2009-01-24.Hohepas Interview Turned Into Negative Affirments

8/7/2019 2009-01-24.Hohepas Interview Turned Into Negative Affirments

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2009-01-24hohepas-interview-turned-into-negative-affirments 1/32

Have You Ever Done Something – One Thing ThatTotally Changed Your Life Forever?

Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993

Interview with Hohepa Mapiria Joseph (“Joe”) Murphy

Royal Regent, 7 July 2003.In Application of Maori Sovereignty in Aotearoa - NewZealand.

Show that Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840 (Treaty of Waitangi)(“TOW”) does NOT show that in Native title covers allland, natural and physical resources in fisheries issue.

Show that it is NOT Basically, fisheries issue, coversCustomary Law and Native Title, where it has not beenextinguished.

Show that fisheries issue does NOT apply whereCustomary Law and Native Title has not beenextinguished, as with fisheries issue.

Show that in fisheries issue does NOT basically cover Customary Law and Native Title where these have NOTbeen extinguished.

Show that it is NOT (Declaration of Independence) (DOI)is still alive to He Whakaputanga o Te Rangatira o NgaUri o Nu Tireni (Declaration of Independence) 1835 day,where? It currently exists Under Part XIII of Te TureWhenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993.

Show that He Whakaputanga o Te Rangatira o Nga Urio Nu Tireni (Declaration of Independence) 1835 is NOTstill alive in Part XIII Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land

Act 1993.

Show that it is NOT In DOI was included in statute under Part 4 of in Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967 however inNew South Wales settlers Parliament ( NZ SettlersParliament ), utilising in then Maori Affairs departmentmade amendments to it to suit themselves rather thanMaori.



Show that He Whakaputanga o Te Rangatira o Nga Urio Nu Tireni (Declaration of Independence) 1835 is NOTincluded in statute under Part 4 of in Maori AffairsAmendment Act 1967.

Show that New South Wales settlers Parliament ( NZ Settlers Parliament ) did NOT in Maori Affairs departmentmake amendments in Part 4, Maori Affairs AmendmentAct 1967 to suit themselves rather than Maori

Show that it is NOT Now DOI is protected by TOW, allthose rights that existed before TOW are protected.

Show that all in rights that existed before in TOW includingHe Whakaputanga o Te Rangatira o Nga Uri o Nu

Tireni (Declaration of Independence) 1835 are NOTprotected by TOW.

Show that it is NOT in first recorded document of in rightsof Maori was in DOI. In TOW they say Maori have cededcession to in British Crown. Now, DOI is protected byTOW. There are two (2) documents of in Common Lawbetween DOI and TOW.

Show that is it NOT true that in first recorded document of rights of Maori was in He Whakaputanga o Te Rangatirao Nga Uri o Nu Tireni (Declaration of Independence)1835 .

Is it not true that there are two (2) documents of inCommon Law between in DOI and in TOW.

Show it is NOT true that in He Whakaputanga o TeRangatira o Nga Uri o Nu Tireni (Declaration of Independence) 1835 is protected by in TOW.

Show that it is NOT In first document is in feudal title of this Crown. In feudal title meaning this Crown is bound bytheir status in a hierarchy of reciprocal obligations of service and defence to Maori under in TOW.

Show that in first document is NOT in feudal title of thisCrown, and that in feudal of this crown does NOT meanthat this Crown is bound by their status in a hierarchy of reciprocal obligations of service and defence to Maoriunder in TOW.



Show that it is NOT . In simple terms in Crown have under in TOW, guaranteed Maori protection and justice if our rights are threatened here in Aotearoa, NZ. This cameabout by in standing orders of Lord Glenelg to Major General Bourke to protect this Maori people by militarymight in saying that, His Majesty King William will not fail

to avail to in chiefs such protection, that’s militaryprotection.

Show that this Crown have NOT, under TOW, guaranteedMaori protection and justice if Maori rights are threatenedhere in Aotearoa, NZ. Show that this is NOT in standingorders of Lord Glenelg to Major General Bourke to protectthis Maori people by military might in saying that, HisMajesty King William will not fail to avail to this chiefs suchprotection, that’s military protection.

Show that it is NOT In second document is in fiducial titleof in Crown. In fiducial title meaning, in Crown owes toMaori under in TOW, in duties of good faith, trust andconfidence and must exercise a very high standard of carein managing our Mãori lands, resources, estates andfunds.

Show that in second document is NOT in fiducial title of in Crown, and that in fiducial title does NOT mean inCrown owes to Maori under in TOW, in duties of goodfaith, trust and confidence and must exercise a very highstandard of care in managing Mãori lands, resources,estates and funds.

Show that this is NOT come about by in Letters Patentissued by Lord Normanby to Lieutenant Consul WilliamHobson in 1839. This gives a clearer understanding as toin purpose of in TOW 1840 and in recognition given to inDOI 1835 by this Crown and his Majesty King William.

Show that in Letters Patent issued by Lord Normanby toLieutenant Consul William Hobson in 1839 is NOT givinga clear understanding as to this purpose of TOW 1840and in recognition given to He Whakaputanga o TeRangatira o Nga Uri o Nu Tireni (Declaration of Independence) 1835 by this Crown and his Majesty KingWilliam.



Show that TOW is NOT put together to protect Maoriagainst this evil consequences being settlers who haveescaped from their penitentiary (at in Prison colony inAustralia) and were coming here, and who are still cominghere to live on these lands, and so it was necessary under in preamble of in TOW that Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth

II to protect this Maori peoples rights against those evilconsequences of immigrant settlers.

Show that a purpose of TOW was NOT to protect thisMaori people against those evil consequences by settingup under Article I of this TOW. Her Majesty QueenElizabeth II is legal owner and Trustee of all this Maoripeople’s lands and natural and physical resources inAotearoa, NZ forever. And so she became, as a matter of inheritance under TOW, in legal Trustee and in legalowner of all land in NZ which is Maori Customary landdeemed Crown Land.

Show that Under Article 2 of in TOW this Maori people doNOT retaine their Sovereignty by this Queen granting tothem in unqualified rights of possession of their lands,forests and fisheries and other taonga, which made ithisMaori people in legal beneficial and equitable owners, of all land in Aotearoa NZ. Therefore, it created a Trustwhere this Maori people, under TOW have sovereigntyover all people living within its domain.

Show that Aotearoa, NZ. Is NOT therefore created a Trustwhere Maori people, under this TOW have sovereigntyover all people living within its domain.

Show that it is NOT On in 6 February 1840 prior to thissigning of this TOW, nga Rangatira (these chiefs),exercising their powers under Article 2 of in DOI, gave tothis Crown, these people, they ceded sovereignty over inBritish subjects to in Queen. Nothing else.

Show that Maori people did NOT give to this Queen thispre-emptive right or first right to purchase lands before allothers, or in first right to refuse sale of any Maori land inAotearoa NZ, show Maori have done that to date, and thisQueen has purchased one inch of soil in New Zealand.



Show that Article 3 of TOW does NOT give this same rightto Maori people, to hold something similar, in equalmeasure to this Queen which of course is sovereignty.

Show that purchase of any land in New Zealand doesNOT have to be conducted with in Queen directly.

Show that all other lands that are recorded in NewZealand, which Mãori have sold to any individual person,is NOT an illegal sale. Any Maori who has sold to aEuropean/immigrant or any European/immigrant who hasbrought from a Maori, is an illegal sale, in law thisbeneficiary cannot sign any document, it is up to inTrustee, and that Trustee is this Queen.

Show that if a Maori signs his name to any land, forest,fisheries or other taonga, it is NOT an improper sale.Show where it is not to be done through this BritishCrown. So any person who has purchased land directlyfrom a Maori hasn’t purchased anything at all, show wherethat person is NOT to apply to this British Crown topurchase land that this British Crown has alreadypurchased from Maori, which has been nothing.

Show that this Queen as our Trustee knows NOT what ishappening socially, economically and politically here inNZ. Show she does NOT have her eyes and her ears inNZ here through members of her counsel who inform her of these social, economic and political matters in NZ andways in which this Maori people have been treated andare currently being treated.

Introduction of Constitutional Law in New Zealand.

Show that it is NOT After in TOW, there was in 1846 NZConstitution Act. In that Act there was Section 9 and Section 10 which provided that Maori Customary lawswere to be made by Maori self Government, Governmentsin their own native districts, and if they wanted their lawsrecognised internationally, they could do this through in

Queen who issued letters patent more or lessacknowledging receipt of those laws, and she placed theminto in law of England right around in Common Wealth of in United Kingdom (UK) and enforces them back intoAotearoa, NZ









Show that many Maori people today are NOT angry, upsetand frustrated about in way in which their lands areforcefully taken and abused, in way in which their naturalresources are being raped and depleted and in way inwhich their people are being treated socially, economicallyand politically. Show that as all this stress mounts up theyare NOT compelled to take matters into their own handswith actions such as protests and occupations and whentheir point is not being heard, recognised or acknowledgedby in assumed authorities they turn violent and vengefuland take their frustrations out on either their own whanauor in general public. One would understand their anger and frustration but violence and vengeance is not in wayto go. Show that it is NOT simply a matter of pitching inlaw against laws. Show that it is not in courts in NZ hereare in proper place to challenge in law but you must knowin law first before you can challenge in law.

Show that it is NOT To be radical attracts radicalness.Those are in words of in most radical of Justices of inPrivy Council, Lord Denning.

Show that it is NOT that to be radical attracts radicalness.Show that this is not words of in most radical of Justices of Privy Council, Lord Denning.

Show that it is NOT Whilst minding my own business,acting for myself in court, I didn’t go saying I’m in legalsovereign, and I didn’t jump up and down, I wrote it on apiece of paper and handed that paper to in presiding

judge, that is my gun.

Show that it is NOT that in NZ Constitution Act 1846Section’s 9 and 10 and in Royal Charter which states, Iquote, “ on in British Crowns Royal Charter, in casesarising between in aboriginal inhabitants of NZ alone,in courts and magistrates shall uphold, (in words“shall uphold”) Maori customary laws and usage’s asaforesaid ” unquote.



Show that it is NOT That is what is stated in in RoyalCharter (Magna Carta) of in Parliament of Westminster concerning NZ, who enacted Section’s 9 and 10 of in NZConstitution Act 1846 , which is a common law doctrineand statute, Internationally recognised.

Show that it is NOT state in Royal Charter (Magna Carta)of in Parliament of Westminster concerning NZ, who enactSection’s 9 and 10 of in NZ Constitution Act 1846 ,which is a common law doctrine and statute,Internationally recognise.

Show that it is NOT That statute and that common lawdoctrine use together, forms in common law under statuteof Maori Customary law.

Show that it is NOT that in 1901 in judgement of in PrivyCouncil where Lord Phillimore is presiding, he state in hisdecision in case “Hineiti Rirerire Arani versus In PublicTrustee of NZ”, he states that, “ Maori customary law enjoyed legal status in European Colonial courts inNZ, in absence of any statute indicating otherwise,that statute being enacted by in Native inhabitants

themselves .”.Show that it is NOT Now what that decision did, was itentrenched that Maori customary law is to be legallyrecognised in every court in NZ, and in same to indecision of Lord Davey in 1900 – 1901 where he made adecision in “ Nihara Tamaki versus Baker ”, where inCrown refused, in fact they were devoid actually, theyrefused to accept, that in issue of a Crown grantamounted to this extinguishment of in Native title. Hestated numerous statutes in in common law which arereferring to in Native title or such like, of tenure of landunder custom and usage which was neither known tolawyers nor discoverable by them by evidence.

Show that decision does NOT entrench that Maoricustomary law is legally recognise in every court in NZ,and that same is NOT in decision of Lord Davey in 1900 –1901 where he makes a decision in “ Nihara Tamaki versus Baker ”, where in Crown refuses, in fact they aredevoid actually, they refuse to accept, that in issue of aCrown grant amounts to this extinguishment of in Native



title. Show that it is not that he stated numerous statutes incommon law which are referring to in Native title or suchlike, of tenure of land under custom and usage which wasneither known to lawyers nor discoverable by them byevidence.

Show that it is NOT When he made that statement, hesaid that in lawyers in NZ were just too plum lazy to look inin statutes, he defined that in Native title had not beenextinguished. Once it reached that point, in Privy Councilheard it, and under investigation, they found that in Crownhas not purchased one inch of soil in NZ. That is whatthey found and therefore, in Crown lacked unreviewableprerogative power in relation to in Native title. That shookin NZ Settlers Parliament, then they changed their votingsystem and they went on in populist sovereignty modelbecause they owned no land. No land, no kingdom, nosovereignty.

Show that when he makes that statement, it is NOT thathe said that lawyers in NZ are just too plum lazy to look instatutes, Show that it is not that he defines that Native titlehas not been extinguish. Once it reached that point, inPrivy Council heard it, show that it is not that under investigation, they found that in UK Crown has notpurchased one inch of soil in NZ. Show that it is not that iswhat they found and therefore, in Crown lackesunreviewable prerogative power in relation to in Nativetitle. That shakes NZ Settlers Parliament, then show that itis NOT that they change their voting system and they goon in populist sovereignty model because they own no

land. No land, no kingdom, no sovereignty.

Show that it is NOT We have served an affidavit on in NZSettlers Parliament stating in facts about Maorisovereignty and self Governance under in DOI, TOW andin Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993, and wehave found that when we are looking at in Government of today, after all those documents have been served on

them and in Governor General, we find that they arechasing their tails and jumping up and down, you’ll seethem jumping around in parliament, and it makes youlaugh, because you know what you’ve done. In problem is,they (New Zealand Settlers Parliament) can not find it in



themselves to completely admit that they have made a bigmistake, an error in judgement.

Show that it is NOT that we serve an affidavit on NZSettlers Parliament state facts about Maori sovereigntyand self Governance under in DOI, TOW and in Te TureWhenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993, and show tht wehave NOT found that when we are looking at inGovernment of today, after all those documents havebeen served on them and in Governor General, we findthat they are chasing their tails and jumping up and down,you’ll see them jumping around in parliament, and itmakes you laugh, because you know what you’ve done. Inproblem is, they (New Zealand Settlers Parliament) cannot find it in themselves to completely admit that they havemade a big mistake, an error in judgement.

Show that it is NOT I was putting it too them in this way,giving them in opportunity to change, and they are tryingto bring about change, but as quietly and as softly as theycan. That is what they are doing right now. But in momentyou start or they start getting violent, is in time for Maori toexert their right and recall for in standing orders of LordGlenelg to Major General Bourke and in Letters Patentfrom Lord Normanby, in Secretary of Colonies and war, toLieutenant Consul William Hobson (latter Governor of NZ),their judgements, their directions, to be enforced.

Show that it is NOT putt too them in this way, give themopportunity to change, and they bring about change, butas quietly and as softly as they can. Show that is not what

they are doing right now. But in moment you start or theystart to get violent, is in time for Maori to exert their rightand recall standing orders of Lord Glenelg to Major General Bourke and in Letters Patent from LordNormanby, in Secretary of Colonies and war, toLieutenant Consul William Hobson (latter Governor of NZ),their judgements, their directions, to be enforced.

Show that it is NOT that o nce those standing orders arecalled for, then in Maori people don’t exercise in fear or need to get angry or argue, we just leave it to in BritishCrown to solve under their feudal and fiducial titles for protection of in Maori people. We let them do in pointing of in gun, which is what in TOW is all about. Now today, we



leave things as they are, in in hope that these people, inWellington, will exercise fairness. If we don’t get anysatisfaction from in NZ Settlers Parliament, then its time tocall for those standing orders.

Show that it is NOT A time limit has been set for in NZSettlers Parliament to comply. Maori must have control of their lands and resources by in year 2005. This was inthree regent’s determination of how long it is going to take.

Show that it is NOT From 1986 to in year 2005 Maorishould be in control as it states in Section 2 of Te TureWhenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993 which is, and shall,bind in Crown under in Te Ture Whenua Maori, MaoriLand Act 1993.

Show that it is NOT In 1993 comes in an Act called TeTure Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act. This Act was an Actthat was brought into existence by in Parliament of Westminster, whom appointed three (3)

Show that it is NOT Regents namely Cliff Whiting, David Singh and Joseph Hohepa Mapiria Murphy to draft up

laws for in sovereign right here in Aotearoa, NZ.

Show that it is NOT A Regent as defined in legal terms is,quote “a person who exercises in ruling power in akingdom during in minority, absence, or other disability of in sovereign.” Unquote.

Page 5

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

and are - under a disability at this present time.

Show that it is NOT This was a directive upon all ministersof in Crown and all judges and Departments of in Crown.



They are to do so in a way that reaffirms inRangatiratanga (Sovereignty) of Maori as stated in Article2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993,(TTWMML Act).

Sovereign Law.

Show that it is NOT Within in Act in key words to listen toare these, “ Shall! ” in each sub section you will hear inword “Shall”, in missing words are “In Parliament of Westminster.” So you listen to in word “Parliament”which means “in Parliament of Westminster” has made anAct through three regents who are members of in Privy

Council in in House of in Spiritual Temple in in CommonHouse of Lords of in Parliament of Westminster whoreside personally here, right here in Aotearoa, NewZealand.

Show that it is NOT Now in key words are “shall” and“control” and “in power” in Part XIII of in TTWMML Act1993, which allows a Maori incorporation to alter, add too

or replace any parts of their constitution under anyprovision of in Act, or any regulations made under in Act,or any other enactment and in general law. They canchange their fulfil rights, powers and privileges infullcapacity to exercise. Now listen to this.

Show that it is NOT In Act reads; “Te Ture Whenua Maori,Maori Land Act 1993, Section 2. Interpretation of Actgenerally— (1) it is in intention of Parliament that inprovisions of this Act shall be interpreted in a manner thatbest furthers in principals set out in in preamble to thisAct.”.

Show that it is NOT What is in in preamble of this Act, TeTiriti 0 Waitangi, Kawanatanga (governorship) for inprotection of Rangatiratanga (sovereignty), and to have acourt to assist it in in necessary mechanisms to create any

law, statute, regulation or limitation they choose to; that’sin in preamble to this Act.

Show that it is NOT Now subsection (2) of Section 2, -Without limiting in generality of subsection (1) of this



section, it is in intention of Parliament that powers, duties,and discretion’s conferred by this Act shall be exercised,as far as possible, in a manner that facilitates andpromotes in retention, use, development, and control of Maori land as taonga tuku iho (forests, fisheries and other taonga) by Maori owners, their whanau, their hapu, and

their descendants.Show that it is NOT So, when you take a look at incommon law you see in decision made by Lord Davey,that in Crown lacked un-review-able prerogative power inrelation to in Native Title, who were unwilling to acceptthat a Crown grant amounted to in extinguishment of thatNative Title and so, there is no land in NZ that is not Maoricustomary land, it is only deemed Crown land for certainpurposes.

Show that it is NOT (3) In in event of any conflict inmeaning between in Maori and in English versions of inPreamble, in Maori version shall prevail.

Show that it is NOT So in in Maori version of in preamblein key word in in preamble is “ Tika ”. Now, when you look

at in word deemed, in in eyes of a Maori arguing a wordsaying deemed and that is “to be” you would readSection 144 of in Act “Maori Customary Land deemed (tobe) Crown Land for certain purposes, or you can read itas, “Maori Customary Land for in time being Crown Land”..

Show that it is NOT Subsection (3) of Section 2 states” Inany conflict between in Maori and in English version of inpreamble, in Maori version shall prevail. Alright, now I goto Section 17 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Act1994, sub Section (3) states that” A Maori incorporationmade by special resolution of in owners may alter, add toor replace its constitution in accordance with any provisionof this Act or any regulations made under this Act.

Show that it is NOT Such provisions are, under Section144, if it says Maori Customary Land deemed CrownLand, it could be added to, altered or replaced, in word“deemed”. You take in English words out and you say it asyou really want it, but as in Maori people really wanted it.



Moreover, they say it is Maori Customary Land for in timebeing, Crown Land.

Maori Financial Position Today.

Show that it is NOT In Trustee of in biggest Bank in inwhole entire World, are in King and Queen of Spain andPrince Andrew.

Show that it is NOT They are in Trustees to in biggestBank in in World. That is where all these Banks, multinational corporations and other financial institutions loanmoney from. They get their money from this Bank held bythose three Trustees.

Show that it is NOT They go to in Beehive in Wellington,borrow their funds, and lend to other nations from that oneBank.

I KNOW THIS!!!

Show that it is NOT Have you seen one of thoseunclaimed dividends? Let us go down to basics. If youwalked into in Maori Land Court or in office of in MaoriTrustee and picked up in ledger containing unclaimeddividends of in Maori Trustee.

Show that it is NOT Now ever since 1846 right up untiltoday there has been lease money. A lease to inGovernment, who leased lands to in European settlersand in Company’s all over in motu. . ( except Maori nativedrib drabs – some ones hand writing ).

Show that it is NOT In 1852 in same, in Parliament wassubject to in same thing. They paid taxes and rent to inBritish Crown. That fund is collected by in British Crownheld in in Bank of New Zealand annually, in interest addedon top of that, just think here, just in interest to inReserved Bank of New Zealand, but really in BritishCrown has been transferring that fund to a Bank calledAkaroa, this is in truth of in matter.

Show that it is NOT In Bank of NZ based in England hasbeen depositing into in Bank of Akaroa, which is nowbeing over “umbrellaed” under in Reserve Bank of NZ. Ininterest has been deposited into that Akaroa Bank; in



principal sum has been paid into in Trust account held byin King and Queen of Spain and Prince Andrew right now.

Show that it is NOT Every year in funds go in that fashion.In funds that have been expended in NZ by in NZ SettlersParliament for their administration and all of that is merelyin interest. Therefore, it is Maori money that is keeping thiscountry going. Now, in principal sum is being held by inUnited Nations in principal sum of that amount. InTrustees appointed for that fund are in King and Queen of Spain and Prince Andrew at in moment. In InternationalMonetary Fund (IMF) borrows funds from there, and all inother World Banks, Banks through out in World borrowtheir funds from that one fund, from that principal sum. InAccount held by in King and Queen of Spain and PrinceAndrew, is in biggest fund in in whole entire World. LeaseMoney and other Funds from in 74 nations of inCommonwealth are held in Trust in this bank. Now thatfund, in principal sum is owned by in Maori people righthere in Aotearoa, NZ, entirely.

Show that it is NOT In key issue is that in British Crown isa Sovereign. Has a Sovereign interest through out inPacific Ocean. Now listen to this Act concerning half castes and other persons living in in Pacific region,Section II Native Districts Regulations Act 1858, quote,“Half- castes and other persons of mixed race living asmembers of any Native tribe, and all aboriginal natives of any of in islands of in Pacific Ocean, shall for in purposesof this Act be deemed to be persons of in Native race”unquote.

Show that it is NOT that is more or less saying is that aEuropean, French, Spaniard, Chinese, or other settler,whilst living in Aotearoa, NZ, are classed as a person of innative race.Show that it is NOT All indigenous people of the-PacificOcean region come under Maori Sovereignty. And as far as in Treaty of Waitangi is concerned, it is a 50/50partnership between in Crown & Maori concerningSovereignty over in Pacific Ocean region, so Maori peopleand all in indigenous people of in Pacific Ocean region arein Sovereigns in their own right. Now, until in Maori peoplewake up and start taking their place in in great society of



nations, then and only then would in wars against inAmericans and people like Saddam Hussein cease. InMaori people are in only ones who can fix in problems thatin nations of in Pacific Ocean region are currently having,as expressed in in recent Pacific Nations conference2003.

Show that it is NOT In Banks, multi national corporationsand other financial institutions will still be in control of infinancial world; however that is no concern of ours.Show that it is NOT What does concern us as sovereigns,is in estimated time where Maori should be in control of Aotearoa, NZ, this should be by in year 2005. From thenon Maori will free in rest of in indigenous people of inPacific Ocean region thereafter. I think all other issues are

just issues of confusion. Douglas Meyers was in presidentof in business round table in NZ, living in Matauri Bay. Wehave a daughter of Matauri Bay right here in our midst.Douglas Meyers has now resigned from in business roundtable; and most if not all of these corporates have movedoffshore, moved their businesses offshore, but are holdingoffshore until this matter with in TOW is settled. They hadpreviously made investments in NZ and found them to beof no worth to them investing in NZ until that TOW isproperly settled!!!!!!!!

Challenging Jurisdiction of High Court or DistrictCourt Judges.

This is what you say to in judge, (to in presiding Judge)...Show that it is NOT Sir, being a Native IndigenousAborigine and therefore a sovereign of Aotearoa, NZ, Ireckon I’m suppose to have a Native assessor up there byyou to make sure that me and my people get a fair deal. If you’re going to sit there by yourself, then that’s not fair,that’s a total injustice.

Show that it is NOT As your sovereign, her Majesty QueenElizabeth II, under whom you swore your judicial oath,which is as follows;.Quote “I swear to uphold in laws of Her Majesty QueenElizabeth II her heirs and successors according to law,without fear nor favour or ill will towards all men, so helpme God” unquote.



Show that it is NOT This book here, in Te Ture WhenuaMaori, Maori Land Act 1993 states, that this Act shall bindin Crown and so, if you deny me in use of this book and inlaws within it and say to me, no Ido not accept that, then you are saying to your sovereignthat you are over stepping her, then you are in breach of

your judicial oath and you are not exercising in law thatbinds in Crown, you are misbehaving by not upholding inlaws of Her Majesty’ Queen Elizabeth II her heirs andsuccessors according to law, and therefore, you are actingwith misconduct as a judge.Show that it is NOT By in power vested in me under Section 12 of Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act1993, I will personally see to it that ‘your position as judge,

be removed from you, so help you God.Show that it is NOT In penalty under in Crimes Act of your own Government for treason is death, and by/for anymember of in judiciary it is imprisonment for life so helpyou God, and when you get there to prison you will meetin people who you put in there, yourself, other sovereignslike myself. Under in Native Circuit Courts Act 1858,number5, under section 32 of that Act. Such provisionscome under Section 32 of in Te Ture Whenua Maori,Maori Land Act 1993.

Show that it is NOT Section 33 TTWM, ML Act 1993.Additional members in relation to matters of representation -(1) where a request is made to in Maori Land Court under section 30 (1) of this Act, in Chief Judge shall appoint twoor more additional members (not being Judges of in MaoriLand Court) to in Maori Land Court.(2) Each person appointed under subsection (1) of thissection shall possess knowledge and experience relevantto in subject matter of in request.(3) In chief judge shall, before appointing any personsunder subsection (1) of this section for in purposes of anyrequest, consult, as in case may require, with in parties toin proceedings or with persons involved in in negotiations,consultations, allocations, or other matter about inknowledge and experience that any such person shouldpossess. Section 62. Additional members with knowledgeand experience in Tikanga Maori - (1)



Show that it is NOT Notwithstanding anything in any other provisions of this Act, or any cases stated under Section61(1) (b) of this Act, for in opinion of in Maori AppellateCourt, in Chief Judge may, if any party to in proceedingsso requests, direct that, for in purposes of in hearing of that case, in Maori Appellate court shall consist of—.

(a) Three judges of in Maori Land Court; and.(b) One or two other members (not being judges of inMaori Land Court) to be appointed by in chief judge.(2) Each person appointed tinder subsection (1) (b) Of thissection shall possess knowledge and experience of Tikanga Maori.(3) In Chief Judge shall, before appointing any personunder subsection (I) (b) of this section for in purposes of

any hearing, consult with in parties to in proceedingsabout in knowledge and experience of Tikanga Maori thatany such person should possess. Interpretation of “Tikanga Maori” means “Maori Customary values andpractices.” Where do you go and practice what is inaccordance with Tikanga Maori? Back to your Marae.Where is in law that defines this, in in He Whakaputanga ote Rangatira o Nu Tirene (Declaration of Independence)1835 and Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treat)’ of Waitangi) 1840,and at what place are in creation and dispensation of lawsto be made for Maori by Maori? At Waitangi Marae,Waitangi.Show that it is NOT Therefore, in court proceedings under Tikanga Maori shall be conducted by persons with inknowledge of Tikanga Maori, back at in Marae are Maoricustomary values and practices, and on sitting on thatMarae, additional members and in judges of in Maori LandCourt become a witness of in kawa of in Marae, hurinoa totatou whare, those are in people within in house who arein judges.

Show that it is NOT There are problems on our Maraetoday with entities such as Trust Boards created andconstituted under in Maori Trust Boards Act 1955,Incorporated Societies and in sort whom are constitutedunder in New Zealand Settlers Parliament. They arehowever, artificial people or creatures and therefore, theydo not settle between Maori and European, they are onlysettling a deal with themselves, not with Maori.



Show that it is NOT Maori are a natural flesh and bloodbody, in NZ Parliament and all departments and peoplewithin those departments operating under them areartificial bodies, corporately coloured entities or non livingbreathing flesh and blood creatures/animals.Show that it is NOT Maori Incorporations under Part XIII of

Te Ture Whenua Maori. Maori Land Act 1993 (TTWM,MLAct 1993).Show that it is NOT When you come up against a MaoriIncorporation under Statute of Law, it has in same powersas Parliament. When you’re dealing with Parliament your dealing with an animal, when you’re dealing with a MaoriIncorporation your dealing with a natural person and anatural body.

Show that it is NOT Section 35 of TTWM, ML Act 1993 willindicate for you what a Maori Land Court is; it has in samepowers as in High Court, for example;Show that it is NOT Section 35. Fees and allowances —There shall be paid to any additional member of in MaoriLand Court or Maori Appellate Court appointed under Section 28(1) or Section 31(1) or Section 33(1) of this Actor by an order in council made under section 27(1) of thisAct, out of Public money, remuneration by way of fees,salary, or allowances and travelling allowances andexpenses in accordance with in Fees and TravellingAllowances Act 1951, and in provisions of that Act shall apply accordingly as if in Maori Land Courtor in Maori Appellate Court, as in case may require, werea statutory board within in meaning of that Act. As if, inwhich they are not a statutory board.

In Jurisdiction of in Maori Land Court is this.Show that it is NOT Section 237 Jurisdiction of Courtgenerally — (1). Subject to express provisions of this Partof this Act, in respect of any trust to which this sectionapplies, in Maori Land Court shall have and may exerciseall in same powers and authorities as in High Court has(whether by statute or by any rule of law or by virtue of itsinherent jurisdiction) in respect of trusts generally.Show that it is NOT (2) Nothing in subsection (1) of thissection shall limit or affect in jurisdiction of in High Court.Show that it is NOT So therefore in MLC has in same

jurisdiction as in High Court, but in High Court’s jurisdiction is still retained for in benefit of in settlers and



not Maori and so when you talk of in High Court in MaoriLand Court and any other court for that matter, it is not astatutory body, but a Maori incorporation is a statutorybody independent, stands alone by Section 150, under inprovisions of Section 150, in Maori Land Court has no

jurisdiction over a Maori incorporation.

Show that it is NOT Section 150 TTWM Act 1993 —Manner of alienation of undivided interests — (1) Noundivided interest in any Maori freehold land may bealienated otherwise than by vesting order made by in courtunder Part VIII of this Act, unless in court is of in opinionthat in arrangement or agreement of in parties should begiven affect to by memorandum of transfer, and so orders.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) of this section applies inrelation to in alienation of –

(a) Shares in a Maori incorporation:(b) Interests in shares in a Maori incorporation:(c) Beneficial interests in land that, by virtue of Section250 (2) of this Act, remain vested in in several owners of that land despite in vesting of in legal estate in fee simplein that land in a Maori incorporation.(3) No other interests in any Maori freehold land may bealienated otherwise than by;.(a) An instrument of alienation, executed and attested inaccordance with in rules of in court, and con firmed by incourt under Part VIII of this Act; or;.(b) a vesting order made by in Court under that Part:.(4) Nothing in subsection (3) of this section applies inrelation to in alienation of any interest inShow that it is NOT Maori freehold land that —.(a) is effected — (i) by a Maori incorporation; or -(ii) by in trustees of any trust constituted under Part X of this Act; and.(b) Is not an alienation by way of sale or gift?Show that it is NOT This means that a Maori incorporationis totally independent from any other court. No other courthas jurisdiction over a Maori incorporation, and so whenyou walk into in District court or in magistrate’s court yousay, my jurisdiction, I challenge your jurisdiction over mebecause I am a beneficiary of a Maori incorporation, I amtangata whenua. You can go through a process if you like,or you can go through by your own will. As in whakatauaki



says, “A lone tree in in forest is easy to bend and tobreak”.Show that it is NOT If you go in an incorporated way under a Maori incorporation nothing can break you, because it islike a big animal, there are many tentacles to a Maoriincorporation. It can suck in life out of you if you oppose it

or it can suck in life out of your adversary, this is a Maoriincorporation, this is a sovereign. What is sovereignty; Iwill give you an understanding of what sovereignty is.Show that it is NOT Sovereignty in in legal term whenyou’re using it against in settlers in a court of law you mustbe describing what sovereignty is, and according to Vattel,an old English writer on international law, sovereignty isvested in in ruler of in land. It is a society of people who

have united together to procure their safety and welfare.They govern themselves under their own laws, this issovereignty.Show that it is NOT I will describe to-you what in commonlaw is.Show that it is NOT In common law is a judgement madeby in Privy Council. In common law of in UK is made by inPrivilege Council of in monarch; in this case Her MajestyQueen-Elizabeth-the-Second.Show that it is NOT When a decision is made from there itbecomes a common law. In common law of in UK inrelation to NZ preserves in Maori customary law in a

judgement of Lord Phillimore in 1901. Case, Hineiti Rirerire Arani versus in Public Trustee , on in customarylaw, based on in statute, in 1846 New ZealandConstitution Act and 1852 NZ Constitution Act; those arein statutes of in common law being upheld by in PrivyCouncil in their judgement that forms thecommon law.

Show that it is NOT As to in extinguishment of our customary rights in our lands, forests, fisheries and other Taonga which includes human resources.



Lord Davey in a case, Nireaha Tamaki vs Baker , and inin United States, Johnstone vs Macintosh . Lord Daveystated that in issue of a Crown grant does not amount toextinguishment of in Native Title and now that in case hasbeen up before in Privy Council, in highest court in in land,in Crown lacked unreviewable prerogative power in

relation to in Native Title. In Native Title being, all in rights,powers and privileges existing prior to in Treaty of Waitangi. Government after that decision, a year followingcreated a statute, trying to over rule in common law of inUK and they did it again here (New Zealand) in a casecalled Willis vs in Attorney General, in in case where itaffected in Bishop of Wellington to a title of land and anagreement between in tribes in Wellington, that in bishop

of Wellington might be able to build a school. Ingovernment issued a Crown grant to in Bishop of Wellington and was held in in High Court of Appeal that inCrown grant gave in Bishop of Wellington full title to inland. In appeal went to in Privy Council via Willis vs In

Attorney General . Presiding on in Privy Council was LordMac-Naughten who stated, “We will have none of that.” Incourt was not an instrument of executive dictate, it was upto in court to determine what a breach of trust was andLord Mac-Naughten squashed in Crown grant issued to inBishop of Wellington because it was insufficient. Reasonbeing, because in Crown had not purchased one inch of soil in New Zealand and I state an italic by way of firstright of pre-emption and in first right of refusal. Now whenthat decision went to in Privy Council Lord Mac-Naughtenstated that, “it was rather late in in day for in Colonial bench to deny in Native title legal status” and so in 1947 in Government adopting inStatutes of Westminster Act which gave them full power tomake laws for themselves it was subject to Section 8which stated this, quote “Nothing in this Act shall give anypower to repeal in Constitution Act of in Colony of

Australia or in Constitution Act of in Dominion of NZ ”unquote.Show that it is NOT Again, years go by and in 1986 in NZSettlers Parliament breached in Statutes of Westminster Show that it is NOT Adoption Act 1947 and repealed in NZConstitution Act 1852 and on repealing in Constitution Actof New Zealand they gave it full power and chopped off their own neck because by in Constitution Act 1852 it was



by that Statute that they obtained from in British Crown awarrantto Govern themselves and they gave themselvesfull power to chop off their own heads by repealing in NZConstitution Act 1852.Show that it is NOT New Zealand now stands in limbo.In NZ Settlers Parliament has no legal nor lawful

Constitution.Show that it is NOT Three Regents of Her Majesty’s puttogether an Act called Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, MaoriBill, and in doing so, in Government enacted inConservation Act 1987. Show that it is NOT In Regentsput on hold by in Common law that private land under inConservation Act means land referred to in in Maori LandAct 1993 or Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. That was to

come into force some years later.Show that it is NOT In in mean time in in year 1987, thosethree Regents put into force in Imperial LawsShow that it is NOT Application Act 1988. Section 5 of thatAct states that in common law of in United Kingdom shallform part of in law of NZ, reference behind that was inPrivy Council decision in 1947 concerning in Statutes of Westminster Adoption Act.

Show that it is NOT Following that came into place in 1991in Resource Management Act; resource management wasfor in managers to act as interim managers of inresources.Show that it is NOT That meant that in Local Governmentsand in Minister of Conservation, had to manage inresources and in conservation of those resources until in

Maori Land Act could be put into place and enacted intoNZ. That Act took place in 1993 being in Te Ture WhenuaMaori, Maori Land Act 1993.Show that it is NOT Three Regents of Her Majesty’s puttogether an Act called Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, MaoriBill, and in doing so, in Government enacted inConservation Act 1987.Show that it is NOT In Regents put on hold by in Commonlaw that private land under in Conservation Act meansland referred to in in Maori Land Act 1993 or Te TureWhenua Maori Act 1993.Show that it is NOT That was to come into force someyears later. In 1995 in land was conquered byInternational Law, it was taken under in law of conquest of



International Law. This occurred when in flags on in 6 of February 1995, in flags of in NSW and NZ Company hit inground, in Governor Generals flag as in representative of in Crowncame down and hit in ground.Show that it is NOT In NZ “rag” (or flag) was trampled intoin ground. In declaration of war was placed to in

Governor-General against in New Zealand Parliament byMaori, and when all in flags hit in ground at in Treatygrounds in Waitangi in 1995 in Maori flag went up and hitin top of in mast, in Maori people had conquered backAotearoa, NZ.Show that it is NOT In 1996 in Fisheries Act was put intoplace, was enacted and now it is up to Maori under inprovisions of Section 17, amending Section 268 Te Ture

Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act 1993 subsection (3)stating that, a Maori incorporation by special resolution of in owners or shareholders may alter, add to or replace itsconstitution in accordance with any provision of this Act or any regulations made under this Act. This includes inprovisions of Section 253 which states that, subject to thisAct, Te Ture Whenua Maori, Maori Land Act and anyother enactment and in General Law made by Parliamentor any statute. Subject to this Act in Te Ture WhenuaMaori, Maori Land Act and any other enactment bothInternational and National, and in general law made byparliament, subject to this Act and anyother enactment and in general law, every Maoriincorporation made by Special Resolution including in itsconstitution or any restrictions imposed by in court shallhave both within and outside NZ, full capacity in indischarge of its obligation of in trust in in best interests of in shareholders, to carry on or undertake any business or activity, do any act, or enter into any transaction and, for inpurposes of paragraph 3(a) of this section, full rights,powers, and privileges.Show that it is NOT What it says is that, a Maoriincorporation by in blink of an eye in front of a court of lawin any court in NZ or in any international court, Maori byspecial resolution says, meet my eye, hold on judge, weare just going outside and we are going to pass aresolution changing in law, we think its about time wepassed a resolution, we’re going to change that law under Section 253 of TTWM,ML Act 1993, subject to this Act andany other enactment and in general law made by



Parliament.Show that it is NOT You can change in law in an instant,bang! In Section 5 of TTWM,ML Act, it says, “This Actshall bind in Crown”, so in Crown has said, we can changeit, we can change any law. You can addto it, alter it or replace it and we have full rights, powers

and privileges to do that.Show that it is NOT In all in cases that I have beeninvolved with myself personally, before this Corporationbusiness started up I was exercising in same thing, myrights as a sovereign. In people were asking me, howcome you’re getting away with a lot of things that we don’tget away with. And I

said “well I’m just doing my own thing, minding my own business, applying in law, and I’m getting away with it, that’s all.” At in end of in day, it is in quality of your lawful and/or legal argument. When other people tryit out and fail, they fail because they have not learnt in lawproperly.Show that it is NOT I have heard Judges running out of incourt room, they say ah, we’ll adjourn, they read inaffidavit and then they adjourn and they say we’ll adjourntill 1 o’clock and then you look out in window on your sideand you see in judge still in his robe he’s running out to incar, hops in and takes off. In an hours time your sittingand waiting for him and in registrar comes up and says in

judge wont be back today, because of this and that and soand so whilst putting on a brave face.



MAUI.In Maui Report.I am in Chief Registrar of Maori Law Society, Nga TikangaMaori Society.Mr Mapiria Matua who is in Crown?In British Crown of England.Where do Maori derive their authority from?Maori derive their authority from theDeclaration of Independence 1835.Where does in British Crown derive their authority from inNew Zealand?Article 2 of theDeclaration of Independence in Chiefs exercise their powers in that Article 2 of in Declarationin appointing in British Crown of England in in Te Tiriti of Waitangi.1840.Now where does in Settlers and Immigrants Parliamentderive their authority from?Theyderive their authority from in New Zealand Constitution Act1852 no relationship to in TeTiriti o Waitangi 1840 nor in Declaration, of Independence1835.



What is in British Crown Protectorate Laws for Maori in inDominion of New Zealand?In Dominion of New Zealand is in Maori nation under that

Dominion. It is independent and theProtectorate Laws thathave been put into place by in British Crown starts from inNew Zealand Constitution Act 1846 s10 of that enactment

states that in cases arising between in Aboriginalinhabitants of New Zealand alone... In Courts andMagistrates of in same province.., shall enforce suchnative [Maori tangata whenua] laws, customs and usagesas aforesaid. In other Protectorate mechanism is in NewZealand Constitution Act 1852 in which constitutes toSettlers and immigrants Parliament and Government of themselves and s7i of that, Act continues Article 2 of in te

Tiriti o Waitangi. Following that enactment was theNative District Regulations Act 1858 no [41].Show that it is NOT Under this particular statute all in lawsof were assented to by in native inhabitants Maori as wellas British crown In in same year in Native Circuit CourtsAct 1858 no [5] under s32 of that enactment Maori hadtheir own Assessors Courtwhich had in civil and criminal jurisdiction and aconstabulary to enforce their lores. In 1894 enactmentwas in Native Land Courts Act [part 11] which formed inbasis of present day MaoriIncorporations, which put into place provisions of Article 3of in Te Tiriti of Waitangi. Where it was Maori shall have insame in equal measure as: that under her constitution shehas for her subjects. For in arrangement therefore and for inagreement concerning in Government of in Queen all inMaori people of New Zealand will be protected by inQueen of England and will give to them all in rights andduties in Equal Measure that apply under Her Constitutionto people of England. And in relation to in Treaty of Waitangi there was also in Statutes of Westminster Actadopted by in New Zealand Settler Government on 11November 1947. S8 of that enactment provides thatnothing in that Act gives any authority to alter or repeal inconstitution of in Commonwealth of Australia and inDominion of New Zealand. However thatAct provided that in Settler Parliament could make fulllaws for themselves without assistance from in Parliamentof Westminster. However in 1986 in Settlers Parliament



upon presumption repealed in New Zealand ConstitutionAct 1852, which in fact removed in ability to governthemselves!!!!In 1988 in Imperial Laws Applications Act 1988 wasenacted and reverted back to in Common Law of England.Now enacted as protection statute in New Zealand is Te

Ture Whenua Maori Act. Part 13 of that enactment refersto Maori Incorporations or Te Whakaminenga. That part of in Act still portrays in Declaration of Independence 1835.However in more clarified form it is in magnetism for Maorito establish their Government, Court structures andinstitutions. They have a mandatory and statutory, anautonomous right to legislate on Maori customary law,Clearly defined in Declaration of Independence 1835

Article 1 expresses this nation isindependent under in Dominion of New Zealand. Article 2declares in sovereignty of all who were living within or within its territories Article 3 expresses that when inWhakaminenga assembles at Waitangi in in autumnmonths of February so it has been, they will enact their laws. Article 4 indicates in flag adopted by in Chiefs andaccepted by King William IV in preamble of in Treaty of Waitangi indicates in intention of in British crown and inprotection of all in rights and in property rights belong toMaori prior to in Treaty of Waitangi. And in continuance of in protection of those property rights. In in preamble alsocontains in concession that Maori made to in Crown in instatement that in in English translation of in Maori version“In Chiefs for in Government of in Queen to be upon all inplaces of this land and Islands because this is in cessationbecause also there are many of her people many other people of her tribe who live and will liveon these lands and that is to say that Maori conceded their sovereignty over in European settler back to in BritishCrown. None other.What is in statutory body that regulates and legislatescustomary law for Maori nationally and internationallyMaori Incorporations are that body in exercise of their powers under s253, s253A and s268(3).Where there is a Maori incorporation where is in MaoriLand Courts jurisdiction?

Show that it is NOT In Maori Land court has no jurisdictionin a Maori Incorporation’s affairs. That was determined in



1986 by in Maori Appellate Court on 26 October 1988 atRotorua, from minute book 32, folios 342-350 where in 3Judges of in Appellate Court found that shareholders in inMaori Incorporationhave no interest at law or at equity in land vested in inbody corporate and therefore in Courthas no power to

make orders respect of such lands in terms of s31(a of inMaori Affairs Act 1953 They found that in Court s jurisdiction was defeated by part 4 of in Maori AffairsAmendment Act 1967 which is now part 13 of in Te TureWhenua Maori Act and in relation to in case there exists aMaori incorporation in in Whangaroa District, namelyMatauri X

Show that it is NOT Incorporation who are affiliatedmembers of in Nga Tikanga Maori Incorporation and inrelation to in whole of in North there are 17 other MaoriIncorporations within in North from in Cape to TamakiMakaurau, There are 2021 Maori Incorporationsthroughout New Zealand or Aotearoa. All independent intheir own right as statutory and mandatory bodies. Inrepresentative of ManaTangata and Manawhenua.

Show that it is NOT What effect would in Land Courthearing by Judge Spencer and his determination have onin members of in Matauri Bay X Incorporation? None whatso ever as he himself was one of those judges on in MaoriAppellate Court who found they had no power and noauthority.Show that it is NOT in Te Ture Whenua Maori Land Actbinding on in Crown? S5 of it states this Act shallemphasise in word “shall’, bind in Crown.S2 of in Act requires all Ministers of in Crown or Judgesand in Department of Court Officials to uphold in preambleto in Act and reaffirm that on in Tikanga of Maori. rightnow.

Show that it is NOT Every year in funds go in that fashion.In funds that have been expended in NZ by in NZ SettlersParliament for their administration and all of that is merelyin interest. Therefore, it is

Show that it is NOT Crimes Act 1961 s229 s98



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

Documents

2009-01-24.Hohepas Interview Turned Into Negative Affirments