US firm's Matakana homes plan draws strong response
29.12.2008
A Matakana Island elder has warned that only a bullet will stop him from entering land if it is subdivided into an exclusive hideaway for the rich.
Bob Rolleston has fired the first shots in an American-owned forestry company's plan to subdivide its 1920ha landholding on the forested side of Matakana Island.
If Blakely Pacific's application to Western Bay District Council succeeds, the 48-lot subdivision will allow the development of homes overlooking the ocean and harbour.
Mr Rolleston said the threatened break-up of the northern end of Matakana would deny Maori traditional access to a big chunk of the forest-covered island.
The 57-year-old kaumatua (elder) was born and bred on Matakana. He says he knows the old stories and most of the whakapapa of the island and its neighbouring Rangiwaea Island.
He said the forested side of Matakana was often used by Maori for pig hunting or as a way to reach the ocean beaches to fish and gather shellfish. This was permitted by Blakely Pacific.
But subdividing the land would completely change its character and was a radical shift from the status quo. Mr Rolleston said the new owners would talk legal ownership whereas he talked about whakapapa (genealogy) and Maori lore.
Mr Rolleston would take a hardline cultural position if the application succeeded, which could escalate into serious confrontation if others joined him.
``Nobody will ever stop me treading that land, and the only thing that will stop me is a bullet.
``It is my spiritual land, it is my bloodline, my connections, it is my heart _ it is everything that my body consumes.'
Mr Rolleston said his opinions reflected those of many of the island's Maori, whether they lived on Matakana or not. The majority were absolutely opposed to development.
The land proposed for subdivision was part of the area historically occupied by his hapu.
Mr Rolleston is a descendent of Ngai Tamawhareua, the hapu (subtribe) which is the kaitiaki (guardian) of the northern end of the island.
``Where they are planning to build is straight opposite Uretureture _ an ancient pa that belonged to our people.' Mr Rolleston is from Wikeepa whanau, an extended family directly descended from Tamawhareua hapu. Tamawhareua was the youngest son of Te Rangihouhiri and Pukai, the founder of Tauranga Moana's Ngaiterangi iwi (tribe). He is also a direct descendent of Hori Tupaea of Ngai Tauwhao hapu on Rangiwaea Island.
Mr Rolleston does not see ownership of the island in strictly legalistic terms, saying that Maori lore was as important as law.
``It is not about ownership, it is about whakapapa.' He said that for Maori families, whakapapa was the island in its entirety.
``For each and every one of us, the island is us and we are the island _ even those who go along with development of Matakana.
``We are the legacy left by our ancestors.'
He said the company's message from its meeting with hapu was that it would do what it had to do _ leaving hapu in the position of protecting their interests. Mr Rolleston has spent nearly all his adult life away from the island, but returns as often as possible.
Blakely Pacific managing director Phil Taylor said opposition to the plan was a concern in attracting buyers for the homes.
``It is one of the reasons we want to get them [the community] to support the application and not oppose us,' he said.
``If you have a disenfranchised community, who will want to live there?'
Mr Taylor said Blakely Pacific would not be ``firing any bullets' but the company needed to consider how to engage with Mr Rolleston and others.
``One of the issues is how you reconcile European-style freehold ownership with the concept of spiritual ownership. ``That is the challenging area and we need to work through it.'
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Complaining to Parliament
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 2:45 PM
Subject: Matakana Island
Tena koe Dr Pita Sharples
Thank you for your letter dated 10 March together with the attached letter of Attorney General Dr Cullen dated 7 February 2008.
Dr Cullen's letter states, the legal matters have been fully considered by the Courts. This is something the Attorney-General's office has been saying for sometime. But they miss the point of my complaint each time. My complaint is the Courts knowingly and intentionally changed various facts that cost Arklow its legal rights. Put simply, the Courts wrote a judgement that was wrong and is a fiction. I understand they did this to allow the Maori defendants to keep the Matakana land. I cannot find any law that allows judges to do this. Clearly they have failed their duty of care. In both the Court of Appeal and Privy Council the point was made by the defence that maybe the bank erred in their duty to Wingate Arklow, but the overriding and important point was the sacred land was now in the ownership of the traditional land owners.
I note with interest what Lord Cooke said in his Harkness Henry speech to fellow judges. He said that the wrongs committed by the Waitangi breaches need not only legislative assistance to correct but that is was up to the judges to do all they can to correct past wrongs. My point and my complaint is that Arklow has been a victim of that policy. Can you please address this issue with Dr Cullen. The main question is; Is it acceptable to the Government for judges to change findings of fact and are the judges obligated to a degree of accuracy when writing their judgments.
The other point I raised with you was seeking to know how in law can the leaders of Ngaiterangi iwi be leaders of the Tauranga Maori community, then when they obtain a business benefit for the people they represent, they ignore their fiduciary duty and take the gain for themselves. That would be like the Prime Minister and the cabinet setting up private companies to take advantage of crown business at the loss for the people who trust them the leadership role. In any area of law, those type of conflicts are not allowed. Can you please address this issue and provide me with the solution. As you would know the people of Tauranga are outraged asking how this could happen. If you require more information please let me know and I will help.
As for the death inquiry of Sonny Tawhiao, the INDEPENDENT POLICE CONDUCT AUTHORITY are looking into the original police inquiry. But again, I find a complete fiduciary failure with getting any government assistance with complaints. I write to the Government complaining about faults in the Crown system, and I seek help, but they ignore the wrong-doing and they ignore my complaint. That behavior is something they have done to Maori for more than 100 years but it appears they now do it to the rest of the citizens. Maori are not the only victims of Crown mistakes. I appreciate more than most what it has cost Maori. But it has cost me and my family our lovely home of 20 years, our income, and my belief in the quality of our Crown system of government.
Heoi ano
Christopher Wingate
Background from http://courtsofappeal.blogspot.com/ ;
Lord Cooke of Thorndon's Harkness Henry speech; The Challenge of Treaty of Waitangi Jurisprudence, confirmed judge’s extra judicial role to help Maori.
The 1840 Treaty of Waitangi was an agreement England entered into with the Maori which made various promises of protection in exchange for a foot in the door. Although the Waitangi agreement was never formally accepted in British Parliament they undertook a fiduciary duty by asking for and getting the Maori's agreement to grant Britain control over their interests.
As settlers poured with money the Crown began selling land they did not own. When the Maori refused to sell the Crown the land the government began a war to gain land ownership. In 1975 the New Zealand parliament began recognition that the Treaty was an agreement that had been breached and so began the work of the Waitangi Tribunal. The Tribunal began to hear claims from Maori about the land and rights they had lost due to the Crown's breach of duty.
Paul Temm's masterpiece “The Conscience of the Nation” covers the Crown's history of abuse. With the Waitangi Tribunal's task to research and produce reports, the Courts took up the role of preventing as best as they could any future government agency violations. And they undertook the Court would ensure all practical assistance be provided to Maori to ensure the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi were honored.
In managing this process Arklow Investments became its first major victim. Arklow has claimed its rights to the Matakana land existed from a claim in equity that Wellington merchant bank Far Financial had stolen Arklow's deal. The Arklow claim proved that immediately after providing Far with how Arklow had structured the purchase of Matakana Island, Far ran off and did the deal themselves even though they provided Arklow with a written promise of confidentiality. That claim was first outlined in the Auckland High Court in early 1993.
At this same time various groups of Tauranga Maori namely Ngaiterangi Iwi Te Kotukutuku Coporation (TKC)were claiming the Matakana land should be theirs as it was sacred and was the subject to a Waitangi claim. They also claimed the deal Far entered into was illegal.The Maori put in a road blockade, someone set fire to the forest, ITT and E1 were threatened and the police would do nothing.
Eventually Far Financial sort excape from both litigtion's by entering into a deal to sell the Matakana land to Te Kotukutuku. Their lawyers confident the entry of Maori into the proceedings would stop Arklow's claim against Far Financial. In March 1994 Far Financial and TKC applied to the Wellington High Court to lift Arklow‘s caveats to make way for new Maori owners. The application before the Court was supported by false affidavits produced by Maori Tribal leadership (who were after assets for themselves personally)and commercial interests Far had introduced as partners into the Matakana deal. Collectively those Far partners stood to lose at least $10m in profits they had bargained for. The affidavits TKC produced failed to inform the court they had a clear conflict of interest and would gain financially as they were shareholders of the Maori company TKC.
Arklow opposed the sale claiming Far Financial had stolen their deal. And that needed to be heard before the land was sold to anyone else. Arklow also provided evidence the Maori group had used illegal tactics to obtain the contract. The judge rejected all of Arklow's claims and accepted the defendant’s evidence. He also made mention in his Judgement the support by the Minister of Lands and the Minister of Finance and went onto say the transaction went some distance to resolving the Waitangi claims.
A few months later that Judgement was overturned by the Court of Appeal. But both money and title remained in place. Arklow now had 17 defendants to contend with.
In 1997 after a 4 week trial Justice Paul Temm decided in Arklow's favor. He stated "To put the matter in the vernacular Far Financial stole Arklow's information and nicked off with a pocket full of money"
In 1998 Far Financial and Maori appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal. The Court was presented with the argument the Matakana land was sacred and was now in the hands of the Maori Iwi. They stated the Maori ownership was in danger if Far Financial lost the appeal. The Court accepted this advice and created a Judgement that ignored and even changed key findings of fact. In addition they changed the nature of the relationship Arklow had with Far and quoted law that did not belong to this type of case.
The only genuine Maori Sony Tawhiao who was the official Waitangi claimant was facing death threats about his complaints of Iwi leadership stealing the Matakana land. Fearing he would become an Arklow witness exposing his leaders dishonesty he became a target. His body was found 7 July 1999.
http://matakanamurder.blogspot.com/
The Privy Council faced the same submission over the sacred land was now in the hands of Maori. In December 1999 they confirmed the Judgement of the New Zealand Court of Appeal and rejected the Arklow case.
Within a few years that group of Maori under the company name of Te Kotukutuku announced a major canal development on the sacred land. When that didn’t work out they sold the entire parcel of land which is now owned by American and New Zealand property developers. The financial win has gone mostly to the tribe’s leadership including the chartered accountant who gave the Court false affidavits the Court was too ready to accept. The conflicts by Maori leadership in this transaction have been a disgrace.
Since then Privy Council decision, Arklow had made repeated claims to the Crown that judicial misadventure wrongfully destroyed Arklow’s lawful rights to make way for the demands by fake Maori. The undertakings the Maori made to withdraw the Waitangi claims they had over Matakana land never occurred. Those claims have continued.
Arklow's claim was in equity which was once the domain of a separate court structure. It was originally developed because of repeated injustice being caused by poor legislation that failed to provide remedies in situations in which precedent or statutory law might not apply or be equitable. For hundred of years the independent chancery stood alone to meet that task up until the Judicature Act of 1873. From that point forward all High Court, Appeal Court judges including the House of Lords and the Privy Council, took over the ability to deal with fiduciary mismanagement and unexplained legislation.
This paper deals with the dangers of that discretion.
In 1987, Lord Cooke delivered the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General, which sought to clarify what Parliament meant by section 9 of the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986. The act stated "Nothing in this act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi", but what those principles might be was left to the courts to decide. The principles elicited by President Cooke set legal standards for the first time on the relationship between the Crown and Maori.
The legal system is not powerless to provide remedies for racial injustice in appropriate cases, and decisions of the Courts in this field have assisted the parties to achieve voluntary settlements.
Some years later Lord Cooke's speech on 'Waitangi Jurisprudence' concludes this well intentioned agenda by saying;
"I hope that this excursion may have helped to show that Maori claims to remedies are not totally unfounded. The challenge of Treaty of Waitangi jurisprudence has been two- fold: to define the principles of the Treaty and to do what the courts can to ensure that they are given practical effect. We have not achieved everything one could have wished. But at least in the fields of lands, forests and fisheries, some tangible results can be seen. They have been achieved by an interaction of three forces: first, some enlightened leadership on both the Crown and Maori sides; secondly, the inquiries and reports of the Waitangi Tribunal, the concept of which as an essentially investigatory and recommendatory body may well find some counterpart in the new South Africa; thirdly, the traditional courts and in some of their judgments an increased willingness to take into account the Treaty and the fiduciary concept. The responsibility of judicial decision is quite different from that of Tribunal recommendation. The functions are complementary. All three forces are probably essential to further progress."
Lord Cooke of Thorndon's Harkness Henry speech can be found at the base end of http://idiotsinpower.blogspot.com/
Subject: Matakana Island
Tena koe Dr Pita Sharples
Thank you for your letter dated 10 March together with the attached letter of Attorney General Dr Cullen dated 7 February 2008.
Dr Cullen's letter states, the legal matters have been fully considered by the Courts. This is something the Attorney-General's office has been saying for sometime. But they miss the point of my complaint each time. My complaint is the Courts knowingly and intentionally changed various facts that cost Arklow its legal rights. Put simply, the Courts wrote a judgement that was wrong and is a fiction. I understand they did this to allow the Maori defendants to keep the Matakana land. I cannot find any law that allows judges to do this. Clearly they have failed their duty of care. In both the Court of Appeal and Privy Council the point was made by the defence that maybe the bank erred in their duty to Wingate Arklow, but the overriding and important point was the sacred land was now in the ownership of the traditional land owners.
I note with interest what Lord Cooke said in his Harkness Henry speech to fellow judges. He said that the wrongs committed by the Waitangi breaches need not only legislative assistance to correct but that is was up to the judges to do all they can to correct past wrongs. My point and my complaint is that Arklow has been a victim of that policy. Can you please address this issue with Dr Cullen. The main question is; Is it acceptable to the Government for judges to change findings of fact and are the judges obligated to a degree of accuracy when writing their judgments.
The other point I raised with you was seeking to know how in law can the leaders of Ngaiterangi iwi be leaders of the Tauranga Maori community, then when they obtain a business benefit for the people they represent, they ignore their fiduciary duty and take the gain for themselves. That would be like the Prime Minister and the cabinet setting up private companies to take advantage of crown business at the loss for the people who trust them the leadership role. In any area of law, those type of conflicts are not allowed. Can you please address this issue and provide me with the solution. As you would know the people of Tauranga are outraged asking how this could happen. If you require more information please let me know and I will help.
As for the death inquiry of Sonny Tawhiao, the INDEPENDENT POLICE CONDUCT AUTHORITY are looking into the original police inquiry. But again, I find a complete fiduciary failure with getting any government assistance with complaints. I write to the Government complaining about faults in the Crown system, and I seek help, but they ignore the wrong-doing and they ignore my complaint. That behavior is something they have done to Maori for more than 100 years but it appears they now do it to the rest of the citizens. Maori are not the only victims of Crown mistakes. I appreciate more than most what it has cost Maori. But it has cost me and my family our lovely home of 20 years, our income, and my belief in the quality of our Crown system of government.
Heoi ano
Christopher Wingate
Background from http://courtsofappeal.blogspot.com/ ;
Lord Cooke of Thorndon's Harkness Henry speech; The Challenge of Treaty of Waitangi Jurisprudence, confirmed judge’s extra judicial role to help Maori.
The 1840 Treaty of Waitangi was an agreement England entered into with the Maori which made various promises of protection in exchange for a foot in the door. Although the Waitangi agreement was never formally accepted in British Parliament they undertook a fiduciary duty by asking for and getting the Maori's agreement to grant Britain control over their interests.
As settlers poured with money the Crown began selling land they did not own. When the Maori refused to sell the Crown the land the government began a war to gain land ownership. In 1975 the New Zealand parliament began recognition that the Treaty was an agreement that had been breached and so began the work of the Waitangi Tribunal. The Tribunal began to hear claims from Maori about the land and rights they had lost due to the Crown's breach of duty.
Paul Temm's masterpiece “The Conscience of the Nation” covers the Crown's history of abuse. With the Waitangi Tribunal's task to research and produce reports, the Courts took up the role of preventing as best as they could any future government agency violations. And they undertook the Court would ensure all practical assistance be provided to Maori to ensure the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi were honored.
In managing this process Arklow Investments became its first major victim. Arklow has claimed its rights to the Matakana land existed from a claim in equity that Wellington merchant bank Far Financial had stolen Arklow's deal. The Arklow claim proved that immediately after providing Far with how Arklow had structured the purchase of Matakana Island, Far ran off and did the deal themselves even though they provided Arklow with a written promise of confidentiality. That claim was first outlined in the Auckland High Court in early 1993.
At this same time various groups of Tauranga Maori namely Ngaiterangi Iwi Te Kotukutuku Coporation (TKC)were claiming the Matakana land should be theirs as it was sacred and was the subject to a Waitangi claim. They also claimed the deal Far entered into was illegal.The Maori put in a road blockade, someone set fire to the forest, ITT and E1 were threatened and the police would do nothing.
Eventually Far Financial sort excape from both litigtion's by entering into a deal to sell the Matakana land to Te Kotukutuku. Their lawyers confident the entry of Maori into the proceedings would stop Arklow's claim against Far Financial. In March 1994 Far Financial and TKC applied to the Wellington High Court to lift Arklow‘s caveats to make way for new Maori owners. The application before the Court was supported by false affidavits produced by Maori Tribal leadership (who were after assets for themselves personally)and commercial interests Far had introduced as partners into the Matakana deal. Collectively those Far partners stood to lose at least $10m in profits they had bargained for. The affidavits TKC produced failed to inform the court they had a clear conflict of interest and would gain financially as they were shareholders of the Maori company TKC.
Arklow opposed the sale claiming Far Financial had stolen their deal. And that needed to be heard before the land was sold to anyone else. Arklow also provided evidence the Maori group had used illegal tactics to obtain the contract. The judge rejected all of Arklow's claims and accepted the defendant’s evidence. He also made mention in his Judgement the support by the Minister of Lands and the Minister of Finance and went onto say the transaction went some distance to resolving the Waitangi claims.
A few months later that Judgement was overturned by the Court of Appeal. But both money and title remained in place. Arklow now had 17 defendants to contend with.
In 1997 after a 4 week trial Justice Paul Temm decided in Arklow's favor. He stated "To put the matter in the vernacular Far Financial stole Arklow's information and nicked off with a pocket full of money"
In 1998 Far Financial and Maori appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal. The Court was presented with the argument the Matakana land was sacred and was now in the hands of the Maori Iwi. They stated the Maori ownership was in danger if Far Financial lost the appeal. The Court accepted this advice and created a Judgement that ignored and even changed key findings of fact. In addition they changed the nature of the relationship Arklow had with Far and quoted law that did not belong to this type of case.
The only genuine Maori Sony Tawhiao who was the official Waitangi claimant was facing death threats about his complaints of Iwi leadership stealing the Matakana land. Fearing he would become an Arklow witness exposing his leaders dishonesty he became a target. His body was found 7 July 1999.
http://matakanamurder.blogspot.com/
The Privy Council faced the same submission over the sacred land was now in the hands of Maori. In December 1999 they confirmed the Judgement of the New Zealand Court of Appeal and rejected the Arklow case.
Within a few years that group of Maori under the company name of Te Kotukutuku announced a major canal development on the sacred land. When that didn’t work out they sold the entire parcel of land which is now owned by American and New Zealand property developers. The financial win has gone mostly to the tribe’s leadership including the chartered accountant who gave the Court false affidavits the Court was too ready to accept. The conflicts by Maori leadership in this transaction have been a disgrace.
Since then Privy Council decision, Arklow had made repeated claims to the Crown that judicial misadventure wrongfully destroyed Arklow’s lawful rights to make way for the demands by fake Maori. The undertakings the Maori made to withdraw the Waitangi claims they had over Matakana land never occurred. Those claims have continued.
Arklow's claim was in equity which was once the domain of a separate court structure. It was originally developed because of repeated injustice being caused by poor legislation that failed to provide remedies in situations in which precedent or statutory law might not apply or be equitable. For hundred of years the independent chancery stood alone to meet that task up until the Judicature Act of 1873. From that point forward all High Court, Appeal Court judges including the House of Lords and the Privy Council, took over the ability to deal with fiduciary mismanagement and unexplained legislation.
This paper deals with the dangers of that discretion.
In 1987, Lord Cooke delivered the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General, which sought to clarify what Parliament meant by section 9 of the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986. The act stated "Nothing in this act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi", but what those principles might be was left to the courts to decide. The principles elicited by President Cooke set legal standards for the first time on the relationship between the Crown and Maori.
The legal system is not powerless to provide remedies for racial injustice in appropriate cases, and decisions of the Courts in this field have assisted the parties to achieve voluntary settlements.
Some years later Lord Cooke's speech on 'Waitangi Jurisprudence' concludes this well intentioned agenda by saying;
"I hope that this excursion may have helped to show that Maori claims to remedies are not totally unfounded. The challenge of Treaty of Waitangi jurisprudence has been two- fold: to define the principles of the Treaty and to do what the courts can to ensure that they are given practical effect. We have not achieved everything one could have wished. But at least in the fields of lands, forests and fisheries, some tangible results can be seen. They have been achieved by an interaction of three forces: first, some enlightened leadership on both the Crown and Maori sides; secondly, the inquiries and reports of the Waitangi Tribunal, the concept of which as an essentially investigatory and recommendatory body may well find some counterpart in the new South Africa; thirdly, the traditional courts and in some of their judgments an increased willingness to take into account the Treaty and the fiduciary concept. The responsibility of judicial decision is quite different from that of Tribunal recommendation. The functions are complementary. All three forces are probably essential to further progress."
Lord Cooke of Thorndon's Harkness Henry speech can be found at the base end of http://idiotsinpower.blogspot.com/
Monday, October 29, 2007
Letter to the Maori Party
Dr Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia
The Maori Party
Parliament
New Zealand
In July 2007, Te Kotukutuku announced it had completed sale of all of Matakana Island's 10000 acres of sacred land to Port Blakely USA (5000 acres) and the other 5000 acres to Kiwi property developers. This sale makes complete fools of the government and judiciary who assisted Tauranga Maori with claims the Matakana Island land was sacred and had to be given to them. The Matakana land was given to them in good faith and now they have sold it.
I have written to you in the past asking for your assistance.
Can you please let me know what updates you have, and if you intend raising this matter in Parliament.
Regards
Christopher Wingate
Background on Matakana Island
In Arklow vs. MacLean and Others [1999] UKPC 51, the Privy Council London dismissed an appeal from the Court of Appeal of New Zealand which found merchant bank owed no fiduciary duty to Arklow Investments. The Court changed various facts that had been confirmed at the High Court trial.
The Facts
Arklow Investments /Christopher Wingate took business plans to Wellington Merchant bank FAR Financial 15 June 1992 seeking to borrow the $4.25m for Arklow to purchase Matakana Island.
The Arklow business plan was;
Arklow had negotiated for $20m to purchase Matakana Island's 10,000 acres of freehold land, pine forests, sawmill and transport system
Arklow had an agreement with Kanematsu Japan for them to purchase the 17-34 year pine forest cutting rights at a price between $13-15.75m
That Arklow needed around $5m to complete the deal
That the loan would be paid back from the sale of the 1-16 year forest and or other surplus assets
That the security for the loan was the 10,000 acres of land, the 1-16 year forest, the sawmill and the transport system
That Arklow then intended developing the 10,000 acres of land into a minimum of 16,000 houses producing a profit of $3.43b
Instead of offering the loan funds Arklow was seeking, FAR Financial asked Arklow for $5000 to look for the money. Documents showed Far Financial were insolvent and on the point of collapse.
When Arklow declined within 30 days FAR Financial began negotiations to purchase Matakana Island for themselves offering the 17-35 year forest to ITT Rayonier for $15.6m, $150k less than Arklow's deal with Kanematsu.
History of this Litigation
In March 1993 Arklow began litigation against Far Financial.
In April 1994 Far Financial got the Wellington High Court permission to sell the 10,000 acres of land to Te Kotukutuku (TKC). TKC supported by the Ngai Te Rangi executive claimed the land was sacred, must never be developed and must be in the hands of Maori. The affidavits from the various leaders of Matakana Island Trust, Te Kotukutuku, Tauranga Moana Trust Board and Ngai Terangi Iwi or Iwi chartered accountant Graeme Ingham never mentioned in any of their affidavits or pleadings to the court that they were shareholders in Te Kotukutuku. Iwi lawyer David Baragwanath QC knowingly gave the High Court false submissions. (Found in October 94 after discovery of the TKC/ Iwi documents)
June 1994 The Court of Appeal overturned the validation but allowed the parties to keep their monies and asset positions until the case was heard against Far Financial. Arklow now had 17 defendants. FAR, TKC and Ernslaw One as a result of their false submissions in the High Court now illegally gained cash to spend on fighting Arklow.( FAR $2.7m, TKC $4.4m and Ernslaw One $3.8m )
On 5 May 1997 one month after the 4 week trial Justice Paul Temm found in Arklow's favor in it's claim against FAR Financial.
On 25 May Justice Paul Temm died.
Arklow then faced and won a retrial application before Justice Fisher.
Both decisions were then appealed to the New Zealand Court of Appeal.
Ngai Terangi intervention on Appeal
In June 1998, 4 of the 5 judges overturned the findings of Justice Temm. In the submissions TKC had asked the Appeal Court to ignore any possible wrongs FAR Financial may have committed because the sacred land was now in the hands of the Maori people of Tauranga. The affidavits from the various leaders of Iwi or Iwi chartered accountant Graeme Ingham never mentioned in any of their affidavits or pleadings to the court that they were shareholders in Te Kotukutuku.
Now TKC were rich Matakana Island Waitangi claimant, Sonny Tawhiao suspected the tribal leadership were trying to steal the Matakana Island land for themselves. He called Wingate seeking information and was provided with documents that exposed blatant corruption. Mr Tawhiao immediately began to lobby his people. In July 1999 Mr Tawhiao's burnt body was found in the back seat of his car in the Matakana forest. The police report written by a TKC insider suggested his death was suicide. The police report written by Detective Perry , said Sonny Tawhiao drove into the Matakana forest, got into his back seat of his car and set himself on fire with petrol. October 1999 Arklow appealed the Court of Appeal judgment to the Privy Council.
In December 1999 the Privy Council judgment written by NZ judge Justice John Henry, Arklow lost. In the submissions TKC had asked the Privy Council to ignore any possible wrongs FAR Financial may have committed because the sacred land was now in the hands of the Maori people of Tauranga. The affidavits from the various leaders of Iwi or Iwi chartered accountant Graeme Ingham never mentioned in any of their affidavits or pleadings to the court that they were shareholders in Te Kotukutuku.
In 2002 Arklow Investments appeared before the Justice Electoral committee who were considering the Supreme Court Bill and it's intention to remove appeals to the Privy Council. Committee member Russell Fairbrother MP (LLB) offered Arklow a 'Select Inquiry', but only if the terms of reference excluded any allegations of wrong against any judge or lawyer. (Wingate declined even though he had a chance of getting his $5.5m litigation costs back.)
In July 2003 Te Kotukutuku announced a large canal housing development on Matakana Island.
In July 2007 Te Kotukutuku announced it had completed sale of all of the Matakana Land to property developers. (Total price suggested $75m )
Current Status
The Ngai Terangi Iwi promised the High Court and Government it would remove the Waitangi claim if the Court handed them the land. The Court handed them the land yet the Waitangi claims remain in place. The leaders of the Ngai Terangi and the Matakana Island Trust have clearly breached their fiduciary duties. They work as leaders of the tribe seeking benefit for the people but what they obtained namely the Matakana land, instead of giving to the tribe they gave it to themselves. The report on the death of Sonny Tawhiao needs to be reopened.
Te Kotukutuku claimed to the court they had a bid to purchase Matakana; funded by Kanematsu. I had told Don Shaw (in a recorded meeting at the Tauranga Economic Development office) I was doing business with Kanematsu who I explained was buying the older timber. Don Shaw was telling local Maori I was the front man for a Japanese company. After that meeting Don Shaw and Iwi accountant Graeme Ingham (and forest consultant Paul Robinson) went to Kanematsu (December 7 1992) and said if Kanematsu did the deal with Wingate / Arklow the local Maori would cause trouble. But they said if Kanematsu did a deal with the local Iwi company Te Kotukutuku, there would be no Maori trouble. Kanematsu could clearly see the threat. So they offered them a deal but only if they had consent from Wingate to do a deal with them.(again in 11 March 93 KG to TKC) The information Te Kotukutuku had on forest values were documents they illegally obtained from Craig and Company who obtained them in confidence from Arklow's forest consultant John Cawston. In July 1992 Craig and Company told Arklow it wanted to do a float for the younger forest. That's why they got the values showing the deal Arklow had with Kanematsu. Within 1 month of getting the information Craig and Co (working with forest consultant Paul Robinson) placed their own bid to purchase Matakana. By 11 December 1992 Paul Robinson's documents show he was using the Arklow information.
Referenced documents
Christopher Mark Wingate vs.. I D MacLean www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/courts/Judiciary_report1999.pdf - Similar pages
Under the Judicature Act 1908, Arklow Investments Ltd and Christopher Mark. Wingate v I D Maclean ... www.crownlaw.govt.nz/uploads/JusticePCReport.pdf - Similar pages
"Roger Horne's Miscellany" by Roger Horne : Arklow Investments Ltd. and Christopher Mark Wingate v... www.hrothgar.co.uk/WebCases/indexes/indd.htm - 59k - Cached - Similar pages
Parliament TUESDAY, 7 OCTOBER 2003 Let me take the case of Chris Wingate, who paid $3.5 million in New ... That is not English justice; that is New Zealand justice delivered 12000 miles away. ... www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/hansard/Final/FINAL_2003_10_07.htm - 524k - Cached - Similar pages
Judicial Committee Judgement (2) Christopher Mark Wingate Appellants ... Wingate had become interested in the purchase of Matakana Island in July 1991, his intention being to develop ... www.hrothgar.co.uk/WebCases/pc/reports/01/58.htm - 27k - Cached - Similar pages
Arklow Investments Ltd and Another v. ID Maclean and Others File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML (2) Christopher Mark Wingate. Appellants ..... Wingate’s interest in Matakana Island and its development was public knowledge. Development of this nature ... www.privy-council.org.uk/files/pdf/JC_Judgments_1999_no_51.pdf - Similar pages
enb 23/07/1998 email File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Matakana Island will be preserved in its ... Resources had stolen the idea of Chris. Wingate’s company Arklow Investments' idea ... geography.otago.ac.nz/Resources/envnews/env.news.bulletins/1998/Enb230798.pdf - Similar pages
Court of Appeal Report for 1999 File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Arklow Investments and. Christopher Mark Wingate v I D Maclean and Ors ...... subject matter of litigation pending appeal is the inherent jurisdiction of ... www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/from/documents/CourtofAppealReport1999.PDF - Similar pages
A NEW SUPREME COURT File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML litigation practice – and leaders of the Mäori community. ...... Arklow Investments Ltd and Christopher Mark. Wingate v I D Maclean & others [2000] 2 NZLR 1 ... www.crownlaw.govt.nz/uploads/JusticePCReport.pdf - Similar pages
Letter December 7 1992 Te Kotukutuku Graeme Ingham to Kanematsu together with other supporting documents attached in word doc- File for the NZ Maori Party ( part one) and (part two)
The Maori Party
Parliament
New Zealand
In July 2007, Te Kotukutuku announced it had completed sale of all of Matakana Island's 10000 acres of sacred land to Port Blakely USA (5000 acres) and the other 5000 acres to Kiwi property developers. This sale makes complete fools of the government and judiciary who assisted Tauranga Maori with claims the Matakana Island land was sacred and had to be given to them. The Matakana land was given to them in good faith and now they have sold it.
I have written to you in the past asking for your assistance.
Can you please let me know what updates you have, and if you intend raising this matter in Parliament.
Regards
Christopher Wingate
Background on Matakana Island
In Arklow vs. MacLean and Others [1999] UKPC 51, the Privy Council London dismissed an appeal from the Court of Appeal of New Zealand which found merchant bank owed no fiduciary duty to Arklow Investments. The Court changed various facts that had been confirmed at the High Court trial.
The Facts
Arklow Investments /Christopher Wingate took business plans to Wellington Merchant bank FAR Financial 15 June 1992 seeking to borrow the $4.25m for Arklow to purchase Matakana Island.
The Arklow business plan was;
Arklow had negotiated for $20m to purchase Matakana Island's 10,000 acres of freehold land, pine forests, sawmill and transport system
Arklow had an agreement with Kanematsu Japan for them to purchase the 17-34 year pine forest cutting rights at a price between $13-15.75m
That Arklow needed around $5m to complete the deal
That the loan would be paid back from the sale of the 1-16 year forest and or other surplus assets
That the security for the loan was the 10,000 acres of land, the 1-16 year forest, the sawmill and the transport system
That Arklow then intended developing the 10,000 acres of land into a minimum of 16,000 houses producing a profit of $3.43b
Instead of offering the loan funds Arklow was seeking, FAR Financial asked Arklow for $5000 to look for the money. Documents showed Far Financial were insolvent and on the point of collapse.
When Arklow declined within 30 days FAR Financial began negotiations to purchase Matakana Island for themselves offering the 17-35 year forest to ITT Rayonier for $15.6m, $150k less than Arklow's deal with Kanematsu.
History of this Litigation
In March 1993 Arklow began litigation against Far Financial.
In April 1994 Far Financial got the Wellington High Court permission to sell the 10,000 acres of land to Te Kotukutuku (TKC). TKC supported by the Ngai Te Rangi executive claimed the land was sacred, must never be developed and must be in the hands of Maori. The affidavits from the various leaders of Matakana Island Trust, Te Kotukutuku, Tauranga Moana Trust Board and Ngai Terangi Iwi or Iwi chartered accountant Graeme Ingham never mentioned in any of their affidavits or pleadings to the court that they were shareholders in Te Kotukutuku. Iwi lawyer David Baragwanath QC knowingly gave the High Court false submissions. (Found in October 94 after discovery of the TKC/ Iwi documents)
June 1994 The Court of Appeal overturned the validation but allowed the parties to keep their monies and asset positions until the case was heard against Far Financial. Arklow now had 17 defendants. FAR, TKC and Ernslaw One as a result of their false submissions in the High Court now illegally gained cash to spend on fighting Arklow.( FAR $2.7m, TKC $4.4m and Ernslaw One $3.8m )
On 5 May 1997 one month after the 4 week trial Justice Paul Temm found in Arklow's favor in it's claim against FAR Financial.
On 25 May Justice Paul Temm died.
Arklow then faced and won a retrial application before Justice Fisher.
Both decisions were then appealed to the New Zealand Court of Appeal.
Ngai Terangi intervention on Appeal
In June 1998, 4 of the 5 judges overturned the findings of Justice Temm. In the submissions TKC had asked the Appeal Court to ignore any possible wrongs FAR Financial may have committed because the sacred land was now in the hands of the Maori people of Tauranga. The affidavits from the various leaders of Iwi or Iwi chartered accountant Graeme Ingham never mentioned in any of their affidavits or pleadings to the court that they were shareholders in Te Kotukutuku.
Now TKC were rich Matakana Island Waitangi claimant, Sonny Tawhiao suspected the tribal leadership were trying to steal the Matakana Island land for themselves. He called Wingate seeking information and was provided with documents that exposed blatant corruption. Mr Tawhiao immediately began to lobby his people. In July 1999 Mr Tawhiao's burnt body was found in the back seat of his car in the Matakana forest. The police report written by a TKC insider suggested his death was suicide. The police report written by Detective Perry , said Sonny Tawhiao drove into the Matakana forest, got into his back seat of his car and set himself on fire with petrol. October 1999 Arklow appealed the Court of Appeal judgment to the Privy Council.
In December 1999 the Privy Council judgment written by NZ judge Justice John Henry, Arklow lost. In the submissions TKC had asked the Privy Council to ignore any possible wrongs FAR Financial may have committed because the sacred land was now in the hands of the Maori people of Tauranga. The affidavits from the various leaders of Iwi or Iwi chartered accountant Graeme Ingham never mentioned in any of their affidavits or pleadings to the court that they were shareholders in Te Kotukutuku.
In 2002 Arklow Investments appeared before the Justice Electoral committee who were considering the Supreme Court Bill and it's intention to remove appeals to the Privy Council. Committee member Russell Fairbrother MP (LLB) offered Arklow a 'Select Inquiry', but only if the terms of reference excluded any allegations of wrong against any judge or lawyer. (Wingate declined even though he had a chance of getting his $5.5m litigation costs back.)
In July 2003 Te Kotukutuku announced a large canal housing development on Matakana Island.
In July 2007 Te Kotukutuku announced it had completed sale of all of the Matakana Land to property developers. (Total price suggested $75m )
Current Status
The Ngai Terangi Iwi promised the High Court and Government it would remove the Waitangi claim if the Court handed them the land. The Court handed them the land yet the Waitangi claims remain in place. The leaders of the Ngai Terangi and the Matakana Island Trust have clearly breached their fiduciary duties. They work as leaders of the tribe seeking benefit for the people but what they obtained namely the Matakana land, instead of giving to the tribe they gave it to themselves. The report on the death of Sonny Tawhiao needs to be reopened.
Te Kotukutuku claimed to the court they had a bid to purchase Matakana; funded by Kanematsu. I had told Don Shaw (in a recorded meeting at the Tauranga Economic Development office) I was doing business with Kanematsu who I explained was buying the older timber. Don Shaw was telling local Maori I was the front man for a Japanese company. After that meeting Don Shaw and Iwi accountant Graeme Ingham (and forest consultant Paul Robinson) went to Kanematsu (December 7 1992) and said if Kanematsu did the deal with Wingate / Arklow the local Maori would cause trouble. But they said if Kanematsu did a deal with the local Iwi company Te Kotukutuku, there would be no Maori trouble. Kanematsu could clearly see the threat. So they offered them a deal but only if they had consent from Wingate to do a deal with them.(again in 11 March 93 KG to TKC) The information Te Kotukutuku had on forest values were documents they illegally obtained from Craig and Company who obtained them in confidence from Arklow's forest consultant John Cawston. In July 1992 Craig and Company told Arklow it wanted to do a float for the younger forest. That's why they got the values showing the deal Arklow had with Kanematsu. Within 1 month of getting the information Craig and Co (working with forest consultant Paul Robinson) placed their own bid to purchase Matakana. By 11 December 1992 Paul Robinson's documents show he was using the Arklow information.
Referenced documents
Christopher Mark Wingate vs.. I D MacLean www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/courts/Judiciary_report1999.pdf - Similar pages
Under the Judicature Act 1908, Arklow Investments Ltd and Christopher Mark. Wingate v I D Maclean ... www.crownlaw.govt.nz/uploads/JusticePCReport.pdf - Similar pages
"Roger Horne's Miscellany" by Roger Horne : Arklow Investments Ltd. and Christopher Mark Wingate v... www.hrothgar.co.uk/WebCases/indexes/indd.htm - 59k - Cached - Similar pages
Parliament TUESDAY, 7 OCTOBER 2003 Let me take the case of Chris Wingate, who paid $3.5 million in New ... That is not English justice; that is New Zealand justice delivered 12000 miles away. ... www.hansard.parliament.govt.nz/hansard/Final/FINAL_2003_10_07.htm - 524k - Cached - Similar pages
Judicial Committee Judgement (2) Christopher Mark Wingate Appellants ... Wingate had become interested in the purchase of Matakana Island in July 1991, his intention being to develop ... www.hrothgar.co.uk/WebCases/pc/reports/01/58.htm - 27k - Cached - Similar pages
Arklow Investments Ltd and Another v. ID Maclean and Others File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML (2) Christopher Mark Wingate. Appellants ..... Wingate’s interest in Matakana Island and its development was public knowledge. Development of this nature ... www.privy-council.org.uk/files/pdf/JC_Judgments_1999_no_51.pdf - Similar pages
enb 23/07/1998 email File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Matakana Island will be preserved in its ... Resources had stolen the idea of Chris. Wingate’s company Arklow Investments' idea ... geography.otago.ac.nz/Resources/envnews/env.news.bulletins/1998/Enb230798.pdf - Similar pages
Court of Appeal Report for 1999 File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Arklow Investments and. Christopher Mark Wingate v I D Maclean and Ors ...... subject matter of litigation pending appeal is the inherent jurisdiction of ... www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/from/documents/CourtofAppealReport1999.PDF - Similar pages
A NEW SUPREME COURT File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML litigation practice – and leaders of the Mäori community. ...... Arklow Investments Ltd and Christopher Mark. Wingate v I D Maclean & others [2000] 2 NZLR 1 ... www.crownlaw.govt.nz/uploads/JusticePCReport.pdf - Similar pages
Letter December 7 1992 Te Kotukutuku Graeme Ingham to Kanematsu together with other supporting documents attached in word doc- File for the NZ Maori Party ( part one) and (part two)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
