Amnesty International has been called in to rule against a case involving the New Zealand government using manufactured corrupt documents to acquire freehold title land from an innocent white New Zealand farmer. This is the final part in a series on Allan Titford, claiming the farmer has been an innocent political prisoner since he opposed the Crown acquiring his freehold titled land to help settle Te Roroa’s ‘alleged’ Treaty of Waitangi claim.
“Te Roroa got $9M and 90 acres - I got $200K burnt and left with ashes!”
In the previous three parts of this series, we have told how Mr Titford purchased his freehold titled farm in 1986. One month later Te Roroa placed a Treaty of Waitangi claim with the Waitangi Tribunal on 90 acres of Mr Titford’s 1742-acre farm.
This same claim had been rejected by Parliament in 1942 after a judicial inquiry by Chief Judge Shepherd in 1939. Once the claim in 1986 was lodged, the government, Te Roroa, the police and the media referred to it as ‘Maori land’ with Te Roroa members squatting on the land, erecting shacks, signs stating “Maori land” and a powhenua, a statement it was their land. But Mr Titford toppled the powhenua with his chainsaw.
While Mr Titford issued eviction notices, the police turned a blind eye stating, it was ‘Maori land’ and he should give it back.
The Waitangi Tribunal now has more power than the government and can order the return of state owned assets. Submissions being heard by a select committee, in most cases with a vested interest in the claim, can mislead Parliament to allow a fraudulent claim to proceed. Such has happened with the ‘alleged’ Te Roroa claim.
Queen Victoria did not have the power or authority to give special rights in the Treaty such as the initiation of 'apartheid legislation' which empowers the Waitangi Tribunal over and above the Crown.
While it has been found Te Roroa had absolutely no right to the 110 acre alleged wahi tapu called Manuwhetai (90 acres on Mr Titford’s land), they have tried on numerous occasions to claim this and other land as their own over the years.
In the title and also the deed of sale signed in 1876, there is no mention of Manuwhetai being cut out of the sale, the only reserve on the Maunganui Block being Taharoa, 250 acres for Ngapuhi. Te Roroa were squatters on this land although the true owner, Parore Te Awha (Ngapuhi) allowed them to sell the Waipoua No 1 and retain Waipoua No 2 of 12,220 acres.
Te Roroa had lost the majority of all their land pre 1840 Treaty in previous battles, but Parore Te Awha, who was related to Te Roroa, allowed them the Waipoua block. “Te Roroa people are only squatters, living on the edge of Waipoua Forest”, stated the late and respected hereditary Ngapuhi chief Graham Rankin.
Mr Titford was harassed by Te Roroa, arrested, pressured and allegedly beaten by the police on numerous occasions without conviction. His buildings were set on fire to destroy evidence, stock stolen, plant sabotaged and his life threatened, but the government showed little concern.
Finally, someone burnt his house to the ground hoping it would destroy all his documents showing this claim was a fraud, but Mr Titford had made copies of the documents, which he had safely stored. With nowhere to live and in fear of their lives without protection from the police and virtually bankrupt, the whole family was forced to flee to Tasmania in 1993. Mr Titford has recently been held in prison on remand for nine months (equivalent) then released without conviction because there was no case to answer. An ‘Innocent Political Prisoner’!
In 1994 the Crown once again offered to purchase Mr Titford's freehold titled land for only a fraction of its true value before the ‘alleged’ claim was place on it instigated by John Carter, Doug Graham and presented by Ray Chappel.
Law firm, Phillips Fox, drafted the 1994 agreements for the Crown. Mr Titford, on his lawyer Clive Jackson’s advice, made amendments to this offer but the Crown rejected it, stating they were not going to be blackmailed when in fact the Crown and the police had continually blackmailed, harassed and refused the Titfords protection for over six years.
Mr Titford and Federated Farmers made counter offers using registered valuers' valuations (along with the National Banks independent Ernst & Young valuation), but the Crown rejected these offers. The Crown then allegedly offered the Titford family a $500,000 bribe to say Allan was insane, to enable them to assume power of attorney and sign the documents on Allan’s behalf, but the family refused.
In 1995, the Crown re-extended the 1994 offer to purchase Mr Titford’s entire farm for $3.25 million. This included a staggering debt of $2.25 million created by the Rural Bank after taking over the running of his farm in 1989 eleven days after the Waitangi Tribunal was given the go ahead from the Justice Department. The debt was incurred over the next seven years without approval by Titford. Neither the bank nor the Crown to this day can give itemised accounts for the $2.25 million debt, which meant Mr Titford could not receive the value of the land owing and could not claim a refund from the IRD for his tax losses. The Crown purchase offer in 1995 now ‘magically’ included within the offer $750,000 of livestock and plant valued at $50,000, which meant Mr Titford would receive $200,000 to purchase another equivalent farm of 1750 acres, although the government repeated in the media that Mr Titford had received $3.25 million dollars for his farm! Titford kept fighting. The Crown simply adopted the position of ‘smoking Titford out’. The reality was the Crowns offer was only 40% of the Ernst & Young net valuation.
By 1995 Mr Titford was being forced to the brink of bankruptcy, which would have also meant his father’s farm, held as security, would have been seized by the bank. Mr Titford therefore agreed to the re-extended Phillips Fox 1994 agreement on December 8, 1995 with one additional clause exempting the Titford family from any further liabilities, which the Crown accepted.
Late in the afternoon of December 11, 1995 Sam Samec, the Crown’s instructed and paid notary public of Tasmania, received a completely an enlarged 'new' agreement drafted by the Crown Law Office to be signed by Mr and Mrs Titford early the next morning.
Without legal advice, Mr and Mrs Titford had no other option than to sign the documents ‘under duress’ or lose everything they had worked so hard for, plus Mr Titford’s father’s farm which had been in the family for 150 years. This 'new' agreement contained many extra clauses including, one that Mr Titford could not sue the bank for the mismanagement of his farm and for the shortfall of their valuation when it took control of all his finances in 1988.
Mr Titford made sure the Crown knew he did not agree with the 'new' agreement and was selling his farm ‘under duress’ and ‘without legal advice’ by adding an amendment to page 11 of the sale agreement, plus an attached page entitled, “To Attach to the Liabilities”.
At 10.30am, Mr Samec bundled up the documents and faxed them back to the Crown Law Office and later that afternoon he couriered the hard copies. Mr Titford was never given copies of the documents he had just counter signed.
When Clive Jackson, the Titfords' lawyer, read that the Crown was saying Mr Titford received $3.25 million in the media and had sold as a willing seller, he wrote to the Crown Law Office for a copy of the agreement but was refused. When he eventually received a copy some seven months later he stated, “I would have advised you not to sign it”.
When the documents arrived at the Crown Law Office, there was concern at Mr Titford’s amendments and counter offer as shown in a faxed memo between the Crown Law Office and the Office of Treaty Settlements. The Minster of Justice, Hon Doug Graham and the Minister of Crown Lands, Sam Brown, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen, executed the documents but Mr Titford never received a copy of the documents he had signed in Tasmania or a copy of the alleged fully executed documents.
Mr Titford did not initial any of the pages of the documents, which made it very easy to substitute pages that, “the Crown’s officials perhaps did not consider it appropriate for it to be authenticated as part of the agreement”.
In 2000 with the help of the Ombudsman, One New Zealand Foundation Inc requested a file of Hon Doug Graham’s that had been restricted from public viewing. In this file amongst other important documents was a copy of the deed of sale with Mr Titford’s amendment ‘alleged’, which had been acknowledged by the Minister of Justice, Hon Doug Graham and witnessed by Mr Samec. It is interesting to note there was also a restricted file from the Hon Don McKinnon on Te Roroa, but he refused to release it. What is he hiding? (To be released in 2103 when Titford will be 103 years of age).
Page substituted in deed of sale without Mr Titford’s consent
In 2004 One New Zealand Foundation Inc requested a copy of the deed from the Office of Treaty Settlement under the Official Information Act. A copy was received from the director of the Office of Treaty Settlements who had been a recipient of the memo from the Crown Law Office, stating, “(1). Titford’s change to (B) of Deed”, but clause (B) with the amendment ‘alleged’ had been substituted with a clean page. The director of the Office of Treaty Settlements must have known that this amendment had been made but sent a copy with a substituted clean page. A letter to the Minister of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Hon Mark Burton, with a copy of the 'true' amended page from Mr Graham’s restricted file was answered immediately, stating, “The version released did not include the alteration made at the time of signing, at the request of Mr Titford, in which the word ‘alleged’ was inserted into the document prior to the phrase wahi tapu”. How many 'versions' of a legal document can there be, unless someone plays 'swap the pages'?
While the memo from the Crown Law Office to the Office of Treaty Settlements also shows concern at the attachment, “To attach to the Liabilities”, this had been removed from the sale agreement before Mr Brown executed it. The Ombudsman’s officials found “The Crown’s officials perhaps did not consider it appropriate for it to be authenticated as part of the agreement in view of the comments at the end of the document”. What right did the Crown’s officials have to tamper with or change the documents without Mr Titford’s consent after Mr Titford had signed them and Mr Samec had witnessed them? Mr Titford had written, “I Allan Titford, believe we have been pushed into this list of creditors as a result of the Waitangi Tribunal claim”.
While Mr Titford has complained that he also made many amendments to page 11 of the sale agreement, these have never appeared in any copy we have received until Mr Titford recently received a file from the police that had a copy of page 11 with all his amendments, stating he only agreed with six out of the 20 pages of the sale agreement and that he was selling his farm ‘under duress’ and ‘without legal advice’. This amendment to page 11 is signed by Mr Titford and initialled by Mr Samec, the Crown’s instructed and paid notary public, while the substituted page is only initialled by Mr Brown.
The Crown Law Office has admitted they added a date for the transfer of title to tie up with the date Mr Titford had allegedly signed the transfer. While the Crown Law Office stated Mr Titford was to re-sign the ‘original’ transfer that he had signed and initialled in 1994, this was a completely ‘new’ transfer without initials but retained the ‘original’ execution page only.
Conclusion
Researcher Ross Baker states categorically: “Our research has shown that the documents to acquire Mr Titford’s farm were tampered with on many occasions. The fact is, the documents left by those involved at the time will not allow it to go away without a full inquiry, those found guilty of tampering with the documents brought to justice and Mr Titford paid fair compensation for his losses, pain and suffering at the hands of the New Zealand government.” There are laws in place when purchasing or selling property in New Zealand and ONZF believes corrupt methods were used by the Crown Law Office to acquire Mr Titford's freehold titled land to help settle Te Roroa’s 'alleged' Treaty of Waitangi claim.
While this has been brought to both Prime Minister Helen Clark’s and John Key’s attention, we believe they are reluctant to take action as it could bring into doubt all claims heard by the 'apartheid' Waitangi Tribunal and the compensation being paid by the taxpayers to part-Maori under possible fraudulent circumstances.
There is no doubt this breached the Human Rights Act when a government acquires private freehold titled property by dubious means to benefit one race of its citizens without one document of evidence. Te Roroa’s original 'alleged' claim for 90 acres of Mr Titford's freehold titled farm escalated to over 2000 acres, the Waipoua Visitors' Centre and $9,000,000 of taxpayers' funds.
In total, ONZF believes this ‘alleged’ claim has cost taxpayers in excess of $30 million for a claim that was found to be baseless by a court of law in 1939 and rejected by Parliament in 1942.
An innocent farmer and his young family lost their farm, their livelihood, their children’s inheritance and suffered a break up of their family, because the Crown was dictated to by the Waitangi Tribunal and ultimately was more interested in appeasing part-Maori for an ‘alleged’ claim than a ‘white’ New Zealand farmer with a legitimate freehold titled property. Remember this could happen to anyone in our current ‘apartheid’ policy driven country, therefore we ask Amnesty International to intervene, as One New Zealand Foundation Inc believes Mr Titford is being held as an ‘innocent political prisoner’.
He has been a prisoner since he opposed the Crown acquiring his freehold titled farm for Te Roroa’s ‘alleged’ Maori land claim by tampering with the documents without his consent and without one document of evidence to support the claim.
In the end? Te Roroa got paid $9,000,000 dollars and received Titford’s 90 acres. The Crown retained the balance of the farm, stock and plant and has leased it out. Alan Titford got $200,000 and a life of misery and is currently being held as a political prisoner.
In the end? Te Roroa got paid $9,000,000 and received Titford’s 90 acres. The Crown retained the balance of the farm, stock and plant and has leased it out. Alan Titford got $200,000 and a life of misery and is currently being held as a political prisoner.