that the Crown wanted a conviction on me so they could use it to discredit me further and take my property for absolutely nothing. By now I had to sell any thing we had (assets) for cash to pay our Lawyers bills, etc.

Court Case Postponed due to Lack of Maori on Jury List :
10th August, Judge A Satyanand postponed the Court trial until the 27th September 1993 as they said there was a lack of Maori people on the jury list.

An item in the Dargaville Times reads - Judge refuses trial because of lack of Maori on list. A district court judge refused to allow the trial of Northland farmers Allan Titford and Don Harrison to go ahead because of a lack of Maori on a jury list. Titford and Harrison were to appear before Judge Anand Satyanand and a jury in Whangarei District Court on August 10, charged with assault. However, the judge said it was necessary that the jury chosen for the trial should be seen as an entirely orthodox jury. For there to be a jury panel from which a large number of people with a Maori background where barred would be wrong, he said. The judge refused to allow the trial to proceed because Titford had gained publicity over a dispute he had with local Maori over a piece of land he owned at Maunganui Bluff on Northland's west coast north of Dargaville. Titford had appeared in the media over the past few years when he had put forward views in opposition to those of local Maori. An error in compiling the jury list for the Whangarei court meant that only people from the Whangarei electorate were included. People enrolled in the Northern Maori and Hobson electorates who lived within 30 kilometres of Whangarei were excluded from the list. Judge Satyanand refused to allow the trial to go ahead, even though both accused were prepared for the case to proceed.
Note - This meant that the Judge was wanting Maori connected to the Te Roroa land claim or relations of the Te Roroa tribe on our jury.

Adept International contact Doug Graham :
21st August 1993, John Davy, Managing Director of ADEPT INTERNATIONAL (NZ) LTD sent a fax to the Department of Justice, attention Mr Doug Graham stating that for some months they have been having discussions with officers of the Department re the purpose of lease and or purchase of Don Harrison's property. He stated he would like to request an interview with Doug Graham and Doug Oughton to discuss the purchase and that they have the full support and participation of the Maori tribes in the area. (Crown files)
Also on the same day Mr Davy sent a fax to David Oughton asking to meet Mr Oughton to discuss purchase and or lease of Don Harrison's property. And also to discuss development of the Agricultural College. Genetic Breeding Programme for export. Development and assistance with local Maori elders and tribes in the area to be a part of this project and they have already had a number of discussion. (Crown files)

25th August, Erin Brady, Private Secretary, replies to Mr Davy on behalf of Doug Graham acknowledging his fax and stated that the letter has been referred to David Oughton. (Crown Files)

27th August, Jeff Hall and Danny Hall were both found guilty by Judge Beatty of assaulting Don Harrison and were remanded until October 7th for sentencing.
Note - They both got Legal Aid.

Court case Heard :
27th September, The Court case went ahead and Don Harrison and myself appeared together. I employed a European Lawyer for the trial and Don employed a Maori Lawyer. We knew that by doing this, the Crown witness would give a different version of evidence as they are racist and biased by nature and this way the truth would be told. The trial took 5 days and at the end of the trial the verdict for both of us was not guilty. Half way through the hearing I noticed that the jury were from the Whangarei electorate so the system couldn't even run a crooked Court without getting it wrong. Doug Graham's crooked plan had failed. We won the case at a cost of a further $27,000 to us. Yet the Hall's got legal aid and was charged for attacking Don Harrison only. The Police would not lay charges concerning me for Political reasons. By now over the years I had been in Court seven times and won seven times.

After the trial the Bank made it clear that they wanted me to sell the land at any price. Don Harrison's Lawyer, Mr Lain Harvey, worked for the Law Firm, Simpson, Grierson, Butler & White. This firm does Chief Advisory work for the Crown. After the trial Mr Harvey received a phone call from his boss Mr Cole saying that he had a phone call from Doug Graham's Office and was told to tell Don that if he said anything about the trial the Crown would reverse the agreement of the sale on his farm. We were all present when this phone call came in. Outside the Court after the trial, the policeman stated to me that I thought myself smart but I will be charged again by Monday.

Because our verdicts were not guilty, both Danny and Jeff Hall were let off on their sentences and the taxpayer paid for their legal aid. I had to sell personal items such as machinery, etc, for hard cold cash at discount prices to pay for my legal fees as anything that was paid to me in cheques the Bank would grab it.

Return to Tasmania :
Three days after the Court case we flew back to Tasmania to avoid being re-charged and were met by the television media at Melbourne Airport but I could not tell them at the time why we had left New Zealand. The reason being the safety of wife family and myself and to write this book in peace as I knew this would have been impossible to do in New Zealand. For once we could sleep at night for the first time in years and felt happier in the sense that Te Roroa couldn't play their Crown aided games of sabotage like they were in New Zealand. Although we longed to be in our own country on the Bluff farm. In Tasmania, we had more rights than we ever did in our own country. The Australian Government gave us a special benefit to survive due to the situation of no income. Whenever we asked the Police in Tasmania for assistance, they responded.

Federated Farmers said Loan had been written Off :
Bill Guest of Federated Farmers advised us that he had spoken to Tapsell and that my loan with the Bank had been written off when the Bank was sold to Fletcher. So our Lawyer wrote to the Bank asking them about this situation and the Bank answered him on the 23rd December 1993 stating that the loan had not been written off.

On the sale of the Rural Bank to Fletcher Challenge by the National Government, there was a $470 million write down, which was supposed to be passed on. Twelve months later Fletcher Challenge posted a profit of $470 million. This profit being the money that the Crown had written off when selling the Bank to Fletcher Challenge.

1994

Bank makes Proposal to our Lawyer :
17th February 1994, Mr Ewing from the National Bank wrote to our Lawyer, Clive Jackson, concerning the price of properties carrying roughly the same amount of stock units as my Maunganui Bluff property, within 35 minutes from town and with easy to medium hill country. The properties he came up with were in the Taihape, Gisborne and Southern King Country area. The Bank believed that we should be walking away with $1.9 million - $2,343,000 clear of all debts. This is covered in detail in the valuations chapter of this book.

Three Proposals Put to Government :
23rd February 1994, I put a proposal to the Government with three options including the Banks letter. One was that they take the coastal claim area, pay off the debts as these were incurred by the claim and give us a part of Don Harrison's farm.

3rd March 1994, Doug Graham wrote back to our Lawyer, stating that all negotiations with the Crown had ended and the Crown would not be reconsidering the matter.

Bank still wants Livestock Sold :
12th April 1994, Mr Jackson received another letter from Mr Ewing of the National Bank telling me to sell all the cattle on the property and upon doing so the Bank will advance me $6,000 at the Banks expense and it will not be debited to my mortgage. (Letter:29A) The Bank contacted us in Tasmania with the view that I must be starving by now and for $6,000 I should sign all $780,000 worth of cattle over to them.

19th April 1994, Sam Brown from the Office of Crown Lands sent a faxed letter to Stu Graham of DOSLI in Whangarei stating that he has booked him tickets to Tasmania and that Ray Chappell (the mediator) is to arrive in Tasmania on Thursday 21 and start talking to us on Friday and should know by Saturday whether he has a chance of a deal. Sam Brown states - For your information only. R.C. will attempt a deal to accept Titford's total debts in exchange for the transfer of the farm and livestock. The Crown will then pay Titford an exgratia payment to walk clear. R.C's task is to get "T" to declare all his debts and then to negotiate the exgratia payment.
Our task will be to quit the livestock as soon as possible so as to prevent rustling. T's Brother is currently keeping an eye on the 1000 + head that are meant to be on the property. You will need to organise some musterers and talk with some agents to get the best deal at such short notice. The other matter that Ray requires is a caveat on the title. I have some doubts about that (if the title collapses as it should). But assuming the Transfer (to be executed by us) Transfers title to HMQ then a caveat to prevent others from acting should be placed over the total. (Released under the Official Information Act).

20th April 1994, Sam Brown from the Office of Crown Lands sent a faxed letter to Ray Chappell of Te Puni Kokiri stating that they have booked Stuart Graham the Senior Lands and Property Officer in Whangarei on flights to Tasmania and asked Mr Chappell if he could pick Stuart up from the airport. (Released under the Official Information Act).

20th April 1994, Phillips Fox, Barristers Solicitors writes to Ray Chappell enclosing the documents ready for execution which were Deed (ex gratia payment), Agreement relating to the sale of land at Maunganui Bluff, Acknowledgement (Mrs Titford to sign), Authority to pay ex gratia payment, and Memorandum of Transfer. The remaining two and a quarter pages of this letter has been with held under Section 9(2)(h) of the Official Information Act.
(Released under the Official Information Act - Phillips Fox reference 425875004)

21st April 1994, Sam Brown from the Office of Crown Lands sent a faxed letter to Stu Graham of DOSLI in Whangarei stating that he has sent a documents of the Agreement for Sale and Purchase and the Deed of Indemnity both originals (with Ray) to be signed. He states - Please phone the Insurance people before you go and arrange for a temporary insurance note over the buildings on the property. I recommend the following temporary covers. Woolshed $50,000 - Implement shed $10,000 - Haybarn $5,000.
I have made provisions for the employment of 2 referees just in case there are repercussions later about the number of stock that were taken over.
One of the referees could be Titford's brother. I suggest that you commission Chris Fox if he is available, to be a referee and to give you some advice on a sales strategy as he is a very experienced and shrewd stock trader.
I am banking that you will be able to recycle some of the material developed for the Harrison lease and so reduce the costs for Titford's property.
Sam Brown told Stuart Graham that Noel Phillips will fax him the Ministers approval for purchase of private land as soon as it is signed but if he doesn't receive it continue on and he will deal with any contingencies that arise. (Released under the Official Information Act - Office of Crown Lands file 6925-904).

21st April 1994, Sam Brown, Director Crown Property services writes to the Minister of Lands, Denis Marshall, for Request for approval by the Minister of Lands, pursuant to Section 40(1) Land Act 1948, for the Commissioner of Crown Lands to purchase private land. The letter states that the Minister in charge of Treaty Negotiations has appointed Mr Raymond Chappell a private consultant to negotiate the purchase of the farm property.
Mr Brown states - The Waitangi Tribunal found when considering the Te Roroa Claim that this reserve had not been set aside as agreed with Maori, when the Crown originally purchased the parent block in 1876.
Mr Titford's situation is now significantly worse than previously. He is presently living in Tasmania and a brother is caretaking the property for him.
Mr Titford senior's property (at Puhoi) is a collateral security for the Aranga farm. The prospects for Mr and Mrs Titford senior are now seriously threatened. If Mr Titford junior remains in arrears, the mortgagee will eventually sell both properties as the realisation from the Aranga farm alone will be insufficient to recoup the mortgagee's debt.
If the Crown is to settle the Manuwhetai Reserve issue it must acquire the land. Purchasing only the reserve area is not a feasible option. First, it is unlikely that Mr Titford would agree. Second, it will be important for any settlement that Mr Titford has the opportunity to leave the district as past personality conflicts between he and the claimants are unlikely to be easily forgotten.
It is likely that should the Rural Bank foreclose on its mortgage that there will be very adverse publicity for the Crown and Treaty settlements. This is because it will be perceived publicly that Mr and Mrs Titford senior have been forced off their farm (possibly with nothing) because of an issue related to settlement of a Treaty claim.
Further on he states - The Justice Department has sought the Commissioner's assistance to facilitate the purchase and administration of private land to address this particular Treaty issue. This is because the Land Act is a suitable vehicle to purchase and hold land for Treaty settlement purposes.
Sam Brown then states that Mr Chappell will commence negotiations with me in Tasmania on Friday 22 April 1994 and if a settlement is reached then an Agreement For Sale and Purchase and a Deed of Indemnity against further claims will be completed immediately (the next part has been withheld under section 9(2)(g)(i) of the Official Information Act).
Mr Brown states that Mr Chappell is not an employee of the Commissioner and as the Commissioner cannot delegate his authority to other than permanent employees of the department, a staff member will remain in New Zealand on short notice standby to fly to Tasmania to complete the documents on the Commissioner's behalf. That person is the Senior Lands and Property Officer from Whangarei who can be in place within 18 hours of a Saturday evening agreement.
Further on Brown states - it is our assessment that the proposal is reasonable because farm values have lifted since. It is our estimate that it will take considerable negotiation to bring this proposal to fruitition.
(The next three parts of this letter have been withheld under section 9(2)(g)(i) of the Official Information Act).
22nd April 1994, Minister of Lands, Denis Marshall, approved the Request for approval by the Minister of Lands, pursuant to Section 40(1) Land Act 1948, for the Commissioner of Crown Lands to purchase private land subject further to purchase agreement being ratified by Cabinet. (Released under the Official Information Act - Office of Crown Lands file 6925-904).

Crown sends Mediator to visit me in Tasmania :
22nd April 1994, The Government sent Ray Chappell, ex Rural Bank employee now employed by the Government to see us. This was arranged through MP, John Carter. On meeting Ray Chappell he told me that he was to be a mediator and I won't be pushing him around with bullshit.
Chappell told us that he had only come to listen to our side of the story and has not come to make any offers for the property as it will now be fully mediated on all points and they want to know and see all the facts. He spent all day with us and made out he couldn't believe everything that had gone on. We showed him the Bank letter from Mr Ewing of the 12th April 1994.
Chappell commented on the Banks letter and the Ernst Young report and stated that it is the Crown's and his view that they are totally wrong anyway. But I couldn't make any comment on the Ernst Young report as I hadn't seen or read the Ernst Young report done for the Bank.
I went through my valuations showing my equity was about $1.25 - $1.3 million when Tapsell came to buy the farm 5 five years earlier in 1987 and $620,000 in July 1987 when I shifted on to the farm in 1987 and about $3,000,000 in 1994. Chappell stated that if the Government looked at it on my basis, they might owe me $3 million to walk. But they have conceded that it is Maori land so I'll never get that as public opinion is of the same view so full compensation wouldn't look good for the Crown now.
He stated that when I purchased the property it was only worth about $40 a stock unit and I paid about $90 a stock unit. I pointed out that I had purchased its coastal value as well as its farm value which I had paid for and that the Crown Valuation was $865,000 at the time not being much different from my valuations done in 1987.
Chappell stated that the Crown valuation didn't take into account that the land is disputed. He stated that the coastal area is worth nothing as it is a sacred site and made so before the Waitangi Tribunal hearing was under way. There is no compensation for that aspect of the property making the original valuations wrong.
I told him about the 1939 Inquiry and recommendation and went through the other evidence laid out in this book. In the end, Chappell went away and rang Minister, Doug Graham.
On returning he stated that he was advised not to look at any thing I have any further as it was too complex and Wellington has advised him not to get involved in that side as it's totally irrelevant now, politically. Chappell's view was that it is Maori land and that I have to accept that as the Waitangi Tribunal works a long with the way the system works.

Chappell thought it was quite funny, that Mr Duke had been jailed over other matters and that the Taupo deposit after Elders had taken a commission of $32,000 had been paid back to them at the Rural Bank and not into a trust account.
He stated that the Rural Bank had got the remaining $168,000 back on the other side. Ray Chappell stated that he was himself working in the Crown owned Rural Bank as a Manager when the Taupo deposit happened and that he knew about it.
The Crown were now employing him to get my farm to solve the claim. He stated that the Government now has to buy the debt off me and negotiate with the National Bank. He stated that the Ernst Young report had to be ignored as it was done for the National Bank, not for me. Chappell stated that there is no compensation for land owned by third parties concerning Maori land claims. Also my early valuations were no good as they were done before the Waitangi Tribunal report came out showing that it is now Maori land in the eyes of the Crown.
Chappell also stated that the other reason they have to pay my debts for me is because the Crown wanted my parents and family to sign so they can not sue the Crown in the future, before they would get their money.

Chappell stated that when he does anything for the Government he always succeed in the end. He told us that he had to go overseas for awhile and would have to put our situation on hold as it's going to take longer to fix then he thought. Before leaving that afternoon he offered me $800,000 total to walk for the farm claiming that is what would have been left after all bills were paid.
I explained that to buy or replace the farm it would now cost approximately $3,250,000 to do so. The farm and livestock that was now being taken by the Crown to cover the so called costs of liabilities is $2,250,000. (Note, that the cattle and plant would cost me nearly $1 million to replace on their own without buying a farm).
Chappell stated that he might be able to have it raised to $1 million with all debts paid. Still I refused. Chappell told us a lie as he had said that he had not come to make us any offers, he has just come to mediate. When Chappell was leaving, he told me that if I want $2.4 million in the Rural Bank's report, I'll have to get a Politician for a friend. Chappell had about $10,000 in a bundle of $100 Australia notes and kept rolling it around so we could see it and stated to us that we must be needing some of this by now.

23rd April 1994, Chappell came back to see if I had changed my mind. He stayed a couple of hours going over history and events once again arguing for the Crown trying to substantiate the false Maori land claim as being correct. He took us to dinner that night then offered $1 million subject to speaking to Doug Graham. He wanted me to agree in writing that I would agreed to consider the one million while he was away. That way he might be able to get a further $500,000 over and above the $1 million, out of the National Bank with a negotiated discount on our loan and Taupo etc.
I told Chappell that I'm not signing any thing if I can't replace my farm. I don't want to sell the farm or cattle at Maunganui Bluff and they can buy the coastal area for the debt.
He told us that we don't have that choice and that I will never be able to keep the property as the Crown have wanted it since 1989. He went back to New Zealand the next day. He asked us to keep this meeting quiet and away from the media and told us that he will be returning later in the year. Chappell stated on leaving, that he would go away and look in to the matter over the next four or five months and meet with several Government MP's and see if he could get an inquiry into the whole affair.

2nd May, Chappell wrote to us thanking us for the courtesy and hospitality we showed during his visit in April. He stated that he had been to see my parents and my brother, Brian, and that my father was looking well but he had some concerns about my mother. He went on to say that he had spoken to Susan's mother and he got the impression she would very much like to see her Grandchildren. He thanked me for keeping the discussions out of the media. Chappell stated that he had spoken to my brother about lightening stock numbers on the farm. He said that he has strongly recommended to the Government that the offer be left on the table while he goes away overseas and if I wish to accept the offer during his absence I should discuss it with David Oughton.

Chappell advises us the Waitangi Tribunal Decision is Above the Law :
2nd August, Ray Chappell, got in touch with us stating that the Government don't know what they're going to do about the farm and told us that he will get in touch with us again shortly but it will probably be their offer or nothing as the Waitangi Tribunal is above the law in its decision on the land.

17th August 1994, Acting Commissioner of Crown Lands, Sam Brown, writes to Karin Knedler of the Treaty of Waitangi Policy Unit with a breakdown and analysis of DOSLI costs for the proposed purchase of the property.
The work prescription assumes that the Crown will if it purchases the property :
1. Count the livestock and quit those as quickly as possible.
2. Lease the property for grazing until at least April next year (to coincide with the expiry of the Harrison grazing lease).
3. Spend that time talking with the claimants about the areas to be reserved.
4. Survey these out of the two properties.
5. Complete the disposal of the balance of Titford's and Harrison's properties by 30 June 1995.
Further on Sam Brown states - I have also given some thought to the disposal of the residual land. It is difficult to know ahead of settlement of the claim what will be left. However my best estimate is as follows : Titford property 653 ha, extraction of 53 ha leaving 600 ha nett. Harrison property 293 ha, extraction of 43 ha, leaving 250 ha Nett. Total area of property 946 ha, extraction 96 ha, leaving a total of 850 ha.
There would be some advantages in selling the balance as one unit, not least being that Titfords property has no house. The (combined) property would have a potential to farm 10,000 stock units and so would be a large property by most standards.
If the residual property (of 850 ha) were offered as one lot it would fetch approximately $2 million - $2.5 million.
I should be very surprised if ascribing $2m to their claim for the recovery of Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki would be acceptable to the claimants. In essence their argument is that the Crown should have set apart these properties as part of the original sale contract. How the Crown remedies its original omission and at what cost is of no consequence to the claimants. (Released under the Official Information Act - Crown file 6925-904-01)

18th August, I wrote to the National Bank and a copy was sent to Doug Graham, asking the Bank to take over 1550 acres of the property and approximately 1200 head of cattle and leave us 30 cows and calves so we can pay the rates on the claim area and pay the family debts, leaving me with the claim area 95 acres. I did this to see if the Bank was now in coercion with the Crown and hopefully to prevent the claimants and Crown getting the land on the beach for their false claim. If I couldn't have a farm why should they have my land on the coast for a false land claim.

Offer Increased :
29th August 1994, Chappell rang to tell us that the Crown offer had increased and he was coming to see me and that he was bringing my Brother, Brian. I asked him how much the offer had increased because if it wasn't much don't bother coming to see me. He told me that he couldn't tell me on the phone and that he was coming to make his visit official and that I was not to tell the media about him coming, but the media already knew as they were contacting me asking me about Ray Chappell's offer of $1,000,000 even before Chappell had arrived and even before he had rung.

30th August, The Bank answered our letter stating that they appreciate my willingness to work towards a settlement of my obligations to the Bank and that careful consideration had been given to my offer. They said that there would be a substantial shortfall which would mean a significant loss for the Bank and in these circumstances the Bank is not prepared to accept the offer of settlement. (Letter:30)

This showed us that the Bank wanted to see the Crown get the claim for Maori. In fact, earlier in 1990, the Bank had suggested that they take the farm and cattle and leave us with the claim area. I now knew for sure when the Bank move on me they will also take my Father's property.

Chappell's Second Visit :
5th September 1994, Chappell returned to see us in a nasty manner.
On Chappell's first trip, he was Mediator and said all matters would be mediated. On his second trip, he was now a Government Negotiator.
The offer he had was for the same amount as last time but his written proposal agreement was in more detail with a lot more clauses protecting the Crown's interest and had lots of extra statements so that I couldn't sue them etc. It was no longer a straightforward sale agreement. Chappell stated that the Crown is not going to pay full price for the property as though it had a coastal development zoning, it is Maori land.
The Crown will not be replacing the farm and they are not going to be publicly blackmailed over history, as this whole matter would make the Crown look like fools. He stated that if they were to replace my farm, that would be setting a precedent and where ever Maori land claims popped up, people would be suing them on the grounds of early history, claiming that their land values had dropped.

Following are some of the main statements Chappell made at the second meeting.
- The deposit paid by the Bank on the Taupo situation was done so the Crown could make sure you would go broke in order to increase your debt.
- If you had agreed to the million dollars last time we would have been able to get half a million out of the National Bank to give to you but because you would not sign, you will now have to pay for it the hard way.
- We have people like Pat Booth (North & South Magazine reporter) on our side and contacts in the media who the public respect and believe and the Crown can use other Government Departments as well.
- If you come back into New Zealand to live or return to the farm, we can have you again set up and arrested and you will be charged again so we will publicly get the property. When you return back into the country we will strip search you and your immediate family each time. You are a marked man by the Bureaucrat system.
- Maoridom don't want you to live in New Zealand.
- If you attempt to take the Crown to Court, remember the Crown own the Court and Justice system so they can simply pay the Judge off because you won't get trial by jury in a case like this.
- The Crown will never be paying more than $1 million as that is what Arthur Alan Thomas got and that's the precedent even though Thomas's million was worth more than, by two or three times now. $1 million is the biggest payment that has ever been paid out to an individual.
- The system framed Arthur Alan Thomas and in your case the system wants the land for Te Roroa and bad luck for you that it happens to be a private asset and not a Crown asset.
- The Government have no fear of history concerning your land being exposed as we control the media and the Crown can find a thousand different excuses to why they shouldn't be paying any compensation. Doug Graham has no fair of any one going into this situation in detail as it is considered too complex by the Crown experts.
- The Crown will have the farm in a year or two and they will do it. There is enough bylaws and laws in the country that they'll will find a way of getting it. The Crown will do it in such a way that people will think that you got a lot of money.
- You won't be able to replace your farm and livestock with $1 million. The Crown will never negotiate with you on any matter. That will teach you a lesson for looking into archives and history which is nothing to do with you.
- We might even get you on the grounds of insanity as there are a lot of people around that are already prepared to say that you are crazy and insane.
- The Government only pay ex-gratia, not compensation. The Crown Law Office have said that we don't have to pay you compensation for the loss of your farm as it should have been Maori land any way, so you couldn't subdivide it because it is wahi tapu.
- When the Crown talk of compensation publicly, it is the Crown just buying a farm and livestock only, as though it is on the open market. It doesn't mean actual compensation as the New Zealand Government never pay that, they only make ex-gratia payments.
- You are not getting any Lawyers fees or anything, that's called a debt. It was decided back when Tapsell was in power, that we were going to get all of your land and we just had to play the game.
- The Crown can't help it that Maori claimed your land.
- The Police say you are a cunning criminal that hasn't been caught yet. They say you put diesel in your house, and then later burnt your own house, in order to blackmail the Crown. Also that you shot stock, cut fences and staged all of the problems at Dargaville de-valuing your property and that you attacked Te Roroa, hoping that the Crown would pay the Bank off leaving you with the farm and coastal area as well. That's another reason why the Crown have to have all the property, in order to punish you. You only got off because you had good Lawyers.
- Doug Graham and Jim Bolger say no way are you to return to that land. We won't pay you enough so you can't replace it anywhere as they say along with Maoridom that you're not welcome back in New Zealand. We have the power and the public support. Any way the public have accepted that claim on your property as being Maori land, so we will get away with the claim, so we can get away with anything if necessary.
- By you losing your land it effects one or two people, but by Crown not getting it back for Te Roroa it effects many hundreds of people. Any way, paying you would cost the tax payers millions and make the Crown look silly. By you going, makes many of the Te Roroa happy.
- The Maori's and media refer to it as Maori land and you can not change that. If people believe it is Maori land, so be it. As far as the Government are concerned, it is Maori land historically wise because Tapsell and the claimants say it is and say you knew it was Maori land. The Waitangi Tribunal confirms this by stating it is theirs. So there is no potential so there is no compensation. As far as the Government is concerned the case is closed and the Government itself is not interested in past history of what may or may not have happened or your view of the past or in fact what even happened at the Waitangi Tribunal hearing. You got up and spoke out against Maoridom so Maoridom say you have to be punished. They and the Crown are Treaty partners. It is how the system works and other land owners and farmers that do the same as you will get dealt with the same way if they looked at the past history. Those that speak out the most will get the least. That is the way Crown works.

Chappell stated, Knowing that you are from a Catholic up bringing the Crown know they can get away with this because of your up bringing you are not likely to have the guts to go out and kill anyone. Although they thought you would have done someone in by now. The Christian people are the easiest to take down as they think God will fix it. I, myself are an atheist. The Governments in some country's around the world would have simply disposed of you or some other death sentence. Morals and justice are what one believes and the Crown believe that they have been more than just to you as it is Maori land. Think of that, your wife and children could end up with nothing.
Ray Chappell stated that Doug Graham had told him to tell me that the matter is too far gone and the Tribunal decision is above the law and that it can't be challenged by me or any one else in the Courts. Chappell stated, Doug Graham had said that the Government were going to make sure that I didn't end up with a farm like Maunganui Bluff as I was too young to have had that much land or asset at my age and I was young enough to start all over again outside the country.
I stated that I am quite happy to return to the Dargaville farm but can't do that when I've been cut off financially and keep getting charged by the police of which all charges I have won.
He also told me that I had embarrassed the whole situation so the Government and Ministers say that I deserve all I get for taking down Maoridom concerning the claim.

Chappell's Crown offer was $3,250,000. This was for the entire farm, all livestock and all other items on the property. Out of this $3,250.000 they were taking away $2,250.000 for the debts as a result of the Maori land claim, loss of value on the coastal area, interest over the years and costs, leaving me with $1million. The Crown publicly alleged that they were taking responsibility for paying the debts. They were going to negotiate with the creditors to get the debts decreased and then they were going to keep the remainder for themselves. I was in effect, subsidising the Te Roroa land claim for $2,250,000, all because the Crown considered the coastal area was worth nothing. Chappell stated that he could pay us $1 million as he could get a write down of $1 million from the National Bank and other Creditors so they would gain $1 million there. He told us that the Crown will sell the farm to the Forestry for a couple of million after the debts were negotiated and sell the cattle off for about half a million. Chappell stated that this is the only reason why the Crown are getting involved and taking the responsibility of negotiating debts now in order to help us out of our problem concerning the Te Roroa claimants and their reserve.
He stated that in the end it would cost the Crown nothing to fix the land claim and there was nothing I could do about it, but to sell to them and that he can only do what Doug Graham's Government says he can do. As far as the Crown is concerned, my compensation is self-funding. The Crown will never be paying European compensation, only helping to resolve the Waitangi Tribunal recommendations and compensation for Maori claimants past injustices.

Chappell said, In cases like yours, people just have to accept that this is how it is going to work where there are claims on private land occasionally and the private asset is needed to fix the claim no matter how injust you think it might be. Yours and Mr Harrison's cases are exceptional cases concerning freehold land.
I stated, What about the law change protecting private land. They can still take private land by making it a sacred site. This is why your coastal area is worth nothing in the eyes of the Crown.
Chappell replied, Yes, that is right in some cases. We can still take private land if we make it a sacred site. That way it loses value like in your case. I stated that the Crown have said that I would not lose my freehold title.
Chappell replied that it is only referring to a piece of paper in the Titles Office that says it's yours while you hold on to it. The Government won't be seen forcibly taking the land as it will be the Bank or someone else removing me.
I stated, So you don't guarantee freehold title land ownership where someone is effected by claims.? Chappell said, That's right, only title.

More statements made by Chappell -
- We the Crown know you can not sell it on the open market. We are your only buyers as the police charges make you the bad guy and we are only helping you out in the eyes of the public. If we do nothing, the Bank will just take it in the end. You should take the $1 million so that it doesn't look messy for the Government. If you don't, your father will lose his land too.
- Freehold title is only while you can hold on to it. That's why the Crown have said and it will only be time before Maori get your land any way. Freehold doesn't include financial value it just secures registration of a piece of paper in the Land Transfer office saying it's yours. In your case it doesn't really mean that as you have a mortgage, even though you bought it you still haven't paid the Bank loan off. If it ends up with sacred sites on it, the Crown can't help that. You only got the loan from the Bank for your property on your families good name which you have now wrecked, otherwise you wouldn't have got it in the first place.
- There is no compensation for loss of potential or land value as in your case it was lost in theory before the Tribunal delivered its report, unlike the Aranga Farmers farms. We had to say publicly that there would be compensation in order to stop racism but you had been told earlier in writing by Minister's Jeffrey's and Graham that there is no compensation.
- The word of Maori or native has to be believed first and that also goes for their verbal evidence.
I am to the New Zealand Government what Mr Hoover was to the USA Government. I have worked under six different Prime Ministers and I know how the system works. Every case I take on I always get a resolution. I have an unbroken record and I will get my way in the end. I have never lost at any negotiation.

Chappell wanted me to sign the agreement again but I refused. He told me that if I didn't sign it the National Bank will sell me up and my Dad would lose his farm also. Chappell stated, Your father and mother are not well, the Crown can just simply wait for them to die.
I asked him what about interest on the money owed to my parents and he laughed and stated. We're not paying any one interest except the Bank. I've told your father to treat that loan as your share of your inheritance in the future. Any way, only those secured by way of first mortgage get interest. Look at it like this, the million you get now is all you would have been worth ten years ago if you were able to resell all the land and do what you want.
I replied, pointing out that the one million dollars today can't replace the farm and livestock and that it would cost at least $3,250,000 to replace.
Chappell replied, That's the way the system works. I can't help what has happened.
I then told Chappell to leave as he was wasting his time so he'd better get out as I am feeling very bitter that he and the Crown are forcing me to pay for a false Maori land claim.
Chappell then left, stating that he was going to go down to the local police station in Smithton, Tasmania, to say I pulled a shotgun on him. And he told me that he was my only chance of getting anything. As Chappell left he stated that he would deny what he has said.

Chappell visits my Family :
When Ray Chappell got back to New Zealand, he went and saw my Brother and told him that I was rude to him when he visited me. He had offered to pay my Brother $500,000 to get Power of Attorney from me. But my Brother refused, as he didn't want to become involved in the conspiracy to get rid of me. Chappell was trying to play my family off against me. He was offering me $1 million but at the same time, telling the family (my Mother) that I was getting $2.5 million like the National Banks report.

Note - Because the claim had stopped my land from selling and stopped me from having free run of the farm, the debt rouse to $2,250,000 over the 8 years that the problem had now run. It had cost me several years-lost income as well. With $1 million (NZ) there is no way we can replace 1650 acres and 1200 cattle. A Land Agent has told us that to purchase a property that size and soil type now in New Zealand it would cost us at least $3 million, plus, with out livestock. So in effect, I wasn't only being robbed of my coastal land but the bulk of the farm as well.

I keep telling the Government I want my property replaced as promised, I don't want money unless I can buy the farm I want like I had at Dargaville. They promised me a replacement farm a couple of years ago and never produced one square inch of land.

60 Minutes Programme Visits :
After Chappell's visit, 60 Minutes came which was reported on by John Hudson. They covered for the Government saying the Government offered me more than $3 million. They had seen the full details of the Chappell agreement. They alleged that my property at Maunganui Bluff was abandoned, calling it Maori land. Doug Graham stated that I was blackmailing the Government and it was for everyone else to judge whether I was greedy. It was stated that the Government could give Maori all of our land instead of the Aranga farmer's land. I showed 60 minutes the real history and truth as laid out in this book that Te Roroa's claim isn't a just claim, but to no avail. Sixty Minutes mis-represented the truth. Doug Graham stated it was just one of those things that happen to you in life. Again, propaganda from them was put to full use. The Crown then claimed that they were finished with me. The Crown was using trial by media with the television station they owned and had control of.

November 1994, Eight weeks after Chappell's visit, the MAF (Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries) were now being used to attack me (as promised by Ray Chappell) through the stock on the farm at Dargaville telling me to fix the situation. I had no way of doing any thing about it, as I had been totally cut off financially fourteen months earlier. MAF were ringing me in Tasmania from Wellington demanding that I put a house on the property and employ a full time Manager. There was a photo in the newspaper of a skinny cow and they said it was my cow but it wasn't, it belonged to Pouto Farms (Ian Russell) who was leasing Don Harrison's ex property from the Crown. My Brother and Don Harrison were looking after my stock at this stage. When a member of the family approached the Dargaville paper, their view was, "well it made news." But again it served the purposes for more propaganda for the Crown, which resulted in them de-stocking a large number of cattle off my property.
Note - We would send back any money we could spare from Tasmania to pay bills.

23rd December, Mr Ewing from the National Bank rang to say that they have been advised by their Lawyers to sell all my cattle now and that I no longer have any say.

1995

We kept sending letters to the Government with different ways of settling the claim but each time the Government would not move, it was their offer or nothing. Where are the negotiations they kept telling the public about.

Crown waiting for Mortgagee Sale :
4th January 1995, Karin Knedler (Manager Policy/Negotiations, Department of Justice) does a report on an e-mail letter from Richard Featherstone (Justice Department, Treaty of Waitangi Policy Unit) of 21st December 1994 stated - 18 agreed that all rentals, profits and any sale proceeds received by DOSLI in respect to those parts of the Titford and Harrison properties that are not desired by the claimants are to be paid to the Department of Justice for payment into the Te Roroa Receipts on Behalf of the Crown (ROBOC) account. At the end of the report she stated - A paper proposing the establishment of a land bank will be prepared for Cabinet consideration and a cap proposed which would allow purchase of the Titford property should it come up for mortgagee sale. (Crown files, Filenote C38/027)

Bank Take Cattle :
10th January 1995, National Bank writes telling us they have taken 260 cattle off my property.

Prime Minister Denies Arbitration :
9th February 1995, Wrote to Prime Minister, Jim Bolger suggesting that the matter be arbitrated by myself and Government starting from the beginning, history, valuations and events.

8th March, Prime Minister, Jim Bolger, wrote to me stating that since 1989, the Crown has made a number of offers to me and the last and final offer was made in September 1994. He said that the Crown therefore is not prepared to enter into the arbitration, which I propose. (Letter:31)

Bank Demands Its Money :
19th July 1995, I received a notice of demand for $1,940,467.81 from the National Banks Lawyers Kensington Swan which is the same Law firm used by the claimants for the Waitangi Tribunal. (Letter:32)
It was now rumoured that the Crown was waiting for a Mortgagee Sale of my property.

Federated Farmers Get Involved :
Bill Guest, Federated Farmers in Dargaville, offered to become involved in the situation and said that they were going to get the place re-valued taking in everything from the start. They had Valuers do a report. Bill Guest promised to take in all the early valuations, which everyone else refused to do. I found out later this wasn't being done and they were talking to the Crown, Te Roroa and head of Maoridom, the very ones out to rip me off for my land so I asked them in writing to stop. They went ahead and continued their valuation, which was done by Mr Michael Corrigan. We later found out that Mr Corrigan had also been an employee of the Maori Affairs. His valuation said that we should get an equitable ex gratia payment considered to be $2,260,000 nett. He had used the Rural Bank valuation of Ernst Young, only.

Strip Searched at Auckland Airport :
A meeting was set up by Federated Farmers, between Clive Jackson, Graham Latimer, MP John Carter and me in Whangarei. Bill Guest stated earlier that MP Carter had said if I came into the country, I would be locked up.
28th October, When I arrived at Auckland Airport I was called away by customs, stripped searched and held for a couple of hours as they went through some of the evidence papers. They told me they had been ordered to do this by the Government. Chappell had kept his promise.

Meeting with Federated Farmers in Whangarei :
6th November 1995, In Whangarei the President of Federated Farmers made it clear the Government had no intention in allowing me to stay on my property. Graham Latimer stormed out of the meeting as he could not handle the truth and MP John Carter couldn't stay. So much for a meeting after coming from Tasmania at an expense, I could not afford. It was stated by Bill Guest that Mr Corrigan would not meet me or stand by his report as he does a lot of business for the Crown and they would send him out of business.

National Bank Meeting :
A few days later we went to the Bank. Craig Langwell and Mr Ewing made it very clear that they would have to move if I did not take what was put in front of me regarding the Federated Farmers report. We then met Clive Jackson, Solicitor, along with my brother and Bill Guest of Federated Farmers. From Mr Jackson's office Bill Guest spoke to MP John Carter who said that the Government will make me a payment if it is lowered from the $2,260,000 nett as the Government would not be seen paying for a valuation set by some one else. John Carter agreed with Bill Guest that the Crown would most likely accept $2,150,000 so an agreement was then signed and sent to Doug Graham. Federated Farmers wanted me to pay $60,000 for the report done by Mr Corrigan. I was not happy with this agreement as I knew I was being robbed of at least $1.1 million as this report a long with the Ernst Young report did not take in the original valuations, but I did not have much choice in the matter due to the black mail situation I was in so I signed the agreement then returned to Tasmania.

Notified Crown Solicitor's I'd signed Under Duress :
16th November, I wrote to the Crowns Solicitor saying that I had sighted the offer that the Federated Farmers had done and I had signed the agreement under duress as it was killing my father and that Federated Farmers will not act for me unless I signed. I had also suggested three options in settling the matter that suited me. But I knew this whole thing was a waste of time as the President of Federated Farmers told me there would probably be no compensation. (Letter:33)

4th December, Federated Farmers offer of $4,560,000, which included an ex-gratia of $2,150,000, went to Cabinet.

5th December, Graham Robertson, President of Federated Farmers rang to say they got nowhere. Doug Graham still only wants to give me the same as last time although Federated Farmers have produced a valuation report to backup the amount of their proposal.

 

Federated Farmers cannot Act any Further :
6th December, Graham Robertson stated Federated Farmers tried to get the Government to then pay $1.5 million but they wouldn't so they have got the Government to re-offer their old offer of $1 million and as the case is too complex if I turn it down, Federated Farmers will no longer even assist because it is becoming too costly. He stated that it is one of those things that will go down in history and too many in their organisation are saying not to support TITFORD. They also have a lot of Maori people in their organisation. Graham Robertson stated as Bill Guest had already stated the Government could not assist the Aranga Farmers until they got rid of me.

Bank Serves Foreclose Notice :
I knew from a telephone call from the Bank that they were now going to take my farm and my parent's farm and I would get nothing. So with pressure from the Bank going to foreclose, my parents farm at risk and also health problems of our own, I was forced under duress to sign the Governments offer of $1 million.

7th December, The National Bank went to my parents place to serve a notice to sell up the farm but were told that I had been forced to sign the Governments offer under duress. At this point, Ray Chappell was already up at Kaihu negotiating with the Te Roroa claimants.

Government threatens to hold Parents Titles if we Speak to Media :
Ray Chappell contacted my parents and told them we would have our money by Christmas but they would have to wait for the money owed to them until after Christmas. He telephoned me in Tasmania telling me that if I say one word to the media, my parent's titles to their land would not be returned without a fight.

Forced under Duress to sign my Property over to the Crown :
11th December, I signed the final Government agreement under duress on the side of the road in Burnie, Tasmania. There were now many new conditions in this agreement. The latest one was that the National Bank now wanted protection so I could not sue them. We were not to tell anyone the price I received as the price had been inflated through Crown propaganda. Sue had to sign a paper saying she wouldn't tell anyone the price I got and that she would not claim for any damages from the Government before they would hand any money over, even though she didn't own the Dargaville farm. So with all of her work, stress and back problems from all the heavy work on the farm and loss of her belongings in the house fire, there's no compensation for that from the Crown. The Government took over the control of paying the debts (created by them as a result of the conspiracy of the Te Roroa land claim) the Crown got a large reduction from the Bank.

12th December 1995, Commissioner of Crown Lands, Sam Brown, wrote to the Minister of Lands, Denis Marshall concerning the purchase of our property. Sam Brown's statements from this letter are as follows -
"The purpose of this purchase is to hold this land as Crown land for use in whole or in part, for settlement of the Te Roroa (WAI 38) Treaty of Waitangi Claim."
Our assumptions are that Mr Titford has accepted the Crown's offer and that the Office of Treaty Settlements (OTS) may wish to use the Land Act 1948 as a vehicle for the purchase. The advantages of using the Land Act are first, one of the specific purposes of this Act is to purchase land for the Crown. Second, land held under this Act need not be to offered back to the former owner before transfer to another use.
The Crown accepts responsibility for all agreed debts up to (NZ) $2,250,000.
The original Crown estimate was that there would be over $750,000 worth of livestock available for transfer to the Crown to help offset the Crown cost of picking up Mr Titford's debts. It is now certain that the numbers and value of livestock left to be transferred will be significantly less, if indeed there are any left at all!
It is known that since the time of the original assessment, that Mr Titford has lived in Tasmania and the management of the livestock has been carried out by his brother from a distance. Even the best management under these circumstances predisposes to high losses. The Ministry of Agriculture is also known to have removed or destroyed animals that were emaciated or injured. In addition, the property is now leased to Mr Donny Harrison the former neighbour who currently has a large number of his own livestock (said to be 500 cattle) on the property. This suggests that Mt Titford's livestock numbers must have fallen significantly if the property is able to carry this large number of outside cattle.
The task of negotiating the envisaged mortgage and debt discounts will probably be handled by the Crown facilitator appointed to this case, Mr Ray Chappell. Mr Chappell is a highly experienced former rural banker well capable of successfully achieving this objective.
(Released under the Official Information Act - Crown reference 6925-904-01, case number 96/141)

Crown & Justice Department use Propaganda :
An item appeared in the New Zealand Herald on 13th December 1995 stating - Titford takes $3.25M to settle dispute over Northland Farm. The former Maunganui Bluff farmer Mr Allan Titford had accepted a Government offer of $3.25 million for his Northland property. Mr Titford, who had previously rejected the over, yesterday signed over his farm to a regional land bank. The deal ends a divisive land dispute for the fisherman-turned-farmer who abandoned the property and moved to Tasmania with his wife and two young children in 1993. He could not be contacted for comment last night, but it is believed the settlement is made up of a $2.25 million payment to cover the debts he incurred since a land claim was lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal in 1987 and a further $1 million for the farm. The Te Roroa sub-tribe successfully lodged a claim for the Manuwhetai Reserve, a 38ha pocket included in the 666ha Titford property due to a land title mistake. Mr Titford last week sought $4million, but after announcing the settlement yesterday, the Minister of Justice, Mr Graham, described the agreed sum as "a fair figure." "I believe that the effort made by the Crown to acquire Manuwhetai and solve Mr Titford's position will be seen positively by all New Zealanders," the Minister said. Mr Titford had until Friday to accept the deal and faced pressure from his bank to pay the $2.25 million debt or lose the farm.

Media spread Propaganda :
The newspapers stated that I had accepted $3.25 million to settle the dispute being $2.25 million for the debt and $1 million for the farm. But actually compensation was only equal to the livestock and machinery and the farm was taken to cover the debts they caused and to cover for the loss of value on the coastal land due to the false claim. The media did not mention that the livestock, machinery, surveying and development done on the property were included and that I was forced to sign under duress. The media called it debts, alleging that I had incurred them when in fact they were forced on me as a result of the false land claim as covered in this book. In addition, the media say they tried to contact me but this is also bullshit as no body, except one person, rang to say sorry to hear you were forced off your property. The media claimed that I had abandoned the property. However, as shown, we were forced by being burnt out by the claimant's claim and especially the Crown. Even our living allowance was being recalled and considered a debt. It should also be remembered that the Bank took the income off the farm while we were being held to ransom from the day the Bank took control, up until the day I was forced to sign under duress, six years later. The Justice Minister, Doug Graham, claimed it was a fair deal and alleging that the Crown was helping me out. Not bad when they were in fact ripping me off for my private asset.

Reasons why our Properties were Required :
Reasons why the Crown and Te Roroa wanted Mr Harrison's and my property is that the flat land between the two properties has potential to build a man made lake, making our properties a central location making possibilities for a Golf Course and Tourism between Kai iwi Lakes, Waipoua Kauri Forest and Maunganui Bluff, being my original idea raised back in 1988. But of course, this could not be done until the coastal area was sold.
They also wanted the place for Adept International's Genetic Breeding programme and also another plan was to build a Maori Pa.

22nd December, We received the sum of $1,000,000 on paper from the Treaty of Waitangi Policy Unit but by the time Bank fees, tax to the Australian Government and costs it ended up being $800,000 for my farm and all stock.

1996
I could not afford to replace my farm in New Zealand, as in theory I was only paid for the stock and machinery or less than one third of my equity.

The Government took 4 -5 months to release my parents title to their farm and to pay the money owed to them. Chappell stated it would take time for my parent's titles to be released as if I protested they would give my parents a lot off hassles.

16th April 1996, N.S. Phillips for Commissioner of Crown Lands wrote to The Chief Executive of Te Puni Kokiri, Ray Chappell, regarding the completion of stock sale of all our cattle which was sent to him from the Property Officer, Stuart Graham in Whangarei. He listed a breakdown of the stock types, number and prices received which were :
24 x Steers, 382 x Cows, 123 x Calves, 147 x Heifers, 81 x 18 month Steers, 29 x 18 month Heifers, 5 x 18 month Bulls, 112 x Weaner Steers, 103 x Weaner Steers, 6 x Boner Cows, 11 x Store Bulls and 4 x Mixed (poor calves and small bulls). Making a total count of 1047 stock. The net proceeds they sold the stock for was $232,391 inclusive of GST. (Released under the Official Information Act - Crown reference 6925-904-01)

In November 1996, there was a notice in the Dargaville District newspaper about a Record of Mandate in respect of negotiations with Te Roroa and the Crown in respect of their historical claims and comments, views and inquiries about this were to be forwarded to Margaret Dugdale of the Office of Treaty Settlements, Wellington.

25th November 1996, I wrote to Margaret Dugdale in reference of the notice of claims against the Crown and explained that the claim was a false claim lodged by Gary Hooker, Sharon Murray, Alex Nathan and Robert Parore. I stated that these people have friends and family that work in various Government and Crown Departments where it was wrongly alleged at the Waitangi Tribunal that various files were either missing or only survived in fragmentary form. I explained that the history shows there was never any injustice done by the Crown in this case to any Maori. I stated that the Tribunal made a recommendation on only five percent of my land yet I was forced into duress to give up all of my property at terms that were not acceptable to me or lose the farm to the Bank. I explained that I was asking the Crown for return of my land or for a public inquiry into this whole affair. And I believe that there should be a public inquiry so that I can have my land returned and true justice done. (Letter:35) I rang Margaret Dugdale in New Zealand a couple of times and left a message for her to ring back which she never did. When I finally got to speak to her, she told me that she has had orders from Bolger, etc, not to talk to me about the situation.

1997
7th January, I wrote to Prime Minister, Bolger, explaining that we have numerous items of evidence to prove that the claim is a false claim. I stated that the Aranga farmers got 95 percent of their valuation for their farms and I was forced off with less than 40 percent. I asked Bolger for an inquiry into the situation.

11th February, Bolger answered my letter stating that the Crown considers the matters raised in my letter were fully addressed in the settlement agreed between me and the Crown in December 1995. Accordingly, the Crown does not propose to commence an inquiry into the matter as it regards it as closed. (Letter:34)

1999
14th January, the One New Zealand Foundation wrote to Prime Minister Jenny Shipley concerning the Te Roroa claim and they consider that this claim must be re-opened, or an inquiry held, in the light of evidence they have located.

30th January, the One New Zealand Foundation (Ross Baker) wrote to Max Bradford, MP for Rotorua concerning the claim and tells him that he has uncovered further evidence which suggests that a further inquiry should be held and Mr Bradford asked Doug Graham for comment on the letter. Mr Baker states that the land is not Te Roroa land and were never mentioned or intended to be reserved from the sale of the Maunganui Block and he also states that the Crown "took" private land in order to enable the return of Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki to claimants.

11th March 1999, Doug Graham writes to Hon Max Bradford, MP for Rotorua, stating that the alleged missing document was infact part of the initial document bank available from the beginning of the inquiry. Doug Graham states that Parore te Awha laid traditional claim to the Maunganui block through his descent from the Te Roroa chief, Toa, not through his Ngapuhi lineage and today the Te Roroa claimants represent the descendants of both Tiopira Kinaki, and Parore Te Awha, among with other Te Roroa chiefs. He goes on to state that although reserves at Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were not mentioned in the Deed of Sale for the Maunganui block, the Tribunal concluded that the chiefs understood that theses lands would be reserved from sale. This was on the basis of the strong historical importance of the lands, and the fact that the reserves had been surveyed by a Crown-employed surveyor prior to the sale. Mr Graham states The Crown did purchase farms from Mr Titford, and Mr Harrison, but these purchases were made on a strictly willing seller basis. Comment - Gun at head - sell your property or be sold up.

18th March 1999, The One New Zealand Foundation received a letter from Prime Minister, Jenny Shipley, stating that the Director of the Waitangi Tribunal has confirmed that Kaipara Minute Book 3 was not missing from the Waitangi Tribunal hearing and that pages from Frank Smith's survey fieldbook show that he was indeed the surveyor of the ML 3297-8 plan. She states that there are no grounds for making a further inquiry into the claim. Shipley stated that the purpose of the Crown's submissions is not to be adversial, but to assist the Tribunal in coming to a balanced judgement on the facts.

July 1999, A meeting was held with the Chief Surveyor between me and the One New Zealand Foundation in Auckland. A list of questions was put forward which was answered on the 8th July which are as follows -
Q1. Can you categorically state that field book 13 was Frank Smith's field book?
A. The Field book register shows the name Frank Smith.
Q2. Can you categorically state that the workings in field book 13 are Frank Smith's?
A. No.
Q3. Can you categorically state that plan 3297-8 was made by Frank Smith?
A. There is a signature on the plan dated 14 September 1875, which appears to be F.S. Smith.
Q4. Was plan 3297-8 Certified/Approved?
A. There is no approval notice on the plan.
Q5. Does an original certified plan take precedence over a tracing? i.e. Plan 3253.
A. The tracing would be prepared from the plan and it would depend upon the purpose of the tracing.
Q6. When do you think Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were drawn on the tracing of plan 3253?
A. I do not know. Research of the old files may provide an answer, if the old files are available. This research should be done by an accredited agent.
Q7. When would "Waste Lands of the Crown" have been put on Plan 3297-8?
A. Same answer as Q.6.
Q8. What variation would the Crown Surveyors have used if they had surveyed Manuwhetai/Whangaiariki?
A. The magnetic variation varies by approximately 4' per year. The difference between ML 3297 and SO 2256 may be a bearing adjustment, instead of magnetic variation.
Q9. Why would "Native Reserve" be crossed out on plan 2256 and replaced with "Crown Land"?
A. Same answer as Q.6.
Q10. Could a "Crown Title" be given to a "Native Reserve" then sold as freehold land?
A. This is a legal question and should be answered by an expert in Crown Land matters.
Q11. Is plan 3297-8 a plan, map or survey plan?
A. ML 3297 is a plan.
Q12. What status has plan/map 3297-8?
A. It is a record of survey information.
Q13. Does plan/map 3297-8 tie in with the triangulation survey of Maunganui re field book 17 1875 and the minor triangulation survey of Maunganui in 1881?
A. It has not been possible to establish that point "A" on ML 3297 was part of the original triangulation.
Q14. Why was Manuwhetai laid differently on plan/map 3297-8 than on plan 2256, 1881?
A. Same answer as Q.6.
Q15. Why wasn't Whangaiariki laid of properly in 1881?
A. Same answer as Q.6.
Q16. Does plan/map 3297-8 give the claimants title to Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki?
A. A plan does not give title, it is part of the title document.
Q17. Does plan/map 3297-8 fully comply with the 112 sections of the Native Reserves Act 1873 - Re procedure?
A. It has not been possible to research the Native Reserves Act 1873 to answer this question.
Q18. Was plan 3297-8 set aside in the Deed of Sale of Maunganui?
A. Same as answer Q.6.
Q19. Who made plan 3297-8?
A. Impossible to answer this question.
Q20. If Maunganui and Whangaiariki were to set aside, why weren't they shown on the Memorial of Ownership as Waipoua No 2 for Te Roroa?
A. Same as answer Q.6.