Nga Rangatira
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture

This declaration was made by Hohepa Mapiria on the 14th day of  December 2004 in reply to the claims made by Attorney General about the validity of the Native Assessors Court in Whangarei at the time. It was to be released to the public and reads as follows:


The Sovereignty of the Native Assessors Court

With regard to recent comments by Acting Attorney General Margaret Wilson in respect to legality for Maori to have Court and Native Assessors

For one who claims that they have no written constitution are those who claim that they are in fact, lawless. For everything un-constituted is illegal and thereto, the acting government of New Zealand, having no written constitution is unlawful. And the laws made by that Parliament are illegal.

Unlike Maori to quote the words of Lord Normanby Standing Orders of 1839, “Whose title to the soil and to the Sovereignty of New Zealand is undisputable and has been solemnly recognised by the British Government” And, “........the admission of their rights ...........is binding on the British Crown”.

Indeed it was predicted in the Treaty that there would be need to protect a numerous and inoffensive peoples from Her Majesty’s bad or doubtful character whom, having fled Her Majesty’s penal settlements and, deserting their ships had, for the purposes of trade, have resorted to the shores of New Zealand. And so, in consequence of crime and outrage that such persons did inflict upon the Kingdom of Maori And so as to avert the continuance of such evil consequences of such lawless state; as by expressed by Lord Normanby with considerations to the findings of the Westminster Parliament House of Commons inquiry of 1836 – 1839 that; Maori must not be permitted to enter into any contracts in which they might be the ignorant and unintentional author’s of injuries to themselves”, the Crown of England entered into a Treaty of Protection with the People Maori.

Accordingly, in regards to protection and representation, Her Majesty took up the role of Maori Trustee, over the lands of all the People Maori. The Preamble of the Tiriti O Waitangi, to be very clear continued Article Four of the Declaration of Independence, witnesses by Resident James Busby in 1835, the first Constitutional Act of State of Aotearoa.

Article one of the said Treaty gave to the Queen Trusteeship of All lands forever and right of occupation for the Queen to establish Her Government in New Zealand, Articles Two & Three, the protection of Rangatiratanga for the exchange of Kawanatanga, made amendment to the First aforesaid Act of State granting to the Crown the first right of pre-emption (first right of purchase and the first right of refusal), with relation to the extinguishment of the Aboriginal/Native Title.

And so, together, the Declaration of Independence 1835 and Te Tiriti O Waitangi 1840 are the written Articles of the Constitution of Aotearoa. Nothing to do with the New Zealand Company Parliament residing at Wellington, nothing at all.

With respect to the Westminster Parliament Imperial Statute, the 1852 New Zealand Government Act granted opportunity for representative Government, to Her Majesty’s subjects, residing in New Zealand. That being so, the fact of the matter is; no inquiry was made so as to obtain consent from the Internal Sovereign Holding Legislative Authority Pursuant to Articles Two and Three of Te Tiriti O Waitangi Over, Our Chieftainship. Our Lands, Our Forests, Our Fisheries, Our Estates and All other Treasures. The Declaration of Independence 1835 clearly states that the Hereditary Chiefs and Heads of Tribes, quote: “will not permit any legislative authority separate from themselves ..... to exist.. except by persons “Appointed by them” and, acting under the Authority of Laws regularly enacted by the in Congress Assembled”.

Whereupon, in a manner of extreme rudeness the Settlers and Immmigrants Parliament residing at Wellington failed to obtain consent from Maori in relation to the 1852 New Zealand Government Act nor did it consult with Her Majesty’s subjects with regard to an agreed Constitution having the general assent of the persons so affected.

And furthermore it would not be Tikanga to transgress from the Precepts laid down by Our Tupuna’s embodied in the Declaration of Independence 1835 and Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840 And, evident by Protectorate Statute 71 of the so said 1852 Imperial Act which reads:

“And whereas it may be expedient that the Laws, Customs and Usages of the Aboriginal (Maori) Inhabitants of New Zealand, so far as they are not repugnant to the general principles of humanity, should for the present be maintained for the Government of themselves, in all their relations to and dealings with each other, and that particular districts should be set apart within which such Laws, Customs and Usages should be so observed”.

Therefore with regard to the legitimacy of the Native Assessors Court, the New Zealand Company Parliament Ministry of Justice has overlooked the Law of England. The Earl of Halsbury Volume 9 states: “ Courts are created by the authority of the King as the Fountain of Justice”. Annexed Hereto and marked with the letter “
A” , a copy of English Laws with relation to Creation of Courts”.

This Legislative Authority, “..is exercised either by Statute, Charter or Letters Patent...”. evident by Statute 71 of the New Zealand Constitution Act, Annexed hereto and marked with the letter “
B”, and further continued in Protectorate Imperial Legislation of 1858 and 1894 Annexed hereto and marked with the letters “C”, “D” and “E”, respectively:

C”, the Native Circuit Courts Act No.5, 1858.
  Section 33(1)
Institution of Native Circuit Courts  & 33(2) the creation of Court styled “The Native Circuit Court” And:
  36, Section 32(5) “...to be styled “The Assessors Court” and, such Assessors shall hold Assessors Courts..” And:
  “
D”, the Native District Regulations Act No.4: 1858
  Section 4, :....Summary proceedings before Justices of the Peace”, And:
  “
E”, the Native Land Court Act Part I & Part II, 1894, Land Jurisdiction and Administration that forms the basis of present day Maori Incorporations.
  
Also, with regard to Te Tiriti o Waitangi Articles II & III and The Declaration of Independence Articles II & III, Maori Parliament with the general assent of the persons affected thereby, makes the appointment of Judges and Assessors. These are Our Credentials of Legitimacy enacted into Imperial Statute.
  
Ministry of the New Zealand Company of Parliament residing in office at Wellington, Your Parliamentary Credentials and Letters Patent issued under the prorogative of Maori are required by the Legal Sovereign’s in Right

 Thereupon, having carefully checked Our records, no Evidence has been found that Maori ever gave to the Company Parliament, grant to operate Court. Therefore in accordance with the aforesaid and, Pursuant to Inherent Right of Order, We most certainly Shall have Tikanga, with regard to Kaitiakitanga of Rangatiratanga for the exchange of Kawanatanga, in the affairs of the Maori Nation of Aotearoa.

 Accordingly your attention is drawn to Te Ture Whenua Maori/Maori Land Act 1993 & Amendments 1994, Section 2(3) “In the event in any conflict of meaning between the Maori version and the English version of the Preamble, the Maori version Shall prevail”.
  
Furthermore, the Court is not a venue for executive dictate, in reference to comments by spokesperson for the New Zealand Company Parliament Ministry of Justice that asserts Maori Sovereignty has no legal foundation, with intent to circumvent argument and influence Judiciary, with regards to matters between Maori and English Crown.
  
Determinations were made by the Privy Council on 1900-1901 & 1919 with regard to the unextinguished Aboriginal Title of Customary lands as Proves:

Nihara Tamaki Vs Baker and Willis Vs Attorney General, which stated, “The Title of Maori Tribes to their Traditional Lands was recognised both by Statute and the Common Law” and that, “...the Crown lacked prerogative power in relation to the Tribal/Native or Aboriginal Title to Lands”.
  
And, with regard to the numerous Statutes which by referring to the “Native Title” plainly assumed “the existence of Tenure of Land under Custom and Usage”, which is either known to Lawyers or discoverable by them by evidence. Lord Watson was unwilling to accept that “the issue of a Crown Grant amounted to the extinction of the Tribal (Native) Title. Being that the British Crown had not purchased one inch of soil Pursuant to Article II and the exclusive right of pre-emption under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Lord Phillamore did say, in the case Hineiti Rirerire Arani Vs Public Trustee in 1919 that: “Maori Laws, Customs and Usages enjoyed legal Status in European Colonial Courts, in the absence of any Statute enacted by the People Maori, to say otherwise.
  
Whereupon, it is not for Company Dictate to say, the Crown or the Privy Council has been sent on their way. The Privy Council said: we will have none of that, as it reprimanded the willingness of the New Zealand Court of Appeal to accept that the Settlers and Immigrants Government and Maori Land Court Administration of the Native Aboriginal Title was a non justifiable Regal Discretion and further added that, “it was rather late in the day for the Colonial Bench in New Zealand to deny the Tribal/Native Title legal status”.
  

It is for Maori, to so say, being with the assent of the persons affected thereby.

 The New Zealand Court of Appeal eventually concluded, in June 2003 with relation to foreshore and seabed decision, that the Native Title remains Unextinguished Over All the Land. The same decision Lord Mc Naughten, Lord Watson and Lord Phillamore did deliver, thereby establishing precedent that is binding on all Courts in New Zealand and on Parliament of New Zealand. That being the case today, the Native Aboriginal Title still remains Unextinguished, And, in such case, Parliament at Wellington cannot Legislate, without such extinguishment, on the Native Title however, where Native Title is unextinguished, Maori Government can legislate Proper Constitutional Laws.
  
That found so, by the High Court of Appeal in 2003 with relation to foreshore & seabed Legislation it means, we the Maori People are in Government for that is what Te Ture Whenua Maori/Maori Land Act 1993, the Preamble, sections 2, 5 &12 depicts.

 And with regard to that, to be effective, the Laws must bind the Crown, And So, Section 2 of Te Ture Whenua Maori/Maori Land Act 1993 & Amendments 1994 could be seen as Mandatory Cession of Crown to, or Statutory Acknowledgement of, the Rights of Rangatiratanga of Maori. Annexed hereto and marked with the letter “F” copy of Te Ture Whenua Maori/Maori Land Act 1993, the Preamble, Sections 2, 5 & 12.

 For embedded in the Preamble to that Act is found: “Whereas the Treaty of Waitangi established the special relationship between the Maori People and the Crown....” The Partnership and Spirit of Exchange, Kawanatanga for the Protection of Rangatiratanga, the Agreement.

 And with respect to position of Judiciary, this Act Shall bind the Crown. It is the role of Justices, Privy Council Lord Mc Naughten did say, “for the Court to determine what is a Breach of Trust”, not refer to the Company Parliament.

 Acting Attorney General Margaret Wilson and Justice Hugh Williams are quite wrong in comment. While some say Te Ture is a Land Act, if one looks to the Preamble, “...and whereas it is desirable to recognise that Land is a Taonga Tuku Iho, of special significance to Maori People...” And, “whereas it is desirable to maintain a Court of Rangatiratanga” And Sections Two and Three speak of Maori Governance and the way in which the Native Title may be extinguished by the exclusive right of pre-emption of the British Crown, to purchase before all others or, the first right of refusal.
  
That means, under Articles Two and Three, there is a Constitution Governing Aotearoa (NZ). It gives Maori the Constitutional Protected Right to Legislate, “the Chiefs of all the subtribes of the Maori People the unqualified exercise of their Chieftainship over all their Lands, their villages and over all their treasures”. Thereby Maori have Constitutional Protected Right, not Parliament at Wellington, nor its subjects. It is Us that make the law.
  
Indeed, it is truth, there is one law for All and that is, The Declaration of Independence 1835, Te Tiriti O Waitangi 1840 and any other laws made by Maori Incorporations under Part XIII of Te Ture Whenua Maori/Maori Land Act 1993-95, Pursuant to sections 250, 253, 268(3)/94 and 284(2)(u) 93, the Written Constitution of Aotearoa, Maori & Crown Law.
  
And So, in accordance with the Preamble and Section 2 of the Te Ture Whenua, so as to facilitate the recognition of those embedded principles, for the benefit of the Owners, it is not unlawful to call into Session, in a manner that Shall be Tikanga, the Native Assessors Court.
  
Gentlemen and Ladies of the New Zealand Company’s Judiciary, it is little wonder you wear black robes, you have been burnt by the red robes of the Privy Council, Her Majesty’s Justice and Maori Justice And, have turned to charcoal by the black robes you wear.
  
It is without doubt that the Ministry of New Zealand Company of Parliament residing in office at Wellington, is in fact the misrepresentation. Evident by the aforesaid Ministry making apology, 100 years subsequent to the ‘Act’ thereby making admission it killed, Paramount Chief Mokomoko. Whereupon guilty as charged And it is not for the killer to grant pardon to the victim. It is for the Tribe, Hapu and Whanau of Chief Mokomoko, if appropriate, to grant pardon to murderers and thieves that had such malign intention. A pack of landless pirates pretending to be civilised, the worstest criminals of them all. As a matter of de jure, fraud.
  
And So, with regard to recent comment from the Acting Attorney General’s Office, Nga Tikanga Maori Law Society having done the investigation. It is time to call upon the Crown to exercise its Feudal and Fiducial Titles, so as to avert those evil consequences, for King William did make promise, “that He will not fail to avail Himself of every opportunity of showing His Goodwill”, Contra Proferentum rule.
  
Therefore some consideration is recommended with relation to capacity of the Prorogative Power of Maori constituted within the meaning of Te Ture Whenua Maori/Maori Land Act 1993 and all amendments and Te Tiriti O Waitangi and the Declaration of Independence and any other enactments or the general law And, thereby the only Lawful Entity in New Zealand of which, threats to investigate are unseemly and, with respect to allegations of con and illegality, slander against the Sovereign Landlords of Aotearoa, Section 12.

 

A matter to which the Attorney Generals Office, claiming mandate as the Crown, Shall have regard. Sections 2, 5, and 12 of Te Ture and the Preamble to that Act is that.


The Office of Attorney General Shall Obey, in a proper manner of conduct.
  


 Dated this 14th Day of December in the year of the Lord 2004

 
  Respectfully,

 
Hohepa Mapiria

Chief Native Assessor,

God save the Queen


Nga Tikanga Maori Law Society Inc. O Aotearoa (NZ)
  PoBox 10038 Te Mai
  Maunu Rd
  Whangarei
copyright of ngarangatira.com (c) 2010