CONSTITUTION / LEGAL STATUS. Memorandum of Evidence

Transcription

1 ATTACHMENT B VITAL INFORMATION CONSTITUTION / LEGAL STATUS Memorandum of Evidence 1.In 1908 the Crown of England agreed to (Aotearoa) New Zealand and the Parliament of New South Wales residing in Wellington, New Zealand, becoming a self Governing Country and a Dominion instead of a Colony of the Crown of England. 2. Hence in 1947 the jurisdiction of the lowest Court in New Zealand was established, under the Statute of Westminster Act 1947 came the Districts Courts Act The Parliament of New South Wales, residing in Wellington New Zealand, in their efforts to secure the Country. Adopted The Westminster Adoption Act 1947 to which this gave them the power to make "Full Laws" for themselves. West Minster Parliament ordered once again that they would be held subject to Section 8 of that Act which reads; 4. "Nothing in this Act shall give any power to repeal the 'Constitution Act of the Colony of Australia or the Constitution Act of the Dominion of New Zealand". 5.Therefore, the New South Wales Parliament has no authority to alter or repeal the Constitution of the Dominion of New Zealand, though they had adopted that Act, it did not give them the right to govern only the right to make Full Laws for themselves. 6.In 1986, at the enactment of the New Zealand Constitution Act 1986, by the Parliament of New South Wales, residing in Wellington, New Zealand, repealed the New Zealand Constitution Act 1882, in breach of Section 8 of the Westminster Adoption Act To which, they are the authors of their own demise, in that, the New South Wales Parliament, residing at Wellington, did, in 1986 repeal the 1852 New Zealand Constitution Act, that allowed them to obtain a Warrant, for themselves, for the limited powers, to govern over both the British and European subjects. 8. Now therefore, be it known to all man, that the Law making procedures, now rest with the I Maori People, being Tangata Whenua, holding Mana Whenua and Kaitiakitanga, the Internal Sovereign in Rights of Aotearoa (NZ), under Part XIII of Te Ture Whenua Maori I Maori Land

2 Act 1993, Sections 253 and 253A, and Section 17 of Te Ture Whenua Amendment Act In Section 284 of Te Ture Whenua Maori / Maori Land Act 1993; Whereas Maori are able to overwrite any law of parliament of New Zealand ofnew South Wales residing in Wellington or any regulations made by thegovernor General residing in Wellington or any Court in New Zealand, thus any case, thatmaori wish, for the return of their Land" can be actioned by, a mere application by way of order, is to be applied to a Maori Incorporation, to enforce it under Section 144 of Te Ture Whenua Maori/Maori Land Act 1993, to Her Majesty 's Council of the United Kingdom, to issue Letters Patent under Section 71 and Section 10 of the New Zealand Constitution Act Paying particular interest to the determination made by Lord Philmore in the common law of England of the United Kingdom as referred to in Section 5 of the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988 which states; Common Law of the United Kingdom shall form part of the law of New Zealand", The common law stated by Lord Philmore in "Heneti Rerireri vs. Public Trustee stated; 11. Maori Customary Law enjoys Legal Recognizable status in European Colonial Courts in the accordance of a Statute indicating otherwise"the statute being enacted by the Native Inhabitants. To which the native inhabitants, have never made an enactment to Repeal any Constitutional Rights as yet. 12. Lord Watson in determining the Native Title meaning. Everything that is owned by Maori under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and prior to thetreaty of Waitangi, including the Declaration of Independence Lord Watson presided in Nihara Tamaki vs. Baker and Stated. "There were numerous statues which I have already mentioned, and common law doctrines that by referring to the Native Title or such like, plainly assumes tenure of land under Custom and Usage, which is either known to lawyers or discoverable by evidence" Lord Watson was saying that the lawyers are just plum lazy! 14. Lord Watson was unwilling to accept that an issue of a Crown Grant amounted to an extinguishment of the Native Title. He further stated that, "The Crown has not yet purchased one inch of soil under its First Right of Pre emption and in accordance with the Treaty of Waitangi." 15. Since the Crown has not purchased one inch of soil in New Zealand, the Crown lacked Unreviewable Prerogative Power in relation to the Native Title, and that it is rather late in the day for the Parliament of the New South Wales, Orders not Valid for want of form Section: 74 Cf No94, ss 34(8), 64(2)

3 residing in Wellington New Zealand, and the Colonial Bench such as the High Court or any such Court, to deny 16. "NATIVE TITLE LEGAL STATUS." In the base of "Willis vs. The Attorney General" an agreement between the Bishop of Wellington and the Maori Tribe, as to a block of Land. The Tribes gifted some land to the Bishop of Wellington, to build a school. The Government issued him with a Crown Giant. She took away the gift. The Crown Grant gave the Bishop of Wellington full title to the land, despite the gift reached by the Tribes and the Bishop. 17. The Court of Appeal agreed. The Privy Council said "tut tut we'll have none of that" (McNaughton) the court is not on instrument of executive dictate. 18. The Court of Appeal was not an instrument of Parliament, to dictate to, by Statute of Law. It wasn't their job to uphold the Breach of Trust and quash the title. The Crown Grant issued to the Bishop of Wellington and the orders issued by the Court of Appeal and further stating that the Native Title remained Unextinguished." In the some court hearing, Lord Stanley arose and put the Head and Protection over the Native Title by concluding that, For as long as the Treaty of Waitangi 1840 remains as "Protectorate" of the Declaration of Independence 1835, the Native Title will always remain forever Unextinguished. 19. Consequently, by the Parliament of New South Wales residing in Wellington, New Zealand, repealing the 1986 Constitution Act meant that the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947, to which they adopted to make Full Laws for themselves, no longer existed. 20. Therefore, the evidence we have presented, clearly shows, that at no time, have we the Maori People, being Tangata Whenua, holding Mana Whenua throughout the Nation of Aotearoa, ever made an enactment to repeal any Customary law as yet, leaves only one conclusion, 21. " The Parliament of New South Wales, residing in Wellington, New Zealand, their Governor General also residing at Wellington, their Select Committees and Courts, has managed to Legislate it selves, out of Constitutional and Legal Existence." Adding that despite the many claims and views of various organizations and persons, who presume to represent the Maori People, for example * The New Zealand Maori Congress * Maori Trust Boards * iwi Rünanga *Maori Land Courts * Te Puni Kokiri * Maori Development * Maori Electorates in Parliament * Trusts and Incorporations constituted by the Maori Land Courts.

4 * Maori Organizations under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 * Charitable Trusts Act Given that these Organizations do not have a mandate by the Maori People and are mere creatures created by the Illegal Government, of the Parliament of New South Wales residing in Wellington, New Zealand, do have a similar entity of illegality and require Consent and Assent of Tangata Whenua, holding Mana Whenua and Kaitiakitanga. 22. Therefore, the Bodies and Persons holding the Prerogative Powers are those Constituted under the (I) Declaration of Independence 1835 (fi) Te Whakaputanga o te Rangatira 0 Nu Tireni 1835_ 1839 (United, Confederated and Incorporated.) (III) Body Corporate existing today under Te Ture Whenua Maori Incorporation Constitutions Regulations Act 1995 (IV) The Common Law of the United Kingdom. And so if a Maori Incorporation stated its cause under, Te Ture Whenua Maori Land Act 1993 Section 144. Maori customary land deemed Crown land for certain purposes 23. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, but subject to subsection (4) of this section, Maori Customary land shall be deemed to be Crown land within the meaning of the Land Act 1948 for the purpose of (a) Recovering possession of the land from any person in wrongful occupation of the land: 24. Where proceedings are brought by or on behalf of the Crown pursuant to subsection (2) of this section, the Crown shall be deemed to be acting in the place of the beneficial owners of the Maori land to which the proceedings relate and for the benefit of those owners. 25. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, proceedings (a) For the recovery from the Crown of the possession of "Maori Customary Land" (b) For damages from the Crown in respect of any trespass or injury to Maori Customary Land_ may be brought in any Court by the Maori Trustee on behalf of the beneficial owners of that land and, for the purposes of any such proceedings, the Maori Trustee shall be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, to be authorised to represent the beneficial owner of that land. cf. 1953, wo 94 s The Treaty of Waitangi, Article 1 states as follows "The Land is held by the Crown in Trust for Maori. It is Maori Customary Land that the Queen holds forever, Maori Customary Land deemed Crown land by the purposes of, That concludes the British Crowns determination and extent of Native Title. 27. So in conclusion, the Memorandum of Evidence we have presented, clearly shows that at no time have we ever relinquished (F) Sovereignty/Prerogative Powers (II) Customary Title ship (III) Customary Lands

5 GOD SAVE QUEEN ELIZABETH II SHE has a special relationship with MEORI And so, it boils down to Section 144 of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Maori Land Act "Wrongful Occupation" Constitutional Legal Status: 2003 The Political and Legal status of Aotearoa (New Zealand) on this, the 14 th June 2003 is as follows; Sovereign Territories of Aotearoa (N.Z). The Native Inhabitants of Aotearoa (N.Z), have never, at any time, during the period between , relinquished any Customary Rights or Prerogative Powers during this period, in accordance with the protection guaranteed under 29. The Declaration of Independence 1835: Te Tiriti 0 Waitangi 1840: British Crown: All Covenants and Treaties are still in existence, to which several Privy Council Rulings between have upheld and reinforced the Principles and Objectives of Te Tiriti 0 Waitangi 1840 The Declaration of Independence. 30. Colonial Settlers: The Constitutional/Legal situation the colonial Parliament, being The Parliament of New South Wales, residing in Wellington New Zealand, has managed to legislate itself into legal limbo, as follows (I) 1852: Native Inhabitants did, at no time, consent to the enactment of 31. New Zealand Constitution Act To which the Parliament of New South Wales, residing in Wellington, did Breach the Terms of the Warrant. CII) i937 "Nihara vs. Baker" Lord Watson of the Privy Council stated two things; (a) Numerous Statutes and Common Law Doctrines refining to Native Title ship (b) Crown had not purchased one inch of soil under it's First Right of Pre emption (III) "Willis vs. The Attorney General" (a) McNaughton of the Privy Council stated that, the Court is not an instrument of executive dictate. We are not here to uphold a Breach of Law, (b) Lord Stanley then rose to put a Head and Protection over Native Title ship by stating_ 1. Treaty of Waitangi in existence 2. Declaration of independence 1835 covered by Protectorate. 3. Native Title ship Unextinguished. (IV) "Heneti Rerireri vs. Public Trust" (a) Lord Philmore stated, '1Maori Customary Law enjoy legal Status in European Colonial Courts. (V) Westminster Adoption Act Parliament bank of New South Wales residing illegally in Wellington, New Zealand, did repeal 1852 New Zealand Constitution in "Breach of section 8 Westminster Adoption Act Argument: Given Legal rulings by the Privy Council, we have clearly shown that the Sovereign and Customary rights of the Native Inhabitants of the Territories

6 33. of Aotearoa (N.Z) as guaranteed under the Declaration of Independence 1835 and Te Tiriti 0 Waitangi To which we add that Constitutional Breaches from has created a Legal and Constitutional crises for the Parliament of New South Wales residing in Wellington New Zealand. 34. Therefore it boils down to section 144 of "Te Ture Whenua Maori Maori Lands Act 1993" as follows Section 144: Maori Customary land shall be deemed to be Crown Land with the meaning of the Land Act 1948 for the purposes of Recovering possession of the Land from any person in wrongful occupation of the Land and the recovery from the Crown of the possession of Maori Customary Land, plus damages from the Crown in respect of any trespass or injury to Maori Customary' may be brought in any Court by the Maori Trustee on behalf of the Beneficial Owners (Native Inhabitants of Aotearoa) of the Land... and for the purposes of such proceedings, Maori Trustee shall be PRESUMED in the absence of any EVIDENCE to the contrary, to be Authorised to represent the beneficiary owners of that land. These are our submissions in regards to whom is the "Legal Sovereign People of Aotearoa (N.Z) and TRUSTEE. The Maori Trustee is "The Queen Elizabeth II" not someone appointed by the illegal NZ immigrant settlers legislative company parliament that resides in illegally Wellington, a company of Australia