5 Comments

1. No co Governance on July 30, 2023 at 10:05 am

   MAORI & NGAPUHI HAVE NOT GOT THE SOVEREIGNTY, NOR RETAINED ANY SOVEREIGNTY. CO-GOVERNANCE CAN’T BE A MAORI RIGHT, NOR CAUSE OVERTURNS OF NZ’s CONSTITUTION.

   We know that Ngapuhi are planning to trick the rest of us, into giving them half of the governance, and they will assume to do so as if on behalf of all Maori, of which Ngapuhi are 19%, and are 3.2% of the whole population. To hell with democracy and real governance? Ngapuhi want to rule the lot of us, and they will if we are complacent and agree to their vile mischiefs

   Trickery and fraud and lies involving sovereignty, to take half of the governance, but they are wrong. Ngapuhi are caught deceptively lying about their faked sovereignty, and need to lie to try to get it, and have to lie they have it. It is vital they get the non Maori to not notice they are lying, and are deceptive, and are faking it, and get to sneak in their getting half of governance. But what for, and how, and why, this Report explores the many real reasons why they can not get to be given half of the governance. There is a planned Ngapuhi coup and Ngapuhi ‘take over’ of the NZ government, but by their small 19% minority of all of Maori, and it must be blocked as undemocratic, and a theft of the country’s controls and laws and management and resources and is a stunt to shift legislation to be in favour of Maori, at the expense of the rest of the NZ population. It cannot be allowed as it is not democratic and Ngapuhi are only a 3.2% minority of the whole NZ population, and so they have near zero chance, 3.2%, and grossly are not entitled to any more, than 3.2%, unless by deception, as they do deceive, and by their lying and fraud and faked dishonesty, that we the non Maori do, as idiots get so tricked by them, to give them way more than 3.2%, but not give them about sixteen times what is their actual expected entitled representation.

   Ngapuhi are fighting against all of the other 96.8% of the NZ population, a population sick of these lied demands, but still do stupidly with ignorance, let Ngapuhi get away with that deception. Their lies are overtly created and pushed by a lot of the Maoris of recent who are amassing to get to be elected/appointed as 50% of the governance, but not by any merit but by their persistent bleat and accusative threats and imposition of all their demands. But they are not entitled to get it, because it is not correct nor fair, and is only the selfish Maori insistence of this in your face co-governance conversation by Maori. The public are exploited by both their stupidity, to let Maori so demand, and be heard, and of the public being too busy as family NZ’ers, and paying off their homes, of their genuine trying to be kind to Maori, as indigenous, but are being conned and being bullied, being talked over by Maori, and Maori are controlling the full on protest conversation by their rudely accusing all immigrants of doing much harm to Maori, with Maori faking rude emotive lies, that it is the immigrants back then in around 1840 who have deliberately been so cruel to Maori and it is ‘now redress time’, to put it right and get a deal to benefit Maori, as Ngapuhi fake of it, and push for Maori to get half governance. Maori have lied this is a Treaty issue dating back from 1840 and still is a festering dispute of theTreaty since then. Their attacks have shifted to the recent immigrants and to the now born here, off spring families of those old settlers. None of these two groups, the recent immigrants and the recent family of old settlers, have been shown by Ngapuhi and Maori to have done them any harm nor caused any harm, nor in fact doing what the Ngapuhi accuse of them, nor of violating the Treaty. Ngapuhi are deluded and dumping faked blame on the wrong people. It is also that Ngapuhi who were all earlier immigrants themselves, just the same, dont want to share NZ any more with any new arriving immigrants. It is we were here first and we own NZ, and we must half govern and that is because we Maori and Ngapuhi say the Treaty must include that as for us, not for you others.

   The whole notion of the Treaty Principles are a recent fraudulent rewrite of the Treaty content and is an imaginary set of niceties conjured up to imply both that Maori are entitled to them, and that the Maori have been held back by the settlers to cause deliberate detriment to Maori and Ngapuhi and are deliberate breaches of the Treaty against Maori by settlers throughout from 1840 and by all the arrived immigrants right up to recent and today. Thence they have created the faked illusion the current NZ population are not giving those principles to Maori even though they were not in the Treaty, and that the Ngapuhi claim, proves they are being harmed and disenfranchised. Thus Maori say they are justified to complain and to claim redress and to get to be in co-governance. But it wont stop there, as then with a few more Maori hiding under the wings of the non Maori, to cross the floor and vote for the Maori agendas, to take the majority, so to give the vote in parliament to the Maori agenda, for each law change to benefit Maori and get hand-outs and funding and have all demands for Maori, as Maori cause to arise to get voted upon, and to win such of each vote. Maori will veto all and every of others as the other side of governance from succeeding in their agendas, so blocking the others and ensuring the others get little, so to get virtually nothing and no support, nothing, but Maori issues get to be actioned and for the rest of the other NZ’ers, they get nothing at all and no chance to get what they need to survive and be healthy. Remember this is well proven by the many Maori activists who say ‘we were here first’ and relentlessly have stated that ‘the squatter immigrants are overstayers and will be deported’, which is also that Maori will not show them any benefits, nor sharing nor equality, nor right to humane nor healthy existence, nor to continue to live here in NZ, regardless of their born here children, being indigenous as well.

   The Treaty signed by 530 Maori agreed and consented, to cede all entire sovereignty from Maori to the Queen, nothing else, and gave it in entirety, for ever to the Queen, and in exchange, the Queen fully protected Maori and made them full British subjects, and that calmed the cannibal murderous musket damage done by Ngapuhi’s Hongi Hika, of his rampage of his murdering 70,000 other Maori throughout NZ, to the south of the Ngapuhi areas of the far north. That was a severe and criminal massacre of half of the then whole Maori population, causing the survivors desperate requests to be made known for Britain to protect them, as they had a real serious life threatening need for British protection. Ngapuhi are 3.2% of the NZ population, and all Maori are 17% of the whole population, so that by what they surmise and deceive, is to say they are being harmed and maligned as a minority, is simply no more than that they are a one sixth minority. Maori as now, led by radical protestors, now want to squeeze as much as they can from the NZ economy and its resources, and lands, and get to become the controlling power in NZ government, and be thus self compensated for what they say was done as unfair for two centuries. But in fact Maori were very very fairly treated and still are, and yet they fake to blame cruel treatment and so they fraud to take over the whole of the NZ government, and then to plunder it to benefit Maori, and only Maori, and leave the others, being the later than 1840 immigrants and their offspring, in dire duress and suffering, and face cruel deportations. Likewise Maori want to punish the recent immigrants and take their assets and land and deport them all.

   Though Maori blame the Treaty, but the Treaty has done them no harm, the Queen has done them no harm, the Queen’s proclamations and the Queen’s Constitutions have done them no harm, and nor has the imported English legislation and Imported English Common law. But instead all that has supported and been the basis used to protected all Maori, who instead attack what they surmise is, what the Queen has done as if badly to them, but they cant and dont have evidence the Queen has done so. They know they have been well provided for as British subjects, by the Queen. Maori protesters seem oblivious they are angry at the immigrants, angry at those innocent immigrants getting on with life as ordinary immigrants. Maori are grossly oblivious that immigration is a thing of the global population phenomena, and is everywhere. Even the Maori were entirely immigrants themselves, and they forget that they too are and were immigrants, but dont mention their immigration was immigration that has been going on in NZ for hundreds of years. But worse they ignore that Maori were severely evil in the Maori killing off of all the prior inhabitants of NZ, as they murdered all the prior Moriori. So are Maori fit as a people, of addressing and interfering with the issues of current immigration in co-governance, without adverse bias, and coupled with their well published intentions to deport immigrants, and return all immigrants back to where they came. And steal and thieve their hard work and assets in the process. Again those issues are not at all Treaty issues, and are not harms done to the Maori by the settlers and not by immigrants, but are from the pressures of immigrations by immigrants as is common demographic changes of the world population movements, as has gone on, that includes all of the Maori immigration as well. It is more their denial to share the worlds resources, as ‘we were here first’. So it is not a result of any prior European settlers, nor Treaty bad management nor unfairness, nor malice nor of anything going against Maori, nor intended to be going against any Maori, and is not Treaty stuff, nor of anything of any Treaty stuff. But Maori lie that it is!

   Yet more strange is what is it really in each Maori speaking here. Maori intrinsically are of joint ethnicity, with an inequity that exists within, and must be accounted for, and be suspected it is used as a bias and fraud. It is in their internal ethnicity to be part European that is vastly way more European, of settler bloodlines, and is not much of actual real Maori at all. So who is it in them, speaking as if they are full Maori. Has only their small Maori portion been harmed, but their other vast European mostly portion, so has that not been harmed by the immigrants but their Maori part has. They so rudely pretend immigrant settlers have done such severe harm and Treaty violations to them. They may be one sixty fourth Maori only, but choose what ethnicity to prefer to be, and say they are of Maori as if Maori only, but they must of course have at least some part Maori, to be on the Maori claims page, but they have to denigrate their own 63/ 64 of themselves and to deny their internal being mainly 63 /64 of European, and fraud to enforce in themselves that their European-ness remains silent and keeps out of the way of their Maori agenda of lies and fraud and faking they are victims of the Treaty and victims of the Settlers, who are their own ancestors, to fake and lie and deceive to get at the co-governance agenda and conflict drama. So one asks, who in them is really speaking and who are they really speaking for, and what are they doing with their vast unsaid and unrevealed European side, other than hiding it from view, while carrying out a schizophrenic campaign against that very same European ancestry they have within themselves. It is further strange they dont blame that ancestry they have, nor demand it pays recompense and gives back what it is said by them to have taken, and to redress what it is said by them of the harms done to them by that huge European ancestry that is done by what is so much within themselves. Hello.

   Maori blame other settler ancestry that is separate from themselves, as being from the ‘others’, who have no part Maori, but dont blame the settler ancestry that is within themselves. Why not and is it any different and why. Have they not got themselves to blame, to blame the settler immigrant European-ness as in them as their self harming and is the cause of their demise, as done to themselves, by themselves, by the settler within them. Is it that their internal settler bloodlines are well behaved, and are better than the ‘other settler’ bloodlines in non Maori, and why and how can they and we know that. What internal suppression is going on and does it bias their many biases and outwards views of the others being the bad settlers and bad immigrants, and fake that the Treaty issues do exist as settler caused, and that those other settlers have done the harms to Maori, and caused the issues, but not done by their own settler internal bloodlines. This is very perverse and a bizarre perpetration. This otherwise an excuse by their own internal European elite of forcing a favoured takeover of the other Europeans, by a piggy-backing on a smidgen of having a small part of Maori blood to accuse their many faked Treaty accusations, and it is a Maori minority takeover by said Maoris with a very small part of them that is real Maori, such they dont have much Maori real bloodline quantity mandate to make such overt claims, as if they are by majority of mostly Maori bloodline, that they clearly are not, but have selected out the non Maori settlers to be doing the harming as by settler immigrants. It is really about whose settler immigrant ancestry bloodline within then is better behaved and really is better, or it is for their small Maori bloodline, or, is it to serve their own personal agendas, and the ‘we were here first’ and still be a frauded takeover over by a small group of perpetrators, using of Maori emotive sensation of a damaged near extinct ethnicity, being hounded and further falling into extinction unless they make a stand and get governance and restore the Maori to become dominant over every one else in NZ.

   NGAPUHI OWES THE GOVERNMENT BIG TIME! Ngapuhi lie they never gave their entire sovereignty for ever.
   On the 6 February 2006 when the One New Zealand Foundation Inc set up its display opposing the Treaty 2 U Exhibition at Waitangi, we received many encouraging comments from Maori and Pakeha, but one comment will stick in my mind forever.
   A very old Maori man came up to me and asked the question, “Do you know why Ngapuhi were so keen to sign the Treaty”. I had never really thought about this and answered, “No”.
   He replied, “Ngapuhi had more muskets that any other tribe and under the leadership of Hongi Hika in 1820 had gone south slaughtering, eating and taking slaves of hundreds of his fellow countrymen. This had continued for about ten years until the southern tribes had gained enough muskets to lodge a counter attack on Ngapuhi for utu – revenge”, which was a fundamental rule of Maori culture in the 19th century. (1800 to 1900)
   Research has shown, in 1820 Hongi Hika had travelled to England to complete the Maori to English dictionary and meet a professor of Hebrew at Cambridge, no doubt to put a stop to cannibalism. While there, he befriended Baron Charles De Thierry, a Frenchman and did a deal of 40,000 acres of land in New Zealand for 500 muskets, which Hika picked up in Australia on his return to New Zealand. He also swapped the gifts the King had given him, except for his coat of armour, which saved him on many occasions from death, for another 300 muskets. Including those muskets Ngapuhi already held, about 1000 muskets in total.
   Hongi Hika and his Ngapuhi warriors then went on the rampage south slaughtering thousands of unarmed innocent men, women and children for the sport and the feasts that followed. It is said the stench of the rotting bodies was the only reason they were forced to move and repeat the slaughter all over again.
   By 1835 Waikato were becoming very powerful and had annihilated Taranaki and Te Rauparaha, Ngāti Toa had invaded the South Island slaughtering thousands and taking thousands as slaves. Some of those Taranaki that had fled from the Waikato, then traveled to the Chatham Islands slaughtering or farming the Moriori like swine into virtual extinction.
   The old Maori man said, “Ngapuhi was to be their next victim!”
   In 1831, thirteen Ngapuhi chiefs had written to the King asking him to be their guardian and protector. Britain responded by sending James Busby as Resident in 1833, but without troops he was of little benefit. He was called, “A man of war with out guns”.
   In 1835, Busby tried to get the chiefs to sign the Declaration of Independence but as usual tribal tension and fighting took precedence over political co-operation and he could only attract 26 signatures at the time, so it was abandoned without one meeting taken place. It became evident; the chiefs could never form a united working government. ONLY 26 SIGNED IT.
   Many of Ngauphi chiefs were now keen on getting Britain more involved in New Zealand and while Britain was reluctant, (having to fight the Boer war), she eventually agreed to send Captain William Hobson to ask the chiefs to
   agree to Britain taking control of New Zealand to bring law and order to a country seen to be completely out of control.
   To do this; each chief had to give up their territory and government to Queen Victoria by the Tiriti o Waitangi for Britain to become legally involved in New Zealand.
   On the 5th February 1840, Lt. Governor Hobson read out the Treaty of Waitangi to the chiefs and people gathered at Waitangi. It is stated over 1000 people attended. For 5 hours they discussed the Treaty with Hobson, then well into the night with the Missionaries. From the speeches the chiefs gave at Waitangi, there is no denying they fully understood that New Zealand would become British soil under English rule, irrespective of race, colour or creed.
   LT. Governor Hobson was not instructed or had the authority to give Maori any special rights in the Tiriti o Waitangi not already enjoyed by all the people of England under English law.
   By morning, 52 Ngapuhi chiefs had agreed to give up their territories and governments for protection and, “the same rights as the people of England”. (Article 3 of the Tiriti o Waitangi). By the end of May 1840 over 500 chiefs had signed the Treaty and Britain declared British Sovereignty over the Islands of New Zealand under the dependency of New South Wales.
   Lt. Governor Hobson stated, “The treaty which forms the base of all my proceedings was signed at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840, by 52 chiefs. This instrument I consider to be de facto the treaty, and all signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original document”. The only Treaty signed on the 6th February 1840 was the Tiriti o Waitangi. No English version was authorised or signed on that day.
   “If you think these things are wrong, then blame your ancestors who gave away their rights when they were strong”. Sir Apirana Ngata, Minister of Native Affairs, M.A., LI.B., Lit.D.
   The first question that must be asked,
   If Ngapuhi had not asked for and agreed to the Tiriti o Waitangi, where would they be to day? Would they have been defeated like Taranaki, the tribes of the South Island and the Moriori?
   We will never know the answer to this question but we do know they agreed to the terms of the Tiriti o Waitangi and the protection it gave. We also know their ancestry lives on in many New Zealanders due to their ancestors having the sense to see the problems they had in 1840 and agreed to sign the Tiriti o Waitangi with the protection of British rule and English law.
   The second question that must be asked,
   Why do Ngapuhi expect compensation of $600 million when the Government saved this tribe, like many other tribes from total extinction by their own people in acts of genocide?
   The third question that must be asked
   How did New Zealand become a British Colony with its own Governor, Government to make laws and Courts and Judges to enforce those laws?
   The answer is, Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter dated the 16 November 1840! The day we should all celebrate as “New Zealand Day – 16 November”. Further information: http://www.onenzfoundation.co.nz Email: enquiries@onenzfoundation.co.nz By Ross Baker One NZ Foundation Inc. (C)

   THUS NGAPUHI HAD TO HAVE GIVEN A CONSIDERATION, TO THE QUEEN FOR THE NGAPUHI SIDE OF THE TREATY CONTRACT BARGAIN, AND THEY BECAME BRITISH SUBJECTS AND GOT THE QUEENS PROTECTION. IN CONSIDERATION: SOVEREIGNTY IS ALL THE QUEEN REQUIRED AND ALL THE QUEEN GOT, AND DID GET. AS NGAPUHI HAD GOT THEIR BENEFITS FROM THE QUEEN, BUT THEY HAVE NOT STATED THEY GAVE ANYTHING ELSE, SO IT ONLY WAS THEIR SOVEREIGNTY THAT WENT ENTIRELY TO THE QUEEN FOR EVER, AS DEFINED IN THE TREATY, OR THEY COULD NOT SIGN THE TREATY, BUT THEY DID, THUS THEY HAD TO HAVE SIGNED OVER ENTIRE SOVEREIGNTY FOR EVER. SO NGAPUHI DID NOT RETAIN SOVEREIGNTY, NOR WAS IT THEY NEVER GAVE THEIR ENTIRE SOVEREIGNTY TO THE QUEEN FOR EVER. THEY HAD TO GIVE IT, TO MEET THE TREATY TERMS OF WHAT WAS TREATED BY IT.

   On 6 Feb 1840 Ngapuhi did sign that they gave their entire sovereignty to the Queen, for ever, as permanently. That negates their fake story they retained any of it, and makes a lie of them stating recently, and of now, that they did not cede the entire sovereignty, nor any of it to the Queen. We ask if they did not, then what did Ngapuhi Maori give to make the required consideration in contract of their Treaty deal, of them getting to becoming British subjects and their receiving British protection as from someone who had to have the higher power to make good that duty, and promise of protection and sovereignty, and supporting all British Subjects. The Queen had to protect innocent Maori and rid Maori of both the over warring Maori murderers within NZ, and foreign aggressions and foreign invasions and foreign threats. Also the governance of NZ and making legislation and laws. For that as received from the Queen, Ngapuhi had to contribute their share of the consideration in the Treaty contract to the Queen. What did Ngapuhi give the Queen. The Treaty and the Queen both say sovereignty. Ngapuhi had to give their consideration, so it was that sovereignty, or it was the authoritative powers they had listed in their declaration. Either are each the sovereignty that they gave in entirety to the Queen for ever. If not sovereignty as Ngapuhi lie to us, then what did Ngapuhi give to the Queen in consideration, and it was in entirety what they gave, as was entire and it was for ever as in permanence so what was that. It was only, and only was, sovereignty.

   All the other chiefs gave nothing else other than their sovereignty, and thus as consistent so did Ngapuhi, as that was all the Queen wanted and had asked for and needed to make Authoritative Legislation, to import English laws and common laws and to legitimise the Queen and Britain stationing military, as recognised by all the other then world powers. Sovereignty in entirety had to pass to the Queen for ever. The Treaty treated every chief the same, the list of benefits given by the Queen was equal to all, to Maori, to their chiefs and to the settlers, and the Queen getting entire sovereignty for ever, and it was the same for every Chief who signed, who did give sovereignty and only sovereignty and their entire sovereignty as for ever.

   It does seriously infer the Queen was given the entitlement to have had much stronger powers than what Maori had, and what each chief had, and so Maori knew the Queen needed the decisive control and power over NZ, and she was providing full British subject status to each and everyone, and was to be way more powerful than each chief and needed to be holding the power of all of the totality of the NZ Maori chiefs themselves. That was what the chiefs signed over to the Queen in entirety and for ever, the entire power over the entirety of NZ for ever. Whether that was called entire ‘sovereignty being ceded’ or not, it was clearly entire and clearly comprehended that the Queen had that duty, and had to have that power to do so, which was the sovereign controlling power over all of NZ, and was to be for international recognition, and the Queen had also all the imported English laws and English common law as over NZ as for each Maori and settler, and each and every Maori and setter had become a Brutish subject and under protection, and required all those imported laws to be supporting of each of every full British subject. To maintain each and every one residing in NZ as being British subjects, the Queen had the duty of providing and applying those laws and Proclamations and Constitutions, and the Queen did so, as seen in the NZ Queen’s letters patent and Queens Proclamations and the NZ Constitutional documents. For Maori to be British subjects there could not be an absence of imported laws and new laws, and absence of the Queens Proclamation and absence of the NZ Constitution. And it was only the entirety of sovereign power, that was paid in consideration by each and all Maori and by each and all Maori chief, for all of that benefit and protection and security as provided by the Queen and from the Queen.

   The 26/34 Ngapuhi who had signed their declaration, had three quarters of the 34, or every one of the 26, as 25 had given over and entirely appointed all of the serious ‘something’ and whether that it was exactly labelled as ‘ceded sovereignty’ by those Ngapuhi Maori, it was the over-arching power and authority that was defined in their own well known declaration, as sovereign state authority and power, that was what they knew was them being the appointees of that appointing of their appointment of the sovereignty and authoritative powers in entirety to the Queen for ever. As from them at that moment of Treaty signing as their consideration, for ever, it was and had to be permanent by their consent to be a permanent appointment to the Queen, and that appointment had then become gone to the Queen in entirety, leaving all the Chiefs of the declaration without any authoritative powers, as it had all in entirety gone to the Queen for ever.

   The declaration state area of the sovereignty of the chiefs then had appointed all their authoritative powers in entirety to the Queen and could not and did not retain any nor noted in the documents that they had retained any of part, nor quantified any such part retained or still held. That thence at Treaty signing which was coupled also as the point in time of appointing some one else, was that it entirely went to the Queen, the someone else for ever, to fix the expiry of that power and authority that had been of the chiefs as was in the declaration, as entirety of that power and authoritative authority and legislation making as was in the declaration, was then entirely appointed to the Queen for ever and signed over in the Treaty, just as every other chief signed over their sovereignty and 500 chiefs did so, and that was witnessed by about 540 Maori and settlers and Hobson and English representatives and missionaries, all up. Those 25 Ngapuhi declaration chiefs were among the 530 NZ Maori chiefs, who all did sign the Treaty, that they did fully cede their entire sovereignty, or equivalent, as here and above explained, in order to be protected and be British subjects, to be done by the Queen forever. As obviously that was the exact equivalent to full sovereignty that was entirely ceded to the Queen, and it is totally untenable that it was not, and untenable that it was not their sovereignty.

   That being the only consideration for the deals and benefits to Maori in the treaty, and getting the Queens duties, and there had to be such real consideration as the Maoris did get the protection and did get to be supported as full British subjects. The almost entirety of all the other NZ chiefs, as the huge majority of all Maori, all signed the Treaty, that is all of those other chief’s sovereignty and or controlling powers was as the same as explained here as just above, to be given in entirety to the Queen for ever, to take full control of legislating proper British sovereignty and protections and British subject-ness, by the full duty of the Queen, so Maori as in almost totality, did all cede their entire sovereignty to the Queen. That is Maori wanted to cede their entire sovereignty to the Queen for ever,and did so in consideration of the Queen’s under taking of granting all and everyone to be British subjects, and to be protected inside of NZ, and the external borders to be protected as well!

   At least over 25 of the Declaration Ngapuhi chiefs did also sign to the Queen in the Treaty, their entire NZ sovereignty permanently, and the Queen achieved that by a vast almost 100% majority of all Maori. Ngapuhi who did, had over two dozen chiefs sign over and appoint their entire powers and sovereignty to the Queen for ever. But their recent offspring are now going back, in hindsight, and underhandedly, are trying to alter the Treaty, by lying and frauding, that they can claim they are entitled to renege on that contractual ceding of entire sovereignty, and re-define its written content of the entire ceding, but have no evidence that the sovereignty was not ceded to the Queen, and no evidence it was not in entirety ceded, and no evidence it was not for ever, and was not in permanence, and was not one and the same as they had before they appointed it to the Queen, as was in their declaration. It had to be that and could only be that, and it had to be all control and all power, for the Queen to effect her full duty. But also all 500 other chiefs confirmed the evidence of that its entire sovereignty, or equivalent as explained as was in the declaration and as was in the Treaty written content, was entirely ceded, for ever, to the Queen and was of superior powers to be held by the Queen in perpetuity. Further that entire ceding of sovereignty has not got any contemporaneous clause or clauses to permit that ceding to be reneged on, nor for Ngapuhi to seek it back, and nothing entitling them to ask for it, as that clause or alternative or an opt out, does not and did not exist, and the signing over of entire sovereignty was, as it was in entirety and it was for ever, and that was written, so it is solid and permanent and is written with 500 other Chiefs, proving it to be so, with no avenue to alter it, nor for any renege, nor to any entitlement to change of any of it, nor to shift the goal posts of the contract, nor add to it afterwards, nor to reduce it afterwards. Ngapuhi have not asked for it back, nor for it to be returned, as their strategy is to deny they ever ceded it, in the first place, so they claim and so cant get it back nor to ask for it back of what they claim they never gave. But 25 of the Ngapuhi chiefs signed and agreed they did cede sovereignty in entirety for ever to the Queen, and so why did those 25 of their own Ngapuhi chiefs sign that they did so, if they did not. They had to be giving consideration and the Queen needed the overall full powers and the declaration described powers and authority was able to be appointed and so that was what was appointed and was the appointment. It defies belief, and that 500 other chiefs signed they did so, if they did not, and it corroborates that the sovereignty was ceded in entirety to the Queen and that the huge Majority of all Maori chiefs did do so. It was the only item of consideration the 520 Maori chiefs gave for the benefits under the Treaty. The benefits were given by the Queen, and thus the consideration was made good, and the consideration was to the Queen who got appointed the entirety of the authoritative power, that was the same in effect as entire sovereignty. It was not, that it was not given in consideration as the consideration. There was that consideration given in entirety for ever.

   Dr Apirana Ngata. “The chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the Sovereignty and the authority to make laws. It was their chiefs that ceded that right to the Queen” “If you think these things are wrong then blame your ancestors who gave away their rights when they were strong”. Minister of Native Affairs, M.A., Ll.B., Lit.D.

   So if Ngapuhi say no sovereignty was given, then what did Ngapuhi give and if that is nothing at all, they violated signing it, and have no legitimate Treaty of which they can not have been included as they gave no consideration to a Treaty contract.

   If Sovereignty was not entirely given, the Queen got nothing and the Treaty contract would be null and void and be illegal. But the Treaty has never been said by anyone associated with Maori or the Crown, to be illegal as without its consideration. If Ngapuhi gave no consideration then the Treaty regarding Ngapuhi is a known fraud, but for 500 other Maori chiefs the Treaty was a contract with consideration given to the Queen for the benefits the treaty gave to those 500 chiefs own Maori. Ngapuhi did get the benefits, they did sign the Treaty and thus they did commit to a consideration and that was they did appoint the declaration powers and authority to the Queen permanently, thereby extinguishing their holding those powers. In the alternative they did not appoint those declaration powers entirely to the Queen, they had to cede entirely their whole sovereignty to the Queen, which as entire did extinguish the declaration from further holding of powers of authority. The declaration authoritative powers were thus extinguished and the Queen thus got entire sovereignty for ever. Either way the Ngapuhi do not have any powers of authority, within and of the declaration of independence, as those powers are gone as extinguished and have been held in entirety by the Queen in perpetuity. Maori were 35:1 in majority and still in majority for sixteen more years, but did not undo that, nor interfered with the Treaty contract, nor to change it nor to extinguish it.

   Maori already have their culture, language, Maraes, funding, farms, lands, customary rights and access to special education scholarships and special grants, and four extra permanent seats in government, and more and that is enough for them and for their way of life, and far exceeds what the ordinary immigrant gets. They all get way more from Government than each of everyone else in NZ does, but they want more and more and expect everyone else to hand over much more of everything to them, including the full rights to govern, and to get all the land they have sold off, back again, for free and as of right, as to be for only the Maori to get back for free, and make more changes to advance and serve Maori, as if they, and they alone are being deliberately disadvantaged. First stage of faking is they are to be fair and loyal and to become in a NZ loyal partnership with the non Maori, as if of 50/50, and must have their half as 50% of the governance, yet they are only 17% of the population. But the Treaty was only about Treaty stuff of ceding entire sovereignty to the Queen for ever, and the Maori all get protection and become British Subjects and dont be disturbed, but the Treaty gave that to the settlers as well but Maori are in denial of that, which the settlers have a well. This co-governance is not about 50/50 sharing but is a stepping stone to Maori getting everything and entire governance and is for only Maori. There was no 50/50 in the Treaty nor in the Proclamations, nor in the Constitution, but there was the usual voting of: one adult gets one vote. So in 1840 Maori were in majority by 35 : 1 of the legislative law making government and that proves they were fairly treated and had full access to representation in the legislation and governance, and did so for some decades, and had the advantage of being the vast majority. That may well be what Maori want to return to,a monopoly on immigration, but immigration has moved into the status of the current world migrations and demographics, the same immigration that the Maoris earlier exploited. Maori can not and do not have a monopoly on all immigration to NZ. But it is very telling of their cruel malice and selfish agenda for Maori that they now demand to control that immigration, and now want to deport immigrants, but that even of the Maori “we were here first” stuff, it is not the way of the worlds immigration as of today. The current Maori attitude is dangerous, malicious and discriminatory.

   It was over the prior many decades and century to the Treaty, that Immigration was small and slow and Maori kept coming by canoes from the mid pacific. The Europeans arrived and discovered and mapped the southern oceans land, and shipping became stronger and more reliable. At the Treaty there were 2,000 Europeans. After the Treaty by some decades the immigration was larger, and the populations equalised. Between the Treaty and the equal ethnicity numbers of the populations, and they Maori had been in many elections and by votes had access for Maori to be in almost full governance, so they were given a fair chance and fair rights to vote and had fair access to get into the legislative Parliament. There can be no claim Maori were being ripped off, nor harmed, nor discriminated against, nor treated badly by either the Treaty nor by immigrants and settlers. There is that proof Maori were getting a good genuine fair deal, as included as equals. It was not the settlers and immigrants and theTreaty that ever did any harm to Maori nor served them less than everyone else.

   It was as the Maori had done, it was the same as their continued immigration that the settler numbers immigrating kept on coming with the strong ships and the news and maps of where NZ was, that more immigrants arrived just like the Maori had done, but there was a big increase in numbers because there were capable ships to allow the immigration to be safe and successful with the bringing of live stock and grains and canvas and steel and axes and nails and pots and things manufactured in Britain. The result was as we know, that Maori became the minority in the demographics and still are in the minority. That is all they can gripe about, but the Maori had themselves immigrated and over powered and became the bigger population when the Moriori were the prior residents of NZ. But the Maori do not mention they did that to he Moriori, nor admit they murdered the Moriori to take and get their lands. There was not any harms being done by the settlers to Maori, unlike what the Maori did to the Moriori, as Maori fake to hide their malice and murder of the Moriori and Maori fake to assert by dishonesty that there was harms being done by immigrant settlers, from Treaty times, but it was only the immigration that changed the frontiers of NZ demographics, and that is all there is to the faked gripes of the Maori today with their ‘we were here first’ mentality of un-sharing malice as is at the fore-front of their discriminatory rejection of all those who came after the Maori.

   The Queen has the duty to protect all British subjects, and the Queen has protected Maori from more muskets murders by other Maori, and from off shore attacks or invasions. The rest of us know Maori are getting plenty and we dont believe they have a greater need nor cause for more, not at all, nor for any governance nor co-governance to be awarded to themselves, above their already four Maori seats, and of if they want more seats, they do so by their being voted in. The same laws and legislation applies equally to all in NZ. Their is equitable fairness and checks and balances to ensure that. But Maori insist dishonesty and delinquently to be down trodden victims and demand to take all of the lands, and we know they have enough and that their way of life is up to Maori, to do for themselves with opportunity but are not being harmed by any of the other immigrants nor other people residents of NZ, but Maori lie and deceive they are victims of such harms.

   We, the vast majority, are not predisposed to loosing our hard won land, as work developed, and hard work built up property to the Maori land thievery, nor to have other Europeans take it because they have a 64th of Mari blood, and we are not interested in becoming immersed in the Maori ways, nor Maori lifestyle, nor Maori language, nor to be ruled over by Maori gangs nor smothered in Maori culture, nor ruled by their uneducated inexperienced fake governance wannabes, and be subjected to their gang ruling violent thugs with Taliban guns bristling ready to kill us, if we differ. Thank you! Maori problems are due to the Maori’s own self destructive bad behaviours, and their stupid selling of their remaining lands, and abhorrent indulgence in drugs and vile crimes to support their drug habits. Ngapuhi protesters are telling us many lies, are still behaving bad, and we cant believe them, and can not trust them any more and do not trust them.

   No more Maori drugs, alcohol, Maori violence, gangs, Maori burglaries, bashings, and self destructive Maori dependence on mental health medication, while indulging to be relying on lazy welfare, but refusing to upskill and improve and build their capabilities as co-citizens, all of which is of their own bad behaviours, not because they are Maori, nor because the rest of us are not Maori, but is their bad behaviour, but it is not the behaviour of the rest of the immigrants, nor is it caused by immigrants, and is not something that is dumped on Maori by the many hard working NZ educated immigrants. The Maori complaints against everyone else, implies all others are maliciously deliberately harming Maori actively all the time to the detriment of Maori. Again lies by Maori to fraud that is being done. The immigrants are busy with their businesses and family and mortgages. And we totally dispute that we cause Maori any harm. That is not true but is Maori lies, and we need to not suffer those revenge ravages, nor of Maori self generated accusations as faked by Maori, and their frauded stories of harm done to them, by the rest of us, and their insane accusations that we, the immigrants and the Treaty, have stolen all their land, and caused all their poverty, and have destroyed their culture, and have caused their crime rates.

   It is more about Maori must stop their own horrendous crime rates and faking they are only victims, and get up to speed as real fellow humans, and address that their own Maori elites taking the ‘cream and profits’ off Maori incorporations and Maori investments, and those elites are stopping the money trickle down from those Maori huge resources, and stop the ‘we were here first’ insanity, to justify their crimes, violence, rapes, burglaries, murders, and for their demands to take and exploit the full NZ governance and to entirely exploit it for Maori, to serve only Maori in a frenzy of consuming the NZ resources, while threatening to deport the immigrants and exact severe but misapplied retribution on them, in a cruel and malicious manner, that the immigrants have never done to Maori.

   But those ‘P’ habits and drugs, and that cruel dangerous crime rate is not caused by others, and there is no legitimate causative link between their crimes, and the Treaty which provides protections and ensures land title and surveys and that Maori are full British citizens and they, wont be disturbed, and the myriads of their bad behaviour being done by Maori, as in the courts and in prisons, are acridly rancidity inflicting on the others and the elderly, and on Maori, on women and kids and children, but are not caused by the other immigrants nor by the elderly. But still Maori commit their crimes among themselves, and the community, and upon the elderly, and against their women and children. Its a Maori thing, and is gang driven and drugs driven, and violence driven, but is not caused by the other immigrants. In truth it is a behaviour of some of Maori, but it is so evil and nasty that though they are a big minority but a hefty minority, they do severely destroy the fabric of life in NZ for everyone, and make others lives a misery, and they keep doing so.

   One Ngapuhi Maori I know says he steals a car every Friday night from Auckland, and drives it north to the Ngapuhi gangs. Also from experience is, their burglaries are not just a small side window smashed, but the wholesale destroying of the victims entire back door, and often destroys the door frame, and both are busted up outside of the doorway. The Treaty is not responsible, nor is the cause for that bad behaviour, as we all well know, but Ngapuhi lie the Treaty is responsible.

   Ngapuhi intend to exact a serious coup and will enforce their old musket conquests over the rest of the North Island Maori, as conquered and perpetrated upon North Island Maori by Hongi Hika. Ngapuhi intend to get to be the ruling top Maori Chiefs of NZ, and be the ruling tribes of all North Island Maori, and to rule half of the whole country. Ngapuhi intend taking the whole of the government, which has to be by a serious profound coup and regime change in NZ and changing all the existing laws and legislations. Will they next be releasing all Maori in prison and pardoning them all, and compensating them, and having a Taliban armed army, to enforce their policies, and force huge benefits exclusively for Maori only, while excluding and fully disenfranchising all the non Maori, and immigrants and deporting all recent and longer immigrants.

   Seize all of the immigrants assets and land, and all of their land titles, and demolish the NZ government and all of its structures, and dismiss all government officers, and demolish Internal Affairs, and expel all government departments, dissolve the police, and demolish all the laws and legislation and regulations, and divorce NZ from the Crown, and threaten a civil war, and start a civil war in NZ, and have the gangs as their ‘faithful serving army’, and of nationalising for Maori, of all business, all factories, all resources, all wealth, all banks, all money, all houses, all developed property, all infrastructure, all cities, all city buildings, all schools, all universities, all sport, all media, all health, all taxes, all Social welfare, all hospitals, all roads, all ports, all water, all rivers, all power generation, all farms, all food, etc etc etc,

   Leave out support to all the non Maori as being of the others, of from 160 foreign ethnicities, to be without support, and, deport them as unwelcome squatters ?, just as their recent Maori activists have been recently saying for some decades now, that they are entitled to do, and that they will do. Then re write the rules for elections, and rewrite all the rules for governance and all the rules for the courts and for commerce. It will be the judges, and police who get put in prison and Maori get to be at war with the armed forces and hang all detectives and hang all security intelligence staff.

   As at 6 Feb 1840 everyone in NZ was equally British subjects, that Maori were not any the less, nor teated any the less, nor anyone else was given more. But Maori gripe on they were ripped off, which is that, when they arrived as immigrants, and they stole all the Land then, as they did so, by murdering its inhabitants, being the killing of the Moriori and Celts? and Chinese?, the Maori say they were here first, and now accept to be in share equally of that land they stole and took as murderous immigrants? But did they by murdering the then inhabitants, ever get a real right to that Land or were they in receipt of stolen land and have no justifiable claim to the land of NZ. That stolen land as surmised to be theirs and then a lot of it sold by them, is what Maori refer to, as they say by statistics, of that stupid amount they sold, that as they do not still have most of that land, so it must have gone due to being stolen from them. But they sold it, as they chose to do, so it is not stolen but is sold, so is this Stone age thinking here? and is this the basis for the Treaty being argued. So Maori can rewrite the Treaty beyond its actual terms to perform the stunt and deception of getting all the land for Maori to have back again and based squarely on them saying they retain sovereignty to the land they stole by murdering its then inhabitants.

   That they dont want to share it with fellow immigrants, and have developed an insane gripe they were down trodden and had their land ripped off, back then, and wont get over their piddly Maori argy bargy competing internal aggressiveness. All Immigrants have to share, and are very lucky to be together on prior other’s lands, others before them, and Maori should have shown respect and decency to not have murdered those others and eaten them, but Maori did murder them and did eat them. The British and European immigrants and Pacific Islanders and Asian immigrants do not do that and have not done that to Maori. What is this Maori self pushing of any pretended unjust bundle of faked gripe or culture, that allowed those murders and what do they have against me today, or that they perceive I have against them. Nothing, as I do no Maori harm, I respect their being fellow immigrants, respect their life and culture, but it certainly is not my culture and I fail to be turned on by it. It is of war games haka, some carving by the few skilled ones and lovely music, and more. What gripe does any Maori have with all other recent immigrants. None. But there is somewhat of a squeezing-in going on by arriving immigrants, but that is not caused by me, nor points to any truth that in the early 1840 days that Maori were deliberately being disenfranchised, and put down and harmed, as they were not and still are not. They each must get up to being responsible for their own lives, like the other ethnicities do, rather than gripes to get free money and free resources, and causing way too much crimes, making others as Maori crime victims to have lives destroyed, getting way more than any other ethnicity gets. This under dog stunt by Maori has gone on for too long, and Maori have plenty and have opportunity. Their incorporations are very wealthy, but they harm their own lower Maori who are not in their elite by giving very little in trickledown to the ordinary Maori. Are Maori saying they were too stupid to notice that they were being the authors of their own demise and are still causing their demise, and are the victims of clever smarter elite Maoris.

   Ngapuhi were the only ones who were attached and involved as published of being in an independent state, with sovereign rights and power to govern and to make legislation, as Busby wrote in 1835 about them being in an independent state, in the 28Oct 1835 Declaration, and enlisted a Missionary P&O. Shipping flag, to be now faked by modern protestors that they had an International global shipping line serving around the whole of the world, but that was almost entirely only to Australia, while effecting their ‘at home’ purpose of deterring DeTheirry from taking all the Hokianga, and taking all the 34 chiefs power and ‘Mana’ and chieftain-ship and chiefly authority. And that their own Ngapuhi chief stole 40,000 acres of fellow family owned Ngapuhi land and sold it to DeThierry. That was Maori land stolen by their paramount chief for money. That was a theme to repeat and repeat amongst Maori and their Maori land. 40,000 acres that belong to the people of Ngapuhi that funded the musket massacre of 70,000 other innocent Maori does tell us what Ngapuhi are up to now again.
   Ngapuhi became familiar and educated about land sovereignty and authoritative powers over land in that experience.
   Ngapuhi actively did strip DeThierry of any chance to taking the Hokianga, and of taking NZ for France, and the 34 chiefs by sovereignty authoritative power, did prevent DeThierry getting 39,200 acres, which they retrieved from DeThierry when he arrived, in 1837, to only let him get 800 acres of the 40,000 acres he bought from Hongi Hika in 1820, that was used to buy, amongst other things, 600 muskets for the murder of 70,000 Maori. Ngapuhi’s 34 chiefs used that sovereignty and authoritative power for a maximum of four years to repel the deThierry’s take over, that was over their area. But Ngapuhi used that sovereign power only for those two outcomes, stopping the French take over of Hokianga and NZ, and of reducing him to 800 acres. The Ngapuhi 34 chiefs never made any legislation nor ever exercised any other Sovereign power though they well could have but did not. It was after all a Busby device, and was not much at all of Maori sovereignty. The chiefs well knew of the workings of its sovereignty, and entwining of sovereignty use to get to maintain their own Ngapuhi land rights being taken by the French. Ngapuhi finally engaged with those authoritative powers of sovereignty of the land and legislation and power and right to appoint others when they appointed to the Queen the entire sovereignty of their area and their authoritative powers, for ever and and in entirety and in perpetuity, to the Queen.
   Ngapuhi did by 25 of the 34 chiefs, transferred by their appointment as the Declaration included, for ever, entirely, and in permanence, the entire sovereign rights and legislative authoritative powers they had, and the Declaration had, as per the ‘unless’ proviso in Clause 2, of appointing to others, that was so appointed to the Queen on 6 Feb 1840, in the Treaty.
   Ngapuhi all the while knew, it was at least that only they of the Maoris, who did well know of the workings of sovereignty over land and sovereignty over the dwellers and residents on that land, and thus their particular 25 chiefs signing the Treaty and appointing the Queen to get entire sovereignty and entire legislative authority, was well known by them when they entirely appointed those powers of sovereignty and legislative authority to the Queen for ever as they did in the Treaty.
   But it now is only the offspring younger of Ngapuhi who now claim their ancestors in 1840, did not know about sovereignty.
   They cant be that specific of what was in their ancestors knowledge and minds and heads, but yet they who had it and used it and used it in certainty, did transfer it by appointment in entirety to the Queen. Now the offspring say sovereignty was never known to them back then, and deny by surmise and guess and deceit that it was not transferred by their ancestors as known appointment in entirety and for ever to the Queen, as the younger Ngapuhi offspring are attempting to change the Treaty to force through a land grab of taking all NZ land and all NZ titles back for Maori. Who first had stolen the lands!

   Dr Sir Apirana Ngata : “The chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the Sovereignty and the authority to make laws. It was their chiefs that ceded that right to the Queen” “If you think these things are wrong then blame your ancestors who gave away their rights when they were strong”. Minister of Native Affairs, M.A., Ll.B., Lit.D
   Note: Recent Maori Report from Government: “Maori want full control and authority of the NZ government”.
   Buddy Mikaere says: “co governance is only to take in, the ‘Maori perspective on things”. ‘That is all it is’. Benignly? And ‘to reflect our shared knowledge’, as ‘we have been here a bit longer”. But he avoids to admit the real agenda is Maori to take the whole of NZ governance, and do so for Maori.

   https://www.archives.govt.nz/discover-our-stories/the-declaration-of-independence-of-new-zealand
   https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/declaration-of-independence-taming-the-frontier
   http://onenzfoundation.co.nz/articles/treaty-of-waitangi/new-zealands-important-documents-and-events-timeline/
   New Zealand’s Important Documents and Events Timeline
   From the list of Important Documents and Events below, there is no doubt the 16 November 1840 was the day we received our Founding Document, our first Constitution and New Zealand became an Independent British Colony, all issued under Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter dated the 16 November 1840.
   While the Treaty of Waitangi gave Sovereignty to Britain under the jurisdiction of New South Wales and Maori the same rights as the people of England under English Law, Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter, “Enacted the Colony of New Zealand and Created and Established a Legislative Council, an Executive Council, our Courts and granted certain powers and authority to the Governor for the time being of the said Colony”? While all other documents or events in our history have been given recognition in the development of New Zealand, the Royal Charter dated the 16 November 1840 (in red below) has been completely ignored for 173 years. Have you heard of Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of NZ ?
   Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter is our True Founding Document and First Constitution.
   1642 December 13, Abel Tasman the first confirmed European sighting of New Zealand.
   1769 October 6, Captain James Cook sights East Coast of NZ. NZ Territorial Claim, at Mercury Bay on 15 November1769
   1770 , Captain James Cook, at Queen Charlotte Sound on 30 January 1770, Cook made proclamations which helped ensure that Britain, and not another European power such as France, ultimately colonised New Zealand.
   1815 Congress of Vienna. European powers agree, at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, that New Zealand would belong to Britain, according to the Book of Dates.
   1817, 1823, 1828 Acts to bring law and order to New Zealand, but as New Zealand was outside the British Dominion they were unsuccessful.
   1820 Hongi Hika, Ngapuhi travels to England and sells Frenchman Baron Charles de Thierry 40,000 acres of land for 600 muskets. On his return to New Zealand Hika goes on the rampage south, slaughtering, making slaves or feasting on thousands of his unarmed countrymen, women and children. Waikato depopulates Taranaki, Taranaki virtually depopulates the Chatham Islands of the Moriori, and Te Rauparaha depopulates the South Island. By 1840 it is estimated 70,000 Maori had been slaughtered or taken as slaves during the intertribal musket wars.
   That was half of all Maori were murdered, eaten and enslaved, by Nnapuhi Hongi Hika. The 600 muskets bought by Hongi Hika from DeThierry’s payment for 40,000 acres of Hokianga, was so evil, cursed and vicious for Maori to have destroyed half of all Maori, it was to lead to causing both, the Declaration by Hokianga Chiefs of an independent northern state, written by Busby in 1835 for the sole purpose to repulse the Frenchman. And, the Musket wars death toll festered so seriously, to lead all other NZ Maori remaining, to in entirety, to need British protection and needed peace to be preserved. They signed the 6 Feb 1840 Treaty, to get themselves protection from the Queen, and they decided to cede and give their entire sovereignty to the Queen for ever, and received full protection as British subjects.
   1829 Edward Gibbon Wakefield publishes Letter From Sydney that lays out colonisation plans.
   1831 William Yate asks 13 northern chiefs to sign a letter to King William IV asking him to be their guardian and protector. “We are a people without possessions (taonga). We have nothing but timber, flax, pork and potatoes, we sell these things, however to your people, and then we see the property (toanga) of your people. It is only thy land, which is liberal towards us. We have heard that the tribe of Marian (France) is at hand coming to take away our land, therefore we pray thee become our friend and the guardian of these islands, lest the teasing of other tribes should come near us, and lest strangers should come and take away our land”.
   1832 The British Colonial Office decides to appoint a British Resident to New Zealand. James Busby is appointed.
   1834 James Busby holds a meeting of 25 chiefs in March 1834 to select a flag under which NZ ships could sail. A flag already used by the Church Missionary Society was selected. (Recent Maori Sovereignty agendas by Ngapuhi, falsely claims it is their original flag and corroborates the Declaration and that they retain Sovereignty. But it was a Church Missionary Society flag.)
   1835 Busby believed that a French eccentric, Baron Charles de Thierry, was part of a French plot to annex NZ so he decided to declare NZ Independent, on October 28, 1835, under the sovereignty of the United Tribes of NZ. Busby presented ‘his’ Declaration of Independence to the chiefs, but only 39 chiefs sign it before it was abandoned due to the continuing inter-tribal fighting. It became evident that the chiefs did not have the ability or will to form a united government to bring law and order under one flag and one law to a country that was fast becoming completely out of control. A total of 52 chiefs signed the Declaration by 1839. But it never extended to the whole of NZ and so did not declare the whole of NZ to be an independent Maori State.
   1837 Captain William Hobson visits New Zealand. Hobson recommends that British sovereignty apply to small areas where British commercial enterprises could be established with taxes levied and British law applying to those living there, and some sort of treaty may be necessary to gain Maori permission. This was abandoned.
   1838 During April and May a select committee of the British House of Lords considers options for New Zealand. Its report reluctantly recommends concluding a treaty with Maori as part of a policy to extend British rule to cover New Zealand and that the rights of Maori be protected.
   1839 The NZ Company concludes a Deed of Purchase of the Port Nicholson (Wellington) area on September 29, 1839, forcing the British government to intervene. Colonial Secretary Lord Normanby issues instructions to Hobson on August 14, 1839.
   1840 It was estimated half the Maori population had been slaughtered or taken as slaves by their fellow bloodthirsty countrymen. As well as that the Maori chiefs had sold or had contract over 2/3 of New Zealand, sold to settlers, by 1840, mostly with Deeds Registered in the New South Wales Supreme Court, some possible still valid today. New Zealand was completely out of control; Britain had to intervene.
   January 30 Hobson arrives and issues Proclamations, that no existing land titles in NZ would be recognized as valid unless confirmed by the British Government and then would be reduced to 2560 acres with invalid sales and reduced lands being returned to the chiefs that sold the land with the purchases losing their payments or deposits.
   February 1- 4 Hobson and Busby draft the Treaty of Waitangi based on instructions from Lord Normandy and Hobson delivers the final draft to Rev Williams at 4-00 pm on the 4 February. That was the Littlewood Treaty English Document.
   See: http://www.investigatemagazine.com/jan4treaty.htm and, See: Martin Doutre about the Littlewod’s treaty, who got that original from elder family being being involved then in the Russel law office, and it was the English final version of the treaty used to translate it into Maori. https://rumble.com/vkgsf3-episode-19-part-1-the-true-meaning-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi.html
   February 4 Rev Williams and his son Edward translate the final draft into the Maori language. The Tiriti o Waitangi was the only Treaty authorised by Hobson to be signed by the chiefs.
   February 5 Hobson reads the Treaty in English and Williams reads the Treaty in Maori to the gathering of 2000 people. The chiefs discuss it with Hobson for 5 hours then well into the night with the missionaries and decide it is to their advantage to sign the Tiriti the next morning.
   February 6 Forty-three chiefs sign the Tiriti o Waitangi at Waitangi. Hobson later statin

   Reply
2. Noco Govern on July 30, 2023 at 10:49 am

   Part 5
   The Treaty records the sovereignty was ceded and the majority of Maori agreed to it and Ngapuhi signed it too, but now they say they can renege, because of the declaration and only because of the lapsed extinguished redundant declaration, they say entitles them to sovereignty as it was stated in that document. But the issue is that the sovereignty in that document was transferred in entirety and for ever to the Queen as when it was appointed to others, as it went by 6 FebTreaty signed and agreed to go to ‘others’ as unless to others that the entitlement in the declaration was hung upon. And 25 Ngapuhi chiefs signed it went in entirety to the Queen for ever, and of the other 9 they were covered by their paramount chiefs signing for them, and so did the majority of the other NZ chiefs who were 20 times as many, as 487 of the others from other areas and mainly southern areas, was a huge majority that all signed over their sovereignty in entirety to the Queen for ever.

   The majority of all Maori chiefs signed on behalf of the majority of the tribes and majority of Maori people, in the 6 Feb 1840 Treaty that the entire sovereignty went to the Queen for ever. Even of the Declaration contents, it too went in entirely to the Queen for ever, but it applied only to a minority, to those in Hokianga, and some others to the east in central far north of northland. But even so the chiefs of that minority area by three quarter majority signed over entire Declaration sovereignty to the Queen in entirety and for ever.

   Now Ngapuhi lie to us that they never signed over sovereignty, and we can be assured they have told us more lies, and will tell us more lies, and have serious devious and destructive intentions against the immigrants and settlers, of those of whom are not Maori, of many devious agendas to fit only for their sole benefit.

   Buddy Mikaere: ‘co governance is only to take in the Maori perspective on things’, ‘thats all it is’,
   and ‘to reflect our shared knowledge as we have been here a bit longer’. Here we have serious lies from Maori.

   They need co-governance, as well as being believed, as to need to be believed that they never signed over sovereignty, to get to take enough of governance to take full control. If half of Maori, 450,000 say so, that they the co-governance lot, and there are no more of them, and leave half of their numbers 450,000 in the general all other ethnicities lot, that after the half of them group, say they are the half of the co-governance, and they get to half govern, they will have a reserve block vote in the all 160 ethnic other half, to jump ship, cross the floor, and get them a majority and take the whole mandate, and by getting some more as enough governance extra power by sudden appearance of the block vote, to be able to enforce their take over of the Government, by then voting that they take the whole of the governance, and it become a Maori majority government. Full and final coup, but un-foreseen by those Government officers in Wellington as of today, as are about to be drafting the co-governance rules. The Maori spokespersons dont ensure it cant get in, to sneak in by deceptive stealth like vote blocks and not letting on what they intend. And to hear the ‘Bud Mikaere speak’, that they are benign with no desire to seize all the levers of power, just: ‘co- governance is only to take in the Maori perspective on things’, ‘thats all it is’ and, ‘to reflect our shared special knowledge as we have been here a bit longer’.

   But no let on of their huge coup and full over turning of our democracy, and we be run by the Maori gun toting Taliban gangs from then on, and NZ belongs only to Maori. they have published relentlessly their intent to seize back all land titles, and ‘we were here first’, and you Pakeha and settlers are squatters, and get deported. That can only be done so by a severe adverse stunt of a coup and full take over of government, using an expired declaration and frauding sovereignty, getting personal sovereignty documents, by guns and violence and lies and deceit, with huge damage upon the other peoples, and cause a real civil war and deaths.

   It is treasonous, it is anti government, it is extremist, it is a seriously destructive, grand larceny, an agenda to serve Maori only, to include getting back conquered land of Hongi Hika that he took by guns for Ngapuhi. Be aware there very serious severe exclusive vast entire land grabs about to happen. The immigrants settlers to be despised, repulsed, disenfranchised, and to be deported. Maori criminals to be freed and pardoned.

   Ngapuhi conquests are outstanding: be aware that Ngapuhi believe they conquested all of Auckland and Waikato and Tauranga and East cape, Central districts and Wairarapa and King country and that was done with 600 muskets and by murdering 70,000 innocent Maoris. Also Te-Rauparaha at Egmont took all of the south island, and murdered all Moriori. Maori land was taken by those who murdered the lands inhabitants

   This will be a renewed vicious full on Maori civil war, and include every one living and working on farms which is still festering unsettled, to capture up the spoils of the last Maori war and for both Ngapuhi and Te-Rauparaha getting to take both the two islands respectively, and Ngapuhi getting the whole of, or most of the north island, by their faking sovereignty for getting into power and simply making laws ordering it be so.

   For that stunt they need sovereignty and to demolish the immigrant government, so this is about an unlawful forced deceiving regime change, and severance from Britain, and overturning our laws, and the settlers and immigrants are not part of it, except to be its victims, and then have to give in and go away and let Ngapuhi take all the north island, and all of the farms, and the cities, and land titles, and houses and infrastructure.

   This is about a continued post massacre and land war, where Ngapuhi missed out on getting the titles to their conquested lands that they conquered to the south in the musket wars, and they now want those lands under Ngapuhi. It is also that Ngapuhi want to be the Maori ruling class, and dominate all the other chiefs and all the other tribes of the whole of the north island, with the settler immigrant squatters, all deported.

   Why did Ngapuhi Hongi Hika not get all the land under him back in 1830, after he murdered the inhabitants there on?. It was the British, and coastal trade, and distractions at the Bay of Islands, and trade and ship travel with Australia, and the Ruapeka war, and ship building, and that the British Navy ships could cannon ball any Maori raiding party canoes at sea, and a gunshot injury, that slowed him down. But he had to be planing and it be known he was going to further attack as the southern Maori were in serious need for British protection.
   As for the Treaty reason it was signed by so many chiefs, it was obviously for protection, as the remaining relatives of the 70,000 dead, as their relatives demanding peace and protection, that caused most of the rest of the tribes and chiefs to be in desperate need for protection, and wanted the treaty for committing the Queen to give them that protection, and that stopped Ngapuhi getting to mop up their land and slave conquests, by stopping any further Hongi Hika attacks, and finishing off his massacre, so the majority of Maori needed to get, and got, their needed British protection. For that protection, it was the reason that sovereignty was ceded by all chiefs, as significantly by the vast majority of all Maori chiefs, including Ngapuhi, and tribes to the north of Hokianga, and Hokianga and south Hokianga, all signing sovereignty to the Queen on 6 Feb 1840 because they were still in fear and distrust of another bout of muskets and had lost 70,000 and did not want more death. And the lurking DeThierry threat in the Hokianga area.

   Also the whole country was aware of other foreign powers like the French, who in DeThierry had announced he was going to take NZ for France, and be its sovereign chief, and do so by force, and that muskets were available in markets outside of NZ where an invader could be strongly armed and commit an invasion and kill off Maori. That at least would disrupt all the Maori chiefs and their Mana in the Hokianga. But on the contrary, Current Maori radicals will say it was not fear of Hika’s muskets, and avoid DeThierry but say the Chiefs didnt understand the meaning of the word Sovereignty.
   But here that can not be so, as the Hokianga chiefs had “full on sovereignty” for four and a quarter years that gave them in their Hokianga area, a significant understanding of what it was all about, and its ability to corral out other conquestors, with desires to grab their land, and to get it by force, or deals, or discussion, or tricks, and hoodwinking. So the Hokianga chiefs had knowledge of sovereignty, and that was not just a bit of talk, persuasion, and signing up too quickly, without fair understanding what it was. They well knew of it and that it had repulsed DeThierry very successfully, so that coupled with the Queens protection, was a deal that was good value and a fair exchange and with expected safe outcome for Maori which they well wanted. They were full on British Subjects, they were being included as good fellow people, and given high respects.

   But now for the current recent issues of getting the land that was sold for money to be got back, it needs TWO things. ONE: is to force it to be returned and so not require asking nor consent to get it back, but to have a governing over-rule that it is to be returned. This needs the immigrants to give it back, and any owner immigrants objections, to be demolished, and essentially all immigrant objection to Maori full right to take back all the land, to not be allowed, but objection removed and disallowed. Immigrants have no power or intervene, and for the crown to have no power to intervene, and for the land acts to have no power to intervene. TWO: the cost of getting it back, and the issue of its payment. so their saying it was stolen and has to be returned, would be without paying for it, as it is alleged by Maori it was not paid for, but it was stolen, so no reimbursement is going to be required. That avoids Ngapuhi Maori needing Tainui and Ngaitahu and the Chinese etc to fund the re-purchase of land to be repossessed, and to pay the costs and interest. It is to be forfeit to the Maori State, as nationalised from the immigrant owner directly for Maori governance coffers.

   This needs everyone in NZ to be aware if they allow Maori to take co-governance that they then can get back all of the lands and to get it all for free, without the Maori governance paying nor buying it back. And to do so such that we are unaware of what they intend to do and will do. We must be well warned about this risk.

   This is another Maori war, like the old days where they murdered and stole each others resources. the public of NZ must be very careful to keep the lid firmly upon the Ngapuhi stealth of land grabs and shifting the owners off their land with the titles all reverting back to the Maori land ownership strategies. So essentially it is an intense war to be, and will involve the wholesale fights by gunfire and murders of the immigrants. Maori, to get the immigrants away from the land and stay out of the way, will be driven off as the next wave of Ngapuhi gun raids, resembling a Zimbabwe native home and land and farm and business invasion.

   The Ngapuhi agenda is way way bigger than a mere 50% governance ‘social welfare’ model of looking after disaffected Maori youth and helping with some small issues of mental health, and dealing with deformities, and with inbreeding, or fetal alcohol victims, or ‘P’ damaged babies of ‘P’ drugged mothers, but it is not about a simple Maori perspective on welfare, and health assistance.
   But this is about cashing in on and exacting full on old utu and revenge and Maori conquests and hundreds of billion dollar land titles requisitions and corruption and changing the flow and amounts of money in the system and severe international credit dysfunction, and failed banks, grand payments to some Maori and not to other Maori and distraught deprivation upon the immigrants and settlers squatters. and the white people.

   Ngapuhi know it is their last chance and their only chance, and see the Declarations words in clause 1 and 2 as being to their favour their entitlement and to imply full sovereignty and that tied with co-governance, it is the grand full on devise to take over full government and change the laws, and rule to their sole favour and benefits. It is their last and only chance, and they see a stunt of faking sovereignty and hope no one notices.
   They rely upon sovereignty, but they dont have it at all, and are bluffing and if we the people as five sixths dont get real, we will loose everything to the one sixth Maori, but really be loosing out to Ngapuhi, who will be dominant and who assert they have conquered all the rest of the north island and that Te-Rauparaha had got to own all the south island. It is only the Ngapuhi of Hokianga who ever had the Declaration and its kind words of sovereignty and powers and authority and legislation making, and not letting go of it, but they did have the unless clause proviso, and did so appoint everything in the 1835 Declaration in entirety to the Queen for ever where it resides to this day and is overlain with imported British law and common aw ans legislation and overlain by many Constitution documents, and by Queens proclamations, and is a colony of the British crown and the King is the sovereign head of its power.

   The Ngapuhi assume everyone will accept they do have control by them quoting the Declaration as for Hokianga and retain that to them selves, and it does not extend to beyond Ngapughi Hokianga area and so there is no competing chiefs in their Declaration area. Thus Ngapuhi will be the superior Kings of the Maori of the north and then become the Kings of those peoples and those areas that they murdered, which is the rest of the north island. We will see that Ngapuhi attempt to rule all the rest of the Maori of the North Island and do so with many empty houses and property, as the immigrants and the settlers will be all deported.

   What sort of rebellion will occur and what gravity of civil bloodshed will be happening and for how long.
   So there is their real agenda to take over NZ and get to rule and be chiefs of the Hokianga and be chiefs of the whole north island, and to get all the land back, the land for Ngapuhi and to toss all the immigrants back into the sea, to depart and the whole north island to be for Maori and only for Maori, as ruled by Ngapuhi.

   Secondly
   When Maori take control after getting 50% and with a couple more percent from the other 50%
   who cross over to join Maori and push up their voting numbers, they will pardon all Maori criminals, of now and in the past who were punished in the Pakeha justice system, and compensate them for suffering prosecution and punishment, and pay them like as if innocent Arthur Thomas, for imprisonment time, and from their Cestui que Trust, to be spilled open for each and everyone, to award and reward them millions in compensation.

   Thirdly
   Make every Maori to get to become a Sovereign living person without capital letters, and use christian name and be from the house of the surname and interfere with their original birth certificate, as they do.

   Fourth
   That we all speak Maori, and science must use a bastardised Maori to try to be scientific. Why?

   It is that Maori want to get to change the governance into their favour, and to get the whole of the land back without paying, for just Maori, and gangs to enforce payments, like they do now over drug debts, and by having only Maori gangs able to carry guns, and enforce the rabble like the Taliban, a Maori Army as a Taliban of NZ, their own police, their own security, their own courts, their own airforce, and get at the arsenal of our military munitions stores. So it is not going to be pretty, nor fair, nor have any real justice.

   To toss out all the settlers and immigrants, is that next? and seize all of their lands and businesses. What the co-governance Maori have not revealed is, their policy and handling of the settlers, the ‘overstayers’, those who have arrived and stayed and settled and ‘colonised’, even those who got here a few years ago, or a few months ago, and of those that were not the ‘here firsts’, and those who are not Maori, and so how will they be treated and dealt to. We get silence, so what is the co-governance agenda about those non Maori, and of our many immigrants and of their rights, or will they be denigrated to second class citizens, will their land deeds and titles be cancelled and be confiscated. we just do not know and have not been told, nor received any guarantees.

   But it has to be seriously expected that the non Maori will be punished and made to be second class persons, but nor is it in co-governance mandates of how those, who are not Maori, will be treated, and will they be safe and be treated all as equal. Will they survive and get access to food. But so far there is no contracted written guarantees from the co-governance agenda from Maori as to ensure any of the rights of non Maori.

   We do not ever see Maori charities helping any settlers and immigrants, nor Maori taking any interest in assisting the millions of immigrants, but we see they hate the immigrant, and blame their success and good business skills and their buying up of the land titles, as a big harm to Maori, as if causing harm and thus co-governance will get that debt of Maori dysfunction be repaid by the settler immigrant, and it will not be fairly managed. Indeed the Maori will likely trash the country and turn it into an evil rancid drug den, to rape and pillage and waste everything into gang run violence arena and ruin everything for everyone.

   See the damage done to Zimbabwe and see the ruined farms, and see the murdered farmers, and see the Mugabe corruption, and run down health and the billions he stole from the country and the ruined economy.

   Denis M

   History/ Historic analysis:

   Sovereignty, that was ceded entirely to the Queen forever:
   Maori have no right to half-govern, nor take 50% of the government, as is distinctly not lawful, nor supported by either the 28 Oct1835 declaration of a northern independent state, nor is it supported by the 6 Feb 1840 treaty, nor are there or were there any treaty principles involved, nor is there any co-governance supported by the 1852 Constitution, nor by the 1986 Constitution, and Maori do not have any sovereignty other than that which the crown has.

   Contemporaneous personal sovereignty claims, of self sovereign, are being hatched by some Maori persons, but the overall sovereignty of the entire country has already been ceded to the queen in entirety and for ever.

   NZ governance is only administered by the queens governor and our elected voted representatives. It is lawfully done only according to democracy, by election rules, by one vote per one adult, as according to the constitution, and as was done under english imported laws, and the queens laws, and done by NZ added legislated laws and regulations, by qualified capable legal legislative authority and as done by those elected and entitled to do so.

   The NZ government politicians are not mandated to defy the Electoral Act and Human Rights Act, to make bias and prejudice and thieving of the electoral rights from the majority of the population of NZ. And can not award 17% of the populations candidates, as Maori, even if or not all elected, for any racial reason, nor for those to get half of the governance, as 50% of the country’s governance, nor side step the rules in the NZ Electoral Act. Nor by any Maori faked purported dishonest lies of any retaining and further entitlement of sovereignty in Hokianga’s Northland area, which was specifically extinguished and Ceded to the Queen entirely and for ever on 6 Feb 1840. And otherwise are barred from doing so and can not do so in the NZ democracy, where election rules, rule the make-up of the government, with no racial bias nor extortive demands. The Maori do not have any lawful entitlement to get such bizarre overt favour, and can not lawfully demand it, nor do they retain nor hold any sovereignty nor sovereign right to do so. They are no more than equal to everyone else, as each from 6 Feb 1840 was equally a British subject, and now is equally a NZ Resident Subject, whether born here, or given residency after immigrating to be equal NZ residents.

   Maori as a Maori slice of NZ, have no special rights above those of every and any other immigrant settler. Immigrant settlers are in fact who and what every one is, including all Maori are, as all arrivals including Maori were actually in their first appearance, and since, have arrived as immigrant settlers. The offspring of settler immigrants were born here, are people of the land, but were from immigrants as settler offspring, that includes Maori children and English settler children, and all Immigrant children, and all Refugee’s children.

   No one was native to the land, nor aborigine to this group of NZ islands, but ventured to arrive here, to then settle, to have become immigrants, to squat here and have children and occupy according to being here. Later as land titles, deeds, licence to occupy, leases, rents, and done so under 6 Feb1840 English law and NZ law, and later NZ law and recent NZ law, but still those as immigrants need only to turn up here, and apply to be accepted and stay. It may well be, that Maori suffer the pressure of more immigrants and refugees.

   160 ethnicities have arrived and immigrated from overseas and are now represented here in NZ’s population, but only one of this 160 nation group, the Maori, want half of all of the governance, to leave 159 ethnicities to split off to share the other 50% of governance. But do Maori have any such right to that, and of what are Maori providing as their proof of equitable reason to have half of the governance of NZ, and to thus be entitled to half govern each and all the other 159 ethnicities. What proof do the Maori provide of both doing that in fairness, and proof of being capable at all of doing so. The questions are: how will Maori do so, and why, and are Maori capable, and experienced and skilled in the other 159 Ethnicities, Customs and Sentiments and Religions of the other particular 159 ethnicities. Its highly doubted Maori can do it at all, and certainly not do it well. It will be a disaster, with bullying by drug fuelled thieving gang enforcers, and wholesale thefts of the vast property of the residents, and of others assets, and of the State’s assets.

   The questions of what racial bias will the Maori gangs have and will there be overt demands of angry Maori political radicals and accusers like of ‘colonial white male’ become the main thrust of Maori policy, with their overt racial biases and disproportionate funding for Maori benefits. Will it be mainly letting Maori convicts out of prison, and confiscating the land titles and farms, and taking of them for Maori, Maori seizing all commerce and businesses in NZ ?? will it be another Zimbabwe disaster, and is that a real risk, but so far co-governance provides no policy nor any guarantees, and no proof of safety.

   Before all these exploitative immigrant coloniser settlers arrived over the centuries, that is including the Maori adventurers and Maori tourists and Maori colonisers, and then the english settlers, there was not any prior distinct land owning entitled original aborigine existing indigenous natives here in NZ. We are led by science and genetics. To surmise and to assume otherwise is all we can entertain, but leads us astray. We dont know who was really here before those Maori arrivals. but there were earlier arrivals. as the Moriori were here, but there was murders of them, and they were murdered off their occupied settled lands, by these subsequent Maori squatter colonising invader immigrants, who were not just ‘here first’ and were not ever indigenous, but were common venturing pacific travellers and scavengers who arrived as lost and as immigrants and squatters, and became political murderers to thieve the land from those here earlier. Only a few Moriori survived, but all their land territory was taken by the Maori who murdered them into abeyance, and ate them.

   Genetics and science indicates Chinese, Celts, maybe Vikings, and other Asian and Pacific originated people had got here at competing times or earlier times than to the Maori. All were wind blown in boats to these shores, and were lucky to get ashore. but no one had priority and Maori by their fortified PAHs, proved that they as inhabitants, had habits of war and murder and of taking the land, taking the resources, in conflict and in revenges, and had killed and cannibalised. Cook observed this war activity of Maoris.

   Asserting ‘we were here first’ is not necessarily supported by science at all. The questions are from where did the Maori get permission to assume their land ownership when they had got no such permission, and it was only at and until by arriving, did they squat, colonise, reside and stay. Any talk about their presumption as being first here, and entitlement to own the land, can only be that is an assumption. Why are there ‘not any other ethnicity being included’ as there were, but are not being included in the co-governance as of recent demand by Maori. There were prior ethnic arrivals, and those can not be ruled out. But Maori avoid their inclusion, fatally exhibiting their biasing and falsity of their assertion of being first. They were not first, and were not all here first. The Maori accept the Moriori at least were here before Maori got here.

   Everyone had to arrive from elsewhere, is a known accepted proven fact. Except the offspring were born here but born from the arrivals, and is like the Moriori who were here before Maori, they too were arrivals. so to be said by Maori that only Maori were here first, is not correct and is very dishonest, deceitful, fraudulent and overt lies, to support their idiotic contention of being here first, like waiting for a bus, what does it matter who is first, if all get on the bus. It is not that the first got sovereign possession, but that they were blown south and were lost and got lucky to find the islands of NZ, and had arrived as squatters and immigrants as all did, with the same actuality of arriving and staying and being here. AS EQUALS

   No one had got any certainty of prior possession of the lands of NZ, before Moriori arrivals, and also at before arrival by Maori. But by murders and killing of the inhabitant then Moriori by Maori, was their method of rude ‘purchase’ but does not accord with Maori having any lawful nor any legitimate prior nor subsequent entitlement to have the entire land’s ownership, nor a license to own the lands, nor license to occupy what land that we know that others were already residing in, nor was specifically empty of prior immigrants. As of those here, the Maori say, they instead ‘were here first’. That is not supported just because the Maori abused the Moriori, killed them, ate them, and then to have lied they were here first, and want to backdate and demand all the sovereignty and half governance. Taking it from peoples before them.

   It can not be by virtue of a ‘we were here first’ idea, and, why have Maori always refused to admit to acknowledge that the Moriori were here well before the Maori. We apologise for the references to Maori murdering the Moriori, but we do so because this is essentially both a major issue of land rights, and occupancy, and political governance rights and mutual sharing of resources and a fact it happened. It includes the Ngapuhi musket murder of 70,000 Maori and why the Declaration, and, the Treaty that replaced the declaration, both came to be written, and why the Treaty was signed by the majority of all Maori, ceding the entire sovereignty for ever to the Queen of England, and the Queen in right of sovereignty to be able to make the rules and the laws.

   The Moriori were not genetically aborigine indigenous, and they arrived and stumbled ashore here too, from being blown south, ‘off course’, to the south, and to a random unknown south pacific destination, NZ, and so they ‘got here’. They too have squatted here ever since. Secondly the Maori in very similar circumstances, were lost, arrived, surely as wind blown south, that being the only motive force for travel, and being lucky to find some land, and to set ashore on NZ, to then reside and to squat and stay on.

   That, apart from some whalers, was up till about 1800, was what all the NZ immigrants and NZ explorers, and NZ settlers and NZ squatters did. They got blown south, got lost and in hope for land, they found some, as they all had done so, just the same more by chance and good luck, for those prior and recent centuries. Also the whalers ventured here, but were not lost, as aware to exercise deliberate navigation skills, methods using stars, and navigation instruments and Maps and very strong ships that could go to windward.

   Since approx 1770, after Cooks territorial claim, “at mercury bay on 15 November 1769, and at Queen Charlotte sound on 30 January 1770, Cook made proclamations which helped ensure that Britain, and not another European power such as France, ultimately colonised New Zealand”. Using the Cook maps, there was planned voyages made from England and the arrival of missionaries and immigrants who were not lost venturers, not lost to the south winds, but had planned navigated and sailed deliberately to this Cook defined NZ latitude and longitude. And they were not lost but intended immigrants and settlers and wanted to make farms, business, trading, and to live a new way of life in NZ after departing from the english towns and cities, and from Europe.

   All were subsequent immigrants and adventurers over the many centuries, had arrived in wind driven boats. and those all similarly became resident by their mere act of arrival, and setting foot ashore, and not by any bought ownership entitlement, nor any resident ticket, but became additional fellow squatters and residents likewise, to stumble ashore here, and be able to enjoy their residency here as well, and of sharing of the land, and of the many fish, and drink clean water, and cultivate gardens, as they did.

   This of course was before 1800, and some before 1840 as well, being well before steam and diesel and aeroplane flying, and, from then, from about 1820 their arrivals went onwards, and to include various types of agreements and land deeds and purchases as settlers settled, and went on further till 6 Feb 1840 when by Treaty, all land had to have Land titles, and had to be surveyed.

   At the Treaty date, there was 70,000 Maori and 2,000 settlers. That influx of settlers continued to extend, and grow so at about 20 more years, 1858 the then populations had equalised as 50/50 Maori to settler, the gold rushes had brought more settlers.

   Then 1870, the steamships started to serve the bringing of immigrants, and continued through the last third of the 18th century, and later. So the arrival of immigrants and settlers increased as steamships began to give quickness and reliability and quantity of settler immigrant arrivals. Since the 1840 treaty the immigrant settlers had to buy or lease land from the Maori, or, of land bought previously by settlers from Maori and on sold to settlers, and so the purchase of land and payment to live on it, became the norm for all settlers and immigrants since at least 1840 and there after. But Maori had the option not to sell, and to keep their lands.

   But the Maori when they arrived, did not pay for land nor buy it, and never have paid nor bought any of the land in NZ. They occupied it by arriving on it, and by using it, and enforced their staying on it, by acts of war and by murders, by the killing of the prior owners, the Moriori. That was not legitimate land owning nor fair land purchase. So Maori paid nothing for any NZ lands but stole them. They murdered to get to take it, that is not a legitimate owning of it. Will they again do that as co-governors?

   With steamships, 1870, the immigration and settlers and trade increased and co-occupied, and has been since steam, that influx has greatly increased. By the later diesel ships and aeroplane flying those travel methods have brought in millions more, to extend right up to the very recent as of today. Five and a quarter million are here today, as represented in 160 ethnicities, and Maori are about one sixth of the today NZ population, as being 900,000. In 1820 there was 140,000 Maori, after 1820 when Hongi Hika got 600 muskets from selling 40,000 acres of Hokianga to DeThierry, he killed 70,000 Maori. At about 1830 and 1840 there were 70,000 Maori, as half were murdered and enslaved by Hongi Hika, and at 1840 there were 2,000 European settler immigrants.

   FIRST IMMIGRANTS:
   Firstly, the sharing of the residence in NZ and squatting, and immigration had been such that sea adventuring involved much likeliness of being blown off course, and a good deal of being lost, and so lucky, to find some land, before they were swept into the fury of the southern oceans to be sunk with the loss of their flimsy vessels. Those arrivals subsequent to those of the Moriori has not bestowed a higher privilege than those that Moriori had. The earlier indigenous squatter natives, as Moriori were here, and so were some ethnic other arrivals, that were all here before the Maoris. that per defining the Moriori were not Maori but had arrived before the Maori. Although it is possible for some overlap, the Maori were later than the Moriori, and until they too ‘arrived’ they were not here, but were all subsequent, especially to that of the earlier Moriori and some others. Why the ‘we were here first’ childish argy bargy queue thinking of Maori.

   But also entirely, the original inhabitants were in fact only the birds, the fish, the forests and the insects and big Moas. All humans and animals here now are subsequent arrived colonising squatter immigrant settlers and livestock, of whom no one is above the other by arrival time, and so no one was in any possession of the land, but was using it by living on it as immigrant squatter.

   Not till the treaty of 6 Feb 1840 that brought in the land titles and deeds, and English statute laws and common law. Prior to the Treaty, as from about 1800 the prior land usage was assumed to be of Maori, as those being here, and living in those locations that they resided in, was guessed to be theirs, with some respect for sharing. But still the Maori entered with the settlers into some occupancy agreements and deeds with the newer settler arrivals who sought to occupy some of those locations. So any deeds, that started from after circa 1800 were contracts of occupancy and of use of location, with some payments and defines boundaries unsurveyed, and often bought by traded useful goods. and defining of the sharing arrangements between those Maori as on the land, that was also wanted for sharing and farming use by the settlers and immigrants. Some contracts involved that Maori depart from some of the locations, to allow for permanent settler occupancy by the new arrivals. Maori by then also on sold some lands that they insisted was theirs to on sell, and eventually sold much of it to those settlers, who had arrived. The payments were made in money and goods. These were written and agreed to from about 1800 to 1840. Then by the treaty there had to be land titles, surveying of the boundaries, and the proof of purchase and ensuring payment, and, subject to Maori choosing to sell their land, but were never forced to sell, nor taken by the pointing of a gun.

   What is hugely significant is the presumption of entitlement that started at the turn of about 1700, to 1800, as it did seem to assume to allow for the given, that all of the land was given to the Maori, for being included in the Maori ownership and some of it involved in the early land deeds, and by presuming the Maori did own it, as they were on the land, it seemed they might do so.

   But certainly not as indigenous aborigine natives as if always there and by genetics had been proven always there, as if so had not later arrived. If not as arrived later, were assumed to be there at the earlier times, with the lands beginnings. But they were not there at the lands beginning but arrived, that is not like of the Australian aborigine being really indigenous and evolving with the land. Maori did NOT start in NZ with the birds, and forests, as with those by genetically evolving, as undisturbed and assumed, as in some timeless customary usage, as if the land always included all of the Maori. They were not here as here forever, not as if they really were truly indigenous, and were not attached as were the real old aborigine of Australia. But no, the Maori were recent century arrivals, and were just like everyone else was, just by their arriving over the recent centuries as immigrant arrivals, they had became the immigrant settlers and did so by setting foot on NZ after a boat journey, and staying and squatting. The British settlers all did the same. That was until the Treaty assumed to grant Maori a right of undisturbed usage of the land that they were actually using, that being the NZ land they then were using to reside on in 1840, and was that land not already sold by Maori, but used and occupied by Maori.

   Notably land not used by Maori, the less productive and near desert areas, was called ‘wastelands’ and claimed by the Crown as Crown Waste lands, and some of that was sold by the Crown, to settlers and some also to Maori and some of that became state forests and state forest plantings.

   So that any future land sales when being bought, if bought from Maori, as per the Treaty articles, there had to be a title, boundary survey, and being fairly paid for.

   Astonishing debacle of why was it Maori got all the lands for free, as prior to 1840, and their getting it was accepted, by the full generosity of the Queen, but Maori insist their lands have all been taken by settlers and immigrants. NO they, the Maori have only sold lands, but not had their lands stolen. So we know that Maori do tell many lies about the land, and lie it was stolen and lie that they sold it. Why do Maori tell big land lies.

   Astonishingly no one seems to grasp that the treaty gave to the Maori, the colossal quantity of all the unsold land to be owned customarily by Maori and that was not of the already sold land that was sold. But Maori were them made to be able, to keep all of the land they had not sold, and if they sold it, to get all the money from it and from all and any land they further sold. That was a lot of land they held and a lot of money they could get. But also they did sell a lot of it, so as they had both got it all for free, and had the huge advantage of use of it, and that they could sell any of it, and thus get so much money for it. The treaty meant that Maori were able to double dip, because the Treaty gave Maori all of that land for free, and ensured if they sold any of it, they got paid all the money for it. Thus Maori could buy replacement land, or buy back land sold, if they changed their mind, and simply could want to keep it. Or use the much money to buy farms and to develop farms and to buy cattle and sheep and build trading ships, and cultivate crops or get what goods and chattels that they wanted, and to travel. So selling land was a significant income for investing in business, shipping, farms, and gardens and building houses.

   So why do those of co-governance bleat by the recent Maori that they got ripped off by the Treaty that took their lands. The Maori certainly did not get ripped off but got to be paid double for the land. They took it in the first place then sold it, and had as well the access to keep all their land, and had that land and access to it without the Queen taking it or being on it or being in the way, and when the sold some of it, they got to get all the money from the sale and from future land sales, as they did.

   But the Treaty ensured they got possession of all unsold lands, and Maori got all that for free, and that they kept what they wanted to keep, and that they got paid for any they decided to choose to sell. So they did not get ripped off. They got free land for free and used it for free, and if they sold some they got the money for free. But unwisely many Maori sold off way too much of their good lands. Sold entirely by their own choices, without any disturbance upon Maori on their land, nor by disturbance to sell it from the settlers.

   That land was not really theirs in the first place at all, and it was not the case that it was, but it was stolen from the prior occupants like Moriori, as the Maori had only migrated after the Moriori, and had arrived from elsewhere, from the warmer middle or more northern parts of the pacific, and or Asia. But from whom they were they bestowed in the Treaty all of the land, but hugely that was by the generosity of the Queen, and by Busby and Hobson. Generously given and bestowed as the assumed whole land ownership, by the assumptions maybe of the whaler captains in some quirk of assumed admiralty law. And also by the respect to those residing on the land as the Maoris also were able to enjoy, and by the British missionaries and British resident Busby, who arrived and found the Maori were settled. The Maori was lucky to be assumed to own it, but they just earlier arrived and squatted upon it just before the English and settlers arrived to squat upon it, but also the Maori were subsequently to the Moriori and the Celts. It was more of just arrive and squeeze in and share it, than a bought and fenced off buying of it. Of course the settler and sailors had their technology, and steel to share, to hugely improve the Maoris life and supplied good tools.

   That was disproportionate and disproportionally was a hugely significant error, in favour of the Maori and as it ignored because it didnt know of the earlier Moriori, and and gave wrongly the huge head start of the full land ownership to Maori, of all NZ land ownership to Maori, but none to be held by the earlier Moriori, and was really about what the Treaty writers saw about who were all those persons as residing, and the settlers, and immigrant and those squatting, who also were there before the Treaty, but not those who had bought land, by then, as they were entitled to keep that land. The Treaty had adopted who it saw on the lad as on the lad as if they were the first owners, and was followed by the idea that Maori as settled and squatted at arrival just as Maori did, that they had assumed to have bought it or lawfully had got it, as if entitled to occupy it and as if entitled to own it. Not any Treaty official noticed that the Maori lands were stolen from the Moriori, nor from the Celts. The Celts must have been all killed by Missionary time and by Treaty time.

   All of the following immigrants and settlers thought they were obliged to ask to buy land from the Maori, from about 1800 through to 1840, as then up to 6 Feb1840, to buy what land the Maori chose to dispose of, and after 6 Feb 1840 to have to buy all land sold, from the Maori or from those who had bought it from the Maori, with a proper title and boundary, from 6 Feb 1840. And by the disposal of those lands and their sale, that the Maori did do, so they got well paid for it, and as said, they never had to pay for it themselves.

   Hongi Hika sold DeThierry 40,000 acres of Hokianga land in 1820, but Hongi Hika never paid for it, but he squatted there and said he owned it. and really it was the whole tribes land, but not just his. But the Maori kept on selling land, and that the land was becoming gone and sold, for ever by Maori choosing to sell it and losing it for ever. At 6 Feb1840 titles and surveying and proper contracts and payment had to be done, but still it was Maori land that Maori had got for free, and that Maori had the right to sell it and or some of it from time to time and could keep doing so, and they did so. The point is Maori got all the land for free, and the treaty gave Maori all the land, but not the sovereignty over it, as of the sovereignty that went to the Queen in entirety and was to the Queen for ever, and yet still the maoris kept selling lots of their lands, as to the settlers and immigrants under deed, that they could not revoke nor get back, and Maori spent that money and their land holding shrunk, and the money slowly went and if they didnt build a ship it could get spent on alcohol but certainly was spent on axes and knives and needed tools.

   Why did Maori not get into land leases and rentals, but they should have. Why do the lie their land was taken?

   In hind sight what money the Maori got was not what the land later became worth, and they regret that, and regret the permanent sale of those lands, and their coast land gone, and, they want it all back now of course, understandably, but they did have it in the first place and had got it all for free, and then sold most of it in the centuries subsequently to the settlers and the immigrants. So it went and they know that it is gone. Thus Maori are wanting to devise a way to get it back and get it for free, and if they take the government, they can legislate to get it all back, and get it or free, so that it what they are doing but it relies on their buff that the Declaration still provides them with full sovereignty of it. But it precisely does not, but they wont admit.

   But where now is the sharing, and to have sold land they never themselves bought was a real and significant bonus to Maori. But they are not on that sold land anymore and as they sold way too much of it, and sold so much of the best of it, they became aware of its loss. But the deeds of occupancy and sale did displace many Maori from those particular parts, and yet still the Maori wished to continue to use those places. And it is now too late to get it back. Hence Maori are festering in that old dismay, and want to use their recent political bullying concoctions of their demands now for co-governance, based upon the extinct declaration.

   CAN MAORI GET AND TAKE ALL THE LAND OF NZ WHEN THEY GET IN CO-GOVERNANCE?
   SO can co-governance get all the land back, and the answer is YES, if they get co-governance and some extra votes from the other 50% to cross over, from the other 50%, for supporting and expanding the Maori half of co- governance, so that Maori will get to have and get at 51% or more majority. The Maori governance staff, as majority, will of certainty without due warning nor declaring, enforce to do so, that they will seize back all of the land titles from everyone, and give it to Maori and hold all those titles exclusively with only Maori. Then get back much more of everything else. Then to keep it, be at war, and revenge, and utu, and be just like a Hongi Hika, with forceful disenfranchising of the huge numbers of immigrants, and take away their rights, and wealth, and investments, and assets, and property, and farms and make non Maori all pay high rents. Then to change voting laws so only Maori have a superior vote, and immigrants have a lower status vote, as second rate citizens, like company ‘a’ shares and ‘b’ shares.

   Why else do Maori want co-governance, and that is answered by, what is their anticipated expected benefit. Maori are not a people as interested to improve the lives and profits of the millions of the immigrants that they despise, but have an expected beneficial outcome that superiorly serves Maori. Why would Maori work for their competition, the immigrants ?
   So far the Maori have not guaranteed they will not do such seizing of the land titles, and nothing they say nor have said prevents them from wanting to do so, and they regularly state they will do so and do admit they deserve it as they were here first. But by stealth and deceit and gross unfairness and breech of electoral law and human rights law, they will do so, for their benefit, get half governance and then het some more votes to get full control of government and alter the laws they need to be entirely able to rule in their favour.

   Why else would they be wanting co-governance that will triple their voting rights, and why would Maori not be wanting of taking and enforcing these vile devices and exactitudes upon the rest of the citizens of NZ, if they can get so much out of it for Maori, and the higher up elite get well reimbursed in their governance. So by tricking us all by using co-governance, that is based on frauded lies and deceit, about their still retaining all of the entire sovereignty in the Declaration. Getting to do so by lies and stand over bully tactics, just as gangs enforce their drugs payments, and will have only Maori entitled to carry guns, like the Taliban.

   Yet again it is understandable, the instruments of land sale by deed and enforceable contracts, captured Maori way back in the 18 th century after 1800, who did not then appreciate their offspring would want a lot of it back, and the deeds would last into perpetuity. The real question is, why were they considered as the land’s owners in the first place, how did they get all of the land entirely for free, and again the question is why did they ever decide to sell any of their land. The sales were very very unwise, and they have self disentitled themselves and contracted to move from where they loved to be living, just for the money. We do ask what advice did the missionaries give them and why did the Maoris sell the land from under themselves that the loved and used and needed ? Was it because there was in 1840, so much of it and so much unused. If we go with 70,000 Maori in 1840, and if Ngapuhi were 19% that were in northland, that is 14,000 Ngapuhi Maori in Northland.

   With respect, one has to wonder and ask, what is it of enough bad Maori behaviour, while we do applaud the majority of good Maori of which most are. But by and after the Hongi Hika display of 70,000 maoris murdered, after getting all of the land for free by 1840, by selling most of it off for money, and over recent decades are entrenched in consuming a huge welfare budget quantity, relying upon occupying state houses, in cities, having huge wealth in Maori incorporations, but not getting that money and not living in the coastal and country areas, with not any where enough wealth trickle down, not being up to it as participating in working for income, and costing the hospitals money for bad diet and obesity sickness, violence injury, deaths of their kids, and by demanding psychotic addictive drugs from doctors, refusing to work, and by inbreeding and mental health issues, and by their horrendous alcohol and cigarettes, and drugs use, dealing and cooking ‘p’, thieving to fuel their high costly ‘p’ habits, home invasions burglaries, and horrendous violence and ripping the whole doors and door frames from pensioners houses so that they can thieve all their possessions to buy more ‘P’. Still Maori are committing way to many murders, and killing their kids and are always blaming the white man’, and the ‘colonial’ and ‘who then are demanding more funding and are now demanding to get at the half of the whole countries government via the fake fraud of co-governance, and wont support any one who is not a Maori and likely waste all the countries money supply and damage the lives of the infrastructure and destroy a few million new Zealanders.

   We must be aware to not be wrongly gifting to Maori the Land them a third time, that they dont deserve and will turn it to ruins, and it will be a huge mistake of relinquishing half of the whole NZ government, and for them to get to take the other half, and to exterminate us, and ruin and maim us. Lets be real about what real bad Maori statistics show of their real violent degenerate behaviour, bad violence as needing to be in prison, and out of the public. Why is it that way more Maori commit the most and worst offences. Of course many are fine people, but how good and fine are they, as they often buy the stolen goods from the Maori burglars so the Maoris can by more ‘P’ and so are the others who are not burglarising but buying stolen goods, are all in it together. That is usually way too many bad actors in a community where the home owner is not safe to live in their own home ? and that answer is not to gift to Maori the half of government, nor, to risk it that they will do a good job if they get to co-govern and instead take it all over, to destroy the rest of us, who care, study, learn skills, get experience and go work hard and dont commit any of the crimes but will get torn apart and ruined and destroyed.

   We have to acknowledge there were land grabs by government too, but those are being addressed and managed by the Waitangi tribunal etc, as large compensations are regularly being paid to Maori.
   But on the other hand all the maoris had got all their lands for free, and never had to pay for any of it, and by their own land grabs and of their murdering of the prior owners, when they were in the way. The maoris just took the land, and got it for free, and made lots of money from selling off many bits of it. Now they regret not having it and want it back and the buyers of it can pay for it as they have and just give to Maori.

   Now they want to get it all back by fake co-governing they will turn into full Maori governance, and purport to be marvellous governors for all of us. But that is not going to be marvellous but lead to be a way way bigger land grab by Maori from those who are not Maori. We lament lots more of the land should have become public reserve.
   But still a Maori contemporary preponderance is, to take their parents houses, sell parents lands, and sell their tribal lands for ‘P’, and no, we can not trust Maori to co-govern, as there will be so many then in government who are badly tainted by the epidemic ‘p’ habits. And need to thieve from government, that we cant trust Maori to be able to do a good and fair job and we cant believe they will treat every one equally and fairly. Co-governance is a high cliff we are being pushed over.

   Is there a residual genetic predisposition of Ngapuhi or an engrained habit, to get co-governance to become just as ruthless, and to toss out all the settlers and immigrants, and seize all of their lands and businesses. What the co-governance Maori have not revealed is, their policy and handling of the settlers, of the others and of those the Maori call the overstayers, those who have arrived and stayed and settled and colonised, and of those that were not the ‘here first’, and those who are not Maori. We get silence, so what is the co-governance agenda about those immigrants rights, or will they be denigrated to second class citizens, will their land deeds and titles be cancelled and be confiscated. We just do not know and have not been told, nor received any guarantees, nor how those who are not Maori, will be treated, and will they be safe and treated all as equal. So far there is no contracted written guarantees from the co-governance agenda to ensure the rights of non Maori and the elderly.

   Interestingly Maori had engaged in ship building and growing huge areas of crops, and trading to Australia, and almost entirely feeding Australia. Did they also buy Australian land and port facilities, and they did get rich and do well from the sailing ship trade they created. But until the iron ships and steam engines required huge re-investment to compete and continue. Many Maori were well to do and living a grand lifestyle and were educated, very successful and capable. Why we ask are not more Maori exemplary people. And we ask why did they not keep their lands for their use and families.
   Maori do not retain, nor possess sovereignty nor are entitled to sovereignty and not got in the Declaration.

   WE ARE ALL BOUND BY THESE FACTS, and we are bound by the LIMITS in the 1835 Declaration of a small independent state, and then by the full Treaty of 6 Feb 1840, and by the imported English law, and by the NZ Constitution. The Queen by Treaty guaranteed to protect all Maori, and Maori wanted that protection desperately, and were compelled to want protection because of the Ngapuhi musket murders by Hongi Hika. THERE IS NOW NO RIGHT OF CONTINUED SOVEREIGNTY BY NGAPUHI, IN THE DECLARATION, nor any right of sovereignty for the rest of the Maori tribes, and not by virtue of the limited 1835 declaration that expired with the Treaty signing. Nor can any Maori show they have and Declaration of the countries sovereignty. Nor show they have it by virtue of anything else.

   MUSKET MURDERS OF 70,000 FELLOW SOUTHERN Maori, BY HONGI HIKA INFLUENCED THE SURVIVORS TO SIGN THE TREATY AND TO BE PROTECTED FROM SUCH MURDERERS:
   Especially after 70,000 were murdered by Ngapuhi’s Hongi Hika, and of their remaining survivors, and the other tribes who knew of these atrocities, all sought to become protected as British subjects. The Treaty signing Maoris did, in consideration for all that protection, and to be guaranteed by the Queen and her military and police, and for the real continued peace, and navy Frigates at the ready to stop invaders, and so for that, all Maori gave up their entire sovereignty of NZ, for ever to the Queen. But that was not the land. Then there after it was for the Queen to legislate and protect and bestow to everyone in equality in NZ, to be enabled to live in peace and be as British subjects. The Queens legislation, such that N.Z is to be ruled by her Constitution of governance and by her Governor, with the significant importation of the British laws, that started from the 6 Feb 1840, that applied to those British subjects, as every one had became a British subject. The ceding of the entire Sovereignty was established as ceded to the Queen in entirety and for ever, and now that sovereignty is permanent and is irrevocable, and solely in the possession with the Queen and with her heirs. So that is and was, that all NZ was then effected by all of the applicable laws as applied by the importing of both English common law, and English statute law over these British subjects. That was as English law and Crown governance and Crown legislation worked, and the Queen needed her military and her police to have full authority over all of NZ, in order to protect each and every British subject as every one became, and thus the imported English laws applied and extended to all those NZ British subjects. To be fully protected British subjects the British laws had to be in place to enforce the protection, from both inside NZ, and of those external from over seas against NZ and the protection traded for sovereignty. But again the sovereignty did not take any land, but the Maoris themselves kept selling their land to settlers.

   Those English imported laws applied over-archingly, and their rules and ordinances were then the NZ laws and the Sovereignty was established that immediately it was entirely Ceded to the Queen for ever. English law was the rule, with ruling made by the Queen as the only Sovereign ruler of NZ. The interpretations and meaning of what was meant and included in those laws, was imported, and after the signing of the Treaty, what the ‘Queen in Right’ had was power to rule NZ, and that Maori had ceded their prior power and authority to the Queen in entirety and for ever. As to what her powers were, that was the Queens prerogative, and as well was accorded to be included in those imported laws. What the Maori had got, was being undisturbed on their lands, as unsold, and they became British subjects, with those rights and those protections. The Queen had the duty of enforcing and providing the protections, as guaranteed as the duty that the Queen owed. That also was the Governors role, and the listing and inclusion of those imported laws was, that they too were to all be adhered to, and added to apply to all of the NZ subjects, and that their meanings applied, and those laws controlled and legislated upon all, being then for everyone, as then everyone was, and were, all British subjects, and under British law. As British subjects that every one was, settlers and Maori, they were to be all and equally protected as British subjects, and that the English law was binding upon everyone equally and fully, to the full extent of that statute law and common law. The imported English laws particularly applied in full, to all. Then the NZ laws were newly added as time went on. The Queen was sovereign in right, and now her heirs are continuing in right as the sovereign of NZ.

   The Maoris were still enabled to enjoy their lands undisturbed, and given all the land, outright, for free.
   From the signing of the Treaty to throughout the almost two subsequent centuries, Maori who still owned their unsold land, retained that and were undisturbed, and could choose to sell no more land, and keep hold of their land securely, and be totally undisturbed upon it for ever. They could well from the date of the Treaty, have retained 90% of all their lands. But Maori were being flooded by immigrants, increasing in numbers by the reliability of sailing ships, and by steam ships, and the attractions of NZ were strong, and Maori were lured to sell land, to those arriving. The Maori chose the money and goods they wanted that the money could buy, so Maori did so, and did sell some of their land, that accumulated, to became most of it.

   The issue is that Maori kept on selling good land, and failed to retain most of the good land.

   Reply
3. Noco Govern on July 30, 2023 at 1:08 pm

   Part 7
   Ngapuhi are resorting to that they never gave sovereignty, that is only inferred as being that they are linked to the declaration entitlement, though expired and ceded to the Queen, as appointed to the Queen. So that limits the Maori as saying they are entitled to co-governance as only being those in the declaration state’s area, as in Hokianga and those Maoris are thus being of Ngapuhi only. No other tribes of chiefs are involved and they are barred as they have settled all outstanding grievance and disputes.

   It is only Ngapuhi who are relying on the declaration being live and limits them as the claimants relying on still having sovereignty as faked and infers they are those mentioned in that area of Hokianga, only.
   The sovereignty claim not ceded to the Queen is falsely said by Ngapuhi, defines only Maori of Hokianga area. Thus defines Ngapuhi and that is 19% of Maori and are not the full population of the 17% that are Maori are seeking co-governance but are almost a fifth of the Maori and are just 3.2 % of the countries whole population who are seeking the full 50% co-governance and Ngapuhi are the only the Hokianga Maori tribes and chiefs doing so, and are of the Hokianga Maori and are relying on the 1835 declaration that is only about that area.
   We read from this that Ngapuhi are intending as a minority 19% of Maori, to rule over 5 times of their fellow Maori. We read from this that one fifth of Maori are intending to rule over half of the whole government. But they are only 3.2% of the population. So much for fair representation and election law and democracy. But why are the rest of NZ being so stupidly generous to give 50% when that 50% will be the foot in the door for Maori to take all, seize government, and take all the land and deport most of the country as overstayer squatters

   Though Ngapuhi might be only 3.2% of the NZ population, and are extremely horrendously only just maybe the very small 3.2% of NZ and that to get 50% co-governance is horrendously wrought and out of all proportion and is a farce of election law, and democracy, and that Maori being here decided to be Ngapuhi are insignificant with no entitlement at all. Ngapuhi are about 19% of all Maori, of Maori who are only 17% of everyone else. Thus the Maoris are very under represented, at 3.2%, and are not by their numbers entitled to half co-governance. and are not saying nor conceding nor proving anything else is their agenda but to get half the governance and all the land. But without any proof and all that is said is, that Ngapuhi never signed over sovereignty and they want co-governance as 50/50. Based on not ever giving sovereignty, but that is lies as 25 of the Declaration chiefs knowingly did so. And did so in congress assembled at the Treaty and have as by co-Treaty agreement and had documented that ceding of entire sovereignty by affixed their signatures. That specifically never included to invite an exact proportion of 50/50 governance partnership, and that the term 50/50 is no where mentioned in the Treaty, nor in the Declaration, nor explained why it is or should be 50/50. the Treaty is the Treaty and Treaties can not be rewritten or expanded beyond their clear terms.

   There is a parallel assumption by inference that is, that the Treaty had parties who signed, and that infers partners and partnership, but why is that being said to be in certain exact half proportions, to extrapolate to being 50% governance each, when only one party was to be involved as the governing party, as the Crown, and that party was the Queen. Like why 50% and 50%, just because it was only about two lots of people from two parties, and surmising they get exactly the same, but they did not get the same, as one was entirely relinquishing sovereignty and governance to the other, who was the Queen who got 100% of all of the sovereignty and governance, in entirety and for ever, but did not leave any remaining sovereignty nor governance with the other party, but instead gave consideration as in the form of protection of Maori, and the Maori and all others being British subjects. Maori and Ngapuhi dont have co governance nor 50% of government at all, but they have their protection, and they have their being British subjects, and they have the right to reside undisturbed, and they can sell their land, so long as it gets a title and is surveyed. THERE IS NO CO-GOVERNANCE NOR 50% OF GOVERNMENT IN THAT WHAT SO EVER. But was not an equal partnership as such, as exactly the same, with each party getting half each of governance, as if it can only be two of exactly the same, of a half each.

   If that were so there was no need nor substance for an agreement if the exact same things and powers and limits and territory were for each to have as the same, and there would be no clauses needed, but for an equal sharing. In that case there would be stated it was equally a split, each self sufficient and equal and the same and nothing different. Thus no consideration and no contract of Treaty but a split and sharing equally and that as defined as of governance. And the Treaty contract to not have in it, having different roles, or results, or different entitlements. The Treaty did have significant differences and different responsibilities and different entitlements and different roles, and that the Queen got entire sovereignty for ever and the full right to full governance and the Queen in consideration, gave full protection to all Maori, and gave each Maori to be British subjects with British subject status to all Maori, and the Maori gave only the sole right of sovereignty in exchange and for consideration, and thence all right of any governance went to the Queen, but was not with Maori, but was in full to the Queen, as in entirety as with both sovereignty and right of governance, entirely to the Queen. This not an automatic right of a default to a 50/50 governing, but is a defined 100% right of the Queen governing. And no right of governing for the other party, the Maoris who got no right of governing, nor any retention of any sovereignty, but they got to be protected and to be British subjects. Co-governance is a recent proposal only.

   DeTHIERRY THREAT
   The 1835 Declaration was only a localised ‘pseudo sub claim as a stunt to stop the French’ with just sufficient coined words, to give a connotation of authority, and to make it loudly known to DeThierry that NZ was already taken by the Maori, as a document signed by 34 Chiefs in the Hokianga and signed with the unless proviso, that their authoritative powers could be appointed to others, and so it could be over ruled or super-ceded by any subsequent form of a superior Treaty, of which the Treaty did, and the Treaty Ceded all Sovereignty to the Queen in entirety for ever, of which all the Maoris agreed to and intended and signed up to. The Declaration was enough to thwart the compelling threat of that Frenchman, who had demanded he was seizing NZ for France, and to give the focus for deterring DeThierry. It was, as a device to repulse the Frenchman’s designs to seize all the Hokianga for himself, and for France, and, for that huge outrage by DeThierry to become the sovereign chief there of, which was for the whole of NZ, with only DeThierry as enthroned on his 40,000 acre Hokianga land holding, to rule all NZ, which Busby knew had to be stopped. The Hokianga Maoris knew it had to be stopped, and knew DeThierry had got way too much land, but the 40,000, that was truncated down BY 98% to 2% as he only got 800 acres, when DeThierry arrived in about 1837. That Declaration was the Busby published device with which the persuaded Hokianga 34 chiefs by adding their signatures, to give a together and preemptive right to the State of the Chiefs in the Hokianga, but lasted only till it was ceded to the Queen in entirety and for ever on 6 Feb 1840, when it also was entirely appointed to the Queen for ever as permanently.

   DeThierry would have taken all the authority from the Missionaries and from the British Resident and all the authority and mana from all those 34 chiefs and made them comply to subservience under DeThierry, that was to the chiefs, repugnant and impossible and repulsive to so inflict upon all the Maori Hokianga chiefs, so the declaration was imperative for the chiefs personal standing as it would seriously have effected them, to denigrate their mana to near nothingness. To achieve that deterrent, and to preserve the chiefs mana, and chieftainship, and for the missionaries to continue, and for the so far of settling by British, to all continue, Busby wrote the declaration and he made the words of the 1835 declaration, and he asked the 34 chiefs he was friendly with, so both Busby and the missionaries of the Hokianga, and the Maori chiefs elected to sign it, as Busby persuaded them to sign it, to give the deterrent to DeThierry and to prevent any French takeover, and keep the chiefs themselves being the chiefs, and to rightfully enforce them to still retain their hereditary chieftainship. Of that continued chieftainship, to those chiefs it was very very important that they retain such mana and it motivated them to sign up to declaring their having an independent state, being their areas as together in the Hokianga. The inviting of the other chiefs gave the illusion the state was to be extended to everywhere, if the said other chiefs took up the invitation, but it was as open they might join in, as it was not, but they did not. The other chiefs were not ever joined in the declaration, but until the treaty when that was presented, that they did then join in, it was then the other chiefs united as signing the Treaty as all together with those 25/34 northern chiefs. But those other southern chiefs never signed to the declaration and never joined it, but stayed separate. That distinctly limited the declaration area to Hokianga and central mid far northland.

   With that real DeThierry takeover scare, and by threatened French military, the risk of foreign takeover by force was a real scare and surely influenced the chiefs of Hokianga to sign the Declaration. The other chiefs of NZ were convinced due to the French threats, to sign the treaty and to choose the British, who by their missionaries had been so beneficial to the good of all of the Maoris, and the Maori chiefs saw the British war ships were strong and capable and able and the British were selected, but so too the British wanted NZ.

   The missionaries and settlers had provided so much of fruit trees, grain growing, vegetables, cows, sheep, chooks, horses, cartwheels, cart axles, cloth, canvas, crockery, tins, steel, tin roofs, glass, nails, axes, saws, knives, pots, pans, matches and candles, and the schools, and Christian religion and stopping cannibalism and reducing revenge utu and of reducing the actions of tribal warfare amongst the Maori and stopping the mad musket slaughter and giving protection. etc.

   To Busby it was essential for both the Maori and the chiefs and the British, and he knew he had no teeth where a military repulsion was needed, and so it was both fortunate that DeThierry had lurked offshore in delay for so long and when he finally arrived some years later, without a military, that most of the land he bought from Hongi Hika was confiscated by Maori, dwindling it from 40,000 down to 800 acres, and no refunding any of the money back to DeThierry that he had paid for the 40,000 acres, was never given back. But DeThierry was the procurer of the 600 Muskets that killed half of the Maoris, so he should have been hung upon arrival.

   The Declaration only lasted four and a quarter years: 28 Oct 1835 to 6 Feb 1840. Maori today amongst Ngapuhi instead rely upon the declaration as if still fully being of entitling them to the Sovereignty and claims of Independent State that it had stated in it, before being ceded to the Queen, but then to the Queen it was gone. Those Maori are in denial and deceit. But all that sovereign power and authority as ceded to the Queen is not subject to being turned off, nor being un-ceded, nor being appointed back, nor onwards to any others, but, it was as per clause 2, ‘Unless’, that on 6 Feb 1840 it was appointed to others as ceded to the Queen in entirety and for ever. Entirely and for ever, is that it distinctly excludes any reversal and prevents it being temporary and prevents it not being for ever. It was permanent. It was irrevocable and with no out clause to reverse it out from being in the Treaty, where in it was only ceded to the Queen, a one way movement. From then on its governance, and its legislation, and its appointment to the Queen was entirely and for ever, for the Queen exclusively to have it and to do of it, and with her appointed governors, to do so on her behalf and in her pursuit of her duty to protect all Maori. Ngapuhi after their chiefs in majority signed it over to the Queen on 6 Feb 1840, cannot have it back, nor had retained any of it, and do not have it still in their possession, as if theirs, as if not appointed to the other, as if not appointed to the Queen, as if it was not ceded in entirety to the Queen for ever.

   Ngapuhi do not have it signed, nor agreed, nor in contract, nor offered that they can get it back, nor that they can nor do continue to possess its content, nor that they continue to have any part of it. The horse has bolted, as their old 1835 declaration is gone to the Queen as all such of the stated Sovereign powers and it being their independent state, has been entirely ceded to the Queen and is thus fully truncated as stopped from ever being of contemporary or renewed Ngapuhi rights. That the Ngapuhi have only the faked remaining assertion floated, is of their fraud that they never ceded Sovereignty to the Queen, as a hindsight hope, for derailing the Treaty and for sympathy and to tamper with the Treaty, in which they know they ceded the Declaration contents, its Statehood and its Sovereignty, fair and square, and in entirety to the Queen, for ever. One party, the Ngapuhi can not cause that the Treaty clauses be changed by their hopeful and selfish and sole and likely benefit. Treaties cannot be rewritten or expanded beyond their clear terms.

   https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1484_aplc.pdf ARIZONA ET AL. v. NAVAJO NATION No. 21–1484.
   Navajos’ view, the Federal Government’s efforts did not fully satisfy the trust obligations of the United States under the 1868 treaty. Held: The 1868 treaty establishing the Navajo Reservation reserved necessary water to accomplish the purpose of the Navajo Reservation but did not require the United States to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Tribe.
   (a) The Tribe asserts a breach-of-trust claim based on its view that the 1868 treaty imposed a duty on the United States to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Navajos. To maintain such a claim here, the Tribe must establish, among other things, that the text of a treaty, statute, or regulation imposed certain duties on the United States. Federal Government owes judicially enforceable duties to a tribe “only to the extent it expressly accepts those responsibilities.” Whether the Government has expressly accepted such obligations “must train on specific rights-creating or duty-imposing” language in a treaty, statute, . . . 1868 treaty “set apart” a reservation for the “use and occupation of the tribe,” it contains no language imposing a duty on the United States to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Tribe. Notably the 1868 treaty did impose a number of specific duties on US, but the treaty said nothing about any affirmative duty for the United States to secure water. As this Court has stated, “Indian treaties cannot be rewritten or expanded beyond their clear terms.” Choctaw Nation v. United States, 318 U. S. 423, 432. Jicarilla, 564 U. S., at 176. But unless Congress has created a conventional trust relationship with a tribe as to a particular trust asset, this Court will not “apply common-law trust principles” to infer duties not found in the text of a treaty, statute, or regulation. Id., at 178. Here, nothing in the 1868 treaty establishes a conventional trust relationship with respect to water. And it is unsurprising that a treaty enacted in 1868 did not provide for all of the Navajos’ current water needs 155 years later. Under the Constitution, Congress and the President have the responsibility to update federal law as they see fit in light of the competing contemporary needs for water. (b) Other arguments offered by the Tribe to support its claims under the 1868 treaty are unpersuasive. First, that the 1868 treaty established the Navajo Reservation as a “permanent home” does not mean that the United States agreed to take affirmative steps to secure water for the Tribe. Second, the treaty’s express requirement that the United States supply seeds and agricultural implements for a 3-year period to the Tribe does not, as the Tribe contends, mean that the United States has an additional duty to take affirmative steps to secure water, but rather demonstrates that the United States and the Navajos knew how to impose specific affirmative duties on the United States under the treaty. Third, the Tribe asserts that the United States’s purported control over the reserved water rights supports the view that the United States owes trust duties to the Navajos. But the “Federal Government’s liability” on a breach-of-trust claim “cannot be premised on control alone.” United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U. S. 287, 301. Finally, the text of the treaty and records of treaty negotiations do not support the claim that in 1868 the Navajos would have understood the treaty to mean that the United States must take affirmative steps to secure water for the Tribe.

   The Declaration did not represent any of the other NZ Maori tribes, but mainly only those of Ngapuhi, BUT those other tribes were the vast majority of all NZ Maori, and thus as the Hokianga declaration did not cover any other areas to the south, it did not represent the whole of NZ But only Hokianga. But 4 1/4 years later all of its so declared ‘sovereign power and authority’ and ‘independence and statehood’, was entirely Ceded over to the Queen of Britain, and her heirs, and governors, for ever, as agreed by Maori, that included 25 Ngapuhi chiefs and some were Paramount chiefs, on 6 Feb 1840 in theTreaty. Without any expectation, nor right, nor chance, nor clause, nor condition, nor proviso of any return of it back to those 34 Chiefs, who Busby had got to sign to it, because of DeThierry. The declaration was a very hurried urgent panic reaction by Busby using the chiefs in suddenness as Busby began to write the declaration and completed it, in just two days, as well as he got to travel to all of the 34 chiefs localities and did much horse riding and boat trips, to all get signed to it, on 28 Oct 1835, just two days after the DeThierry’s announcement that Busby learned of, so he did all that in two days, from on 26 Oct 1835, where on was the French announcement made known to Busby, the Frenchman was intent on forcing a determined seizure of all the lands in NZ for himself and for France. He had bought 40,000 acres, so he thought, being grand in size of having the 40,000 acres of Hokianga lands and coast, as bought from Hongi Hika in about 1820 at Cambridge, and that he would have assumed that he had Hongi Hika on his side.

   Adversely Hongi Hika used some of the money to buy about 600 muskets. The musket murder rampage of Hongi Hika between 1821 and 1829, was a very remembered cause of much fear among all those Maori who were not Ngapuhi, and were of the other tribes, and so thus after the over 70,000 other Maori, who were murdered, all that remained of them had no certainty of let up of fear of another massacre, nor of being forgiven and not being spared, nor free from being massacred again, to near extermination.

   Those did of course continue to be seriously frightened as the remaining Maori who needed and wanted protection, and so chose the British to give those protections and they signed that demand into the Treaty, because of their need for it, and its vital importance to their very lives being at risk. Though the earlier declaration was a Ngapuhi tribes document, and it was for repulsion of the actual DeThierry’s claim to take NZ, that caused 34 Ngapuhi chiefs to sign up to this Busby Declaration, and it was subsequently signed a second time, not as a declaration but differently as the Treaty, and so by the 25 of the 34 who did sign up the declaration, that those 25 did sign into the Treaty all of the full sovereign powers over to the Queen in the Treaty, and were joined by all the other tribes who also signed the Treaty. The Treaty was also for the other tribes, as southwards, for their protection and safety and of not again being musket exterminated, but was not so much about them deterring DeThierry to the north, as the 25 chiefs of the Declaration were locally in fear and signed the Treaty more for foreign external threats to Hokianga, and very significantly it was a huge and vital Treaty for the other tribes to sign, to enlist the Crown and the British military to keep the peace and of making sworn truces amongst warring Maori, so it was a turning point of Maori stopping acts of Utu, and suffering Utu murders, and being eliminated by murderous Revenges, and to stop the Hongi Hika of habit of continued and committed musket murdering of the other tribes of Maori as inclusive of all the tribes as all the way to the south. Those tribes were the other tribes who signed the Treaty. That agreed to and signed into the Treaty and it especially was, to stop those cannibalistic musket rampages, and for vulnerable Maori and their vulnerable villages and Pahs from being attacked, and them being ruthlessly murdered by surprise, so that part of the Treaty being of their protection, as British Subjects, was very significant and needed and was a just exchange with the Queen to get that protection from the Queen, for the consideration of ceding all entire sovereignty for ever to the Queen, that ensured the Queens soldiers had total right to police and make laws, and to have access to all of NZ, and so any musket murderers would be found, and caught, and punished, and stopped and be unlawful. The imported English laws would apply from 1840 and subsequent laws would be enacted as well, as were also enacted, and to give the police full powers and to ensure safety and full protection.

   Cook in 1769 observed the war habits between the Maori and that they all built fortified fences around their pah sites and villages and lived in fear of attack and being murdered by other tribes, and Hongi Hika was indulging in that very heavily even before he got Muskets. Later in 1821 to 1929 half of all Maori had been musket murdered by the Hongi Hika’s tribal fighting and 70,000 were wiped out by his muskets. Such vast deaths were seriously on the minds of the survivors. But it was way worse south of the Hokianga and down through the main part of the north island where mostly all the 70,000 had lived but were murdered. That was most of the Maori of those areas were decimated and left a few who had very great fear and intimately very strong memory of evil experience and of that severe risk to their lives. So the British protection in Feb 1840 was very wanted.

   As they experienced most of their family being murdered by the Hongi Hika musket attacks, it was that mostly all of those tribes were wiped out, that was so significant to those survivors, and they were very very much affected by it all. The survivors were extremely adamant to get British protection and to be able to live in peace as British subjects without any more murderous attacks from the north. The south island tribes had not suffered so much decimation from Hongi Hika, but TeRauparaha had slaughtered most of the south island maoris. The main body of the north island tribes, south of Hokianga had lost so many that was by far most of them. There were accounts that there were no Maori left to be seen in the Auckland area, so too in much of Tauranga, and Waikato and down to Wairarapa, were mostly all dead. That caused the Maori of the whole of NZ to demand they become British subjects and be protected, and to live in the peacefulness of the British and they did get that by signing the Treaty, to get that guaranteed protection and that had certainly influenced them to sign, of course it did.

   But entirely on the contrary to those 70,000 musket murders by Ngapuhi, by deceit, the contemporary Ngapuhi, who today now want co-governance, say, by ‘say so’ the Treaty was only agreed to, firstly, as located at Russel to police the drunken sailors, and second, that was all it was only believed to be for, was allowing British to police those British drunks, but it was drunks from any nations, American, Dutch, Portuguese, French, Spanish, English and the crews of those nations whaling and supply ships and of those who got drunk many were natives of Caribbean and other natives from the Pacific, who exhibited weak tolerance to strong alcohol and got into much trouble as with the other drunks. If so, the Treaty was to police drunks at Russel, but the Treaty never said that, and why would for that, the whole Sovereignty had ceded to the Queen if she had little but a few drunks to supervise. Many Maori were also very involved in the drunkenness at Russel, including the women. It was an alcohol problem most of all. and thirdly, that it was a desired need for the Treaty to be signed to allow those British police to have the authority to police drunks. But that as contention is entirely so weak and is not plausible for requiring a full on Treaty, and everyone to be British Subjects and the Military to be there. The guts of the reasons for the Treaty signing, were the rest of Maori not wanting another musket war rampage by Hongi Hika. The treaty was not about policing a few dozen or fifty drunks at Russel, after ships called in for provisions. It was of course for a way more serious reason that was about stopping there ever again being like 70,000 murdered amongst Maori by Maori, from that ever happening again, nor ever happening in part!

   Those fraudulent current recent Ngapuhi, do recently say, the treaty was never about ceding sovereignty to the queen, and to protect the other tribes from Ngapuhi, and say it was only to allow the British to take responsibility to police a few dozen drunks, and put the brakes on the NZ company buying up Maori lands for settlers.

   Treaties cannot be rewritten or expanded beyond their clear terms.
   No breach-of-trust claim based on its view that the 1840 treaty imposed a duty on the Queen to take affirmative steps to secure the nation’s forests and foreshore and fisheries to only be used by Maori. To maintain such a claim here, the Tribe must establish, among other things, that the text of a treaty, statute, or regulation imposed certain duties on the Queen. She assured they wont be disturbed on their lands and of their property, and that they will BE protected, and that has been done by the Queen, who owes judicially enforceable duties “only to the extent she expressly accepts those responsibilities.” Whether the Government has expressly accepted such obligations “must train on specific rights-creating or duty-imposing” language in a treaty, statute, . . . The 1840 treaty needed to set apart all of the forests, foreshores and fishery in reservation for the use and occupation only of the Maori tribes. The Treaty contains no language imposing a duty on the Queen to take affirmative steps to secure any of that exclusively for the Maori Tribes. Notably the 1840 treaty did impose a number of specific duties on the Queen, but the treaty said nothing about any affirmative duty to secure forests, foreshore and fisheries only for Maori, with a caveat to exclude the settlers. As Courts state, “treaties cannot be rewritten or expanded beyond their clear terms.” Choctaw Nation v. United States, 318 U. S. 423, 432. Jicarilla, 564 U. S., at 176. But unless Congress has created a conventional trust relationship with a tribe or tribes, as to a particular trust asset, this Court will not “apply common-law trust principles” to infer duties not found in the text of a treaty, statute, or regulation. Nothing in the 1840 treaty establishes a conventional trust relationship with respect to fisheries, foreshore nor forests. And it is unsurprising that a treaty enacted in 1840 did not provide for all of the Maoris’ current wishes or desires 180 years later. Arguments offered by the Ngapuhi Tribe to support its claims under the 1840 treaty are unpersuasive. Their saying they never signed the sovereignty over in the treaty is proven false by the fact 25 of the Declaration chiefs, had signed their entire sovereignty over in the Treaty. The text of the treaty and records of treaty negotiations do not support the claim that in 1840, Maori would not have understood that the Sovereignty ceded to the Queen in the treaty, to mean that the sovereignty was not ceded to the Queen.
   THE 1840 TREATY DID NOT MAKE AND HAD NO INCLUSION OF NGAPUHI, NOR FOR ALL MAORI GETTING 50/50 CO-GOVERNANCE, NOR THAT SOVEREIGNTY AS IS IN THE 1835 DECLARATION WOULD REMAIN AND CONTINUE TO STAY ALIVE IN WHOLE OR IN PART WITH THOSE 35 NGAPUHI CHIEFS, NOR FOR IT TO EXTEND OVER ALL OF THE NZ MAORI CHIEFS AND TRIBES, NOR FOR IT TO TAKE PREFERENCE TO THE 3 TREATY ARTICLES. NOR FOR IT TO CONTINUE FOR 2 CENTURIES AND STILL BE USED AS IF APPLICABLE

   The 70,000 murdered Maoris relatives, did acutely with certainty know otherwise about the musket war mad Ngapuhi, and the strong need for the Treaty and its urgent expectation it would bring peace amongst all Maori and stop another Hongi Hika musket murder rampage. And to cement what the treaty articles were, and what the Queen was providing, and did provide.

   It is not credible to accept the recent rejection of it, the ‘in hindsight’ by the deceit by this recent Ngapuhi assertion, hat Ngapuhi did not sign over sovereignty. But they had signed sovereignty over by their fully appointing of all the sovereignty they had in the declaration, over to the Queen in the treaty of 6 Feb 1840 in entirety and for ever. It was qualified as entirely and for ever, so it was permanent. It was the same sovereignty they had in the declaration and signed over to the Queen that they say they wanted back, but by deceit they say recently they never signed it over, and did not intend to nor understand that they had or were on 6 Feb 1840 doing so. But how can the recent decade Maori radicals know of the content of the 1840 Maori minds. No, as they were well aware of it, and they had experienced it for for four and a quarter years, and knew its effect as their own State, and for preempting a DeThierry claim, that they did understand what that sovereignty was and had on 6 Feb 1840 signed exactly all that declaration content, and in all its entirety as, entirely to the Queen, which was ceding more than just the declarations sovereignty as it was ceding it for permanence and for ever and in entirety.

   That declaration provided to appoint its content to others that included the Queen, and that was done so, as appointed to the Queen on 6 Feb 1840. The Treaty did not state it was not referring to receiving all of the entirety of all sovereignty, and it was even more that it was for ever to the Queen, that the Maori then did then know what it was and that they had ceded it to the queen for ever as they were explained of at the Treaty by the fellow speakers of Maori. But the recent Maori now by deceit, as in an opportune attempt in hindsight, want a second bite at the cherry, and are attempting at stealing the sovereignty back to themselves, by deceit, taking it from the crown and the sovereign in right. Next they will try to rule all of Maori and take the lands of the Maori of the north island and follow up after getting co-governance and some more votes, to get the whole of the land titles back to Maori, which will be primarily got back for Ngapuhi possession, as Ngapuhi will be ruling Maori.

   The treaty ceding to the Queen in entirety and for ever was not a delineated local area by local area sign up, but was a whole of the NZ Maori, as all of their areas as the overall totality of all areas of NZ, that was signed by the majority of Chiefs as delineated by all the other Chiefs of the other Tribes and other areas. Even to assert each was a separate local area, would tell us there was no common national sovereignty as one unified area under Maori rule

   The majority of all the Maori of NZ were those many other tribes that did on 6 Feb 1840 want to sign over sovereignty to a capable Queen whose beneficial missionaries had proven to be so exemplary in their behaviour and teachings and provisions of so much assistance and significant improvements to the Maori way of life, and of Maori being enabled to become world citizens and British subjects, that those Maori did want to sign the Treaty and had from the British, gone from stone tools to steel tools, and thrived anew, and wanted a peaceful life without any revenge nor utu murders nor musket war.

   So 4 and a 1/4 years after that 1835 declaration to deter DeThierry, all of what it represented was relinquished in its entirety to the Queen for ever, on 6 Feb 1840, and so did the other chiefs relinquish their sovereignty they had, in entirety and for ever, also as ceded to the Crown, and so then the protection began and the internal Maori peace began, and the threat of any external peace could be prevented and assured to be stopped by the British. By which day the comprehensive full irrevocable making of ceding, by all Maori ceding of all legislative power, and all jurisdiction, and all governance, was to the Queen permanently. Then too the peace for Maori was assured and the peace was assured and guaranteed amongst Maori. This new peace was the Queens duty and her of powers in action. All of that sovereignty was signed into the possession of the Queen in the Treaty, and its signatories did name to include those Ngapuhi hereditary united chiefs as heads of the tribes of the Northern parts of New Zealand, who had been assembled on the 28th day of October 1835, and of whom had declared the Independence of ‘our’ country, the Hokianga, which was hereby constituted and declared to be an Independent State, under the designation of the United Tribes of New Zealand, as was their local declaration. A LOCAL HOKIANGA AREA ONLY. Secondly on 6 Feb 1840 they again as those Ngapuhi hereditary united chiefs as heads of the tribes of the Northern parts of New Zealand, who had been assembled on the 28th day of October 1835, and of whom had declared the Independence of ‘our’ country, the Hokianga, which was hereby constituted and declared to be an Independent State, under the designation of the United Tribes of New Zealand, as was their local declaration, did appoint the Queen to receive their entire sovereignty and authoritative powers as to the Queen for ever, which was a statement of a permanent appointment.

   And to them was added also with them, was added to them, the other tribes, and in the Treaty they were all named “chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes.” And, the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation. The 25 Chiefs had again four years later were making their second signing of a NZ constitutional document as in the Treaty, to over rule and replace their declaration, and with the Queen to now be holding all of the sovereign powers, on 6 Feb 1840 was a permanent appointment of the Hokianga state and the rest of NZ to the Queen. Added four years later to the 1835 Confederation of the United tribes was added: the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, so that is in the Treaty that they still had not joined the Confederation of the United Tribes, and for the Treaty to include the rest of the NZ Maori chiefs within NZ, it stated the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, is they were then that they had not become part of the 1835 declaration but had become part of the Treaty. That is the others. Thus it is corroborated in the Treaty that the Northern Confederation of the United Chiefs area, that was the chiefs as only those as locally were in the Hokianga area and far northern central area, contained chiefs who were entirely separate to all of the other chiefs, and thus the two specified groups, were named in the Treaty, firstly the chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes, (Hokianga) and secondly, the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, being all the other NZ Maori and all the southern tribes and their chiefs.

   The Treaty document next was travelling throughout NZ to be signed to by all the others, all the other Maori chiefs. Though that Ngapuhi Declaration had earlier existed on 28 Oct 1835, but of it, on 6 Feb 1840 it ceased to separately exist in authority and was entirely ceded all together with all of the rest of the total state of NZ, to the Queen for ever, on the 6 Feb 1840, for ever, being for ever. The Declaration was then a ‘has been’ that the Treaty had truncated by taking its authority that it had included, as on 6 Feb was taken over for the Queen, thus stopping the Declaration of the independent state being under the chiefs, and separately a declaration of theirs, and so not still alive for their sole designation and authority, of those 34 United Tribes Chiefs beyond 6 Feb 1840, the entire ceding of all sovereignty to the Queen made it revert over to the Queen forever, so that Northern designated statehood ceased to be held by the chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes. And, no longer was it of their own independent state, and it was moved all together across to the Queen with all the rest of NZ, in entirety to the Queen, as done by all the NZ Maori signing of that in the Treaty, where it was agreed to be ceding of the entirety of the sovereignty of all of NZ, and was done by all Maori, entirely to the Queen in entirety, and for ever, as was also signed by 3/4 of those United Ngapuhi Chiefs, and by all of the other chiefs of the whole of NZ, on 6 Feb 1840, and in the days after that, in the days it took to get the Treaty carried to all places, that was only apart from a few who were not reached, was in entirety over all of NZ, and every chief signed it over for ever, to the Queen of Britain. Even if a few had refused or had not responded, the certainty is that the vast majority of all chiefs throughout NZ had agreed, and had signed, as did all their paramount chiefs.

   It has not been proven those 9 northern united chiefs who didnt sign it, were vehemently apposed to the transfer of the sovereignty in the Treaty to the Queen in entirety or ever, and nor of what proxy votes of them were there to make it accepted as entirely transferred to the Queen, are not determined. As a paramount chief could sign on their behalf or instead of each of them. No effective opposition to the transfer of sovereignty can be inferred. Maori paramount chiefs did sign the Treaty. But even if those nine or a few of them had opposed, they were less than a quarter and were in a distinct minority, who may not have opposed, but been in logistical difficulty to get to the Treaty Table. The relevant significance is that 3/4 of the United Chiefs who were Ngapuhi and who had signed the Declaration did sign their entire Sovereignty over to the Queen for ever in the 6 Feb 1840 Treaty. The vast majority of the Maoris who signed the Treaty were the Maoris of the whole country, and were the “chiefs of the other tribes,” who did sign the Treaty. So by the vast majority of all the Maori did sign the Treaty as signed, thereby Ceding the entire Sovereignty to the Queen for ever. 25 of Ngapuhi’s chiefs signed the Ceding of all entire Sovereignty to Queen Victoria in the Treaty for ever as in permanence. Thus the vast majority, 3/4 of Ngapuhi signed over their entire sovereignty for ever, in permanence to the Queen and signed over entire sovereignty for ever to the Queen, and left remaining nothing for them to further intervene and totally restricted their being able to ever engage in it to revoke it, as it was permanently gone to the Queen for ever .
   Some Ngapuhi Maori modern ‘benefit motivated’ radicals are shifting the goalposts in their talked up lies of contention that Ngapuhi did not sign their Declared Sovereignty over to the Queen in the Treaty. The document evidence is that they did so, and were accustomed with sovereignty enough to know that they fully did so.

   TREATY: TREATY HAD NO RETENTION OF ANY GOVERNANCE POWER BY MAORI, NOR ANY CO-GOVERNANCE, NOR ANY MENTION NOR INCLUSION OF CO-GOVERNANCE NOR POSSIBLY OF IT.
   PROVENANCE OF THE TREATY, OF BUSBY’s WRITING OF THE FINAL ENGLISH TREATY CONTRACT MEANING, on 4 Feb 1840, AND PROOF OF ITS CONTENT WAS THE FINAL ENGLISH CONTRACT VERSION. It was the final English treaty version to settle, and it was that final version to have been translated into the Maori version of the Treaty. It was written on 4 Feb 1840 by James Busby, on behalf of the Crown to encapsulate the instructions issued to Hobson. This was the last dated English version written, to immediately be translated directly into the exact Maori meaning by Rev Henry Williams on 5 Feb 1840, from this Final English version.

   It was the last English document of the English Treaty as offered to all Maori, and translated into Maori a day or, a day and a half prior to the TREATY in Maori, being signed on 6 Feb 1840, and it was corroborated true by the United States exact copy of it. It fits exactly to the Maori translated version from it. There cant legitimately be any subsequently written English version to super-cede, or post date it, or be instead of this one of 4 Feb 1840. The English contract final version had to precede and predate the Translation of it into Maori, as the English Treaty offer had to exist first, and it had to predate the 6 Feb 1840 Treaty signing, as well, of course.

   TREATY Article first: The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovereignty of their country.
   Article second: The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes and the other chiefs grant to the Queen, the exclusive rights of purchasing such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as may be agreed upon between them and the person appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.
   Article third: In return for the cession of their Sovereignty to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.

   No other Treaty Articles were involved and there were no principles ever mentioned, nor was any co-governance. There was only the Treaty preamble preceding the three Treaty Articles: “Queen of England in her gracious consideration for the chiefs and people of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve them their land and to maintain peace and order amongst them”. “Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint me William Hobson a captain in the Royal Navy to be Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or hereafter be ceded to Her Majesty and proposes to the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes of New Zealand and the other chiefs to agree to the following articles.- see: Three Treaty Articles as above. These were accepted and agreed to by all the Maori who signed the Treaty at the Waitangi Treaty signing on 6 Feb 1840, and finished off around the whole of NZ immediately subsequently. It is limited to the preamble and specifically limited to the three Treaty Articles, and no more, and there were never any principles nor were any principles included.

   No Provenance of any contract nor clause was asked for nor included nor agreed to, for sharing any Governance, as all Governance was in entirety Ceded to the Queen forever. Nor for Maori to have any Governance nor part governance, except they were as British subjects, entitled to vote and if by their being elected as per the Constitution Act 1852 they would as like others, be making legislation in the elected government. The same applies today, and the Maori are by their demographics and democracy able to be represented and take part in the governance, as limited to those Maori who are elected, and who have the advantage of the privilege of the extra four permanent Maori seats.

   Nothing in the Treaty gave any application of conditions, nor part reversing of the entire Ceding of sovereignty to the Queen for ever, nor any partial reversing, nor return of it. It was in the Treaty that it was agreed, that the Queen took and got full entirety of Sovereignty of NZ, and did so forever, so that was permanent. IN AGREED CONSIDERATION OF THE QUEEN GRANTING TO EVERY ONE IN NZ, TO INCLUDE, ALL MAORIS AND SETTLERS, AND FUTURE MAORI, FUTURE BRITISH, FUTURE EUROPEAN IMMIGRANTS, FUTURE ASIAN MIGRANTS, TO ALL BE FULL BRITISH SUBJECTS AND TO BE PROTECTED, AND PRESERVE THEM THEIR LAND AND TO MAINTAIN PEACE AND ORDER AMONGST THEM. THAT FULL ENTIRE SOVEREIGNTY WAS CEDED FROM MAORI TO THE QUEEN

   That article 2, guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But nothing of co-governance was included, nor suggested. Yet on the contrary if Maori in the decades after the Treaty, and especially after 1852, had all turned out to vote, they easily could have out voted everyone else, and been the majority in the Governance and legislated that they be permanently so, and as the majority, that they could have been way more than to co-govern. Thus Maori were granted full British subjects rights to vote and could have been the full majority government, without merely being in a co-governance but by majority and then made laws and grant benefits to Maori in permanence. it was then one man one vote, without prejudice to Maori, and still it is today, ONE ADULT GETS ONE VOTE. At the Treaty date there was 35 Maori for every 2 settlers. Did Maori miss their chance when they were strong ?

   Note: Hongi Hika had rampaged with muskets to murder 70,000 other Maoris, and to stop any further massacres and cannibalism, that was the then a REAL Maori Fear, and Demand for British Military protection. That half of the Maori population as decimated, was the hot trigger for Maori across all NZ to sign the Treaty and get British protection. Half of all Maori had recently been murdered by Hongi Hika by his 600 muskets. But drunken sailors at Russell were only a limited localised minor problem amongst those Sailors, and Policing them was not the subject of why the Treaty was required, and was not what the Treaty was in any way principally proposed for, nor intended to achieve nor remedy. The Treaty was to give the British Queen sovereignty, and to stop Hongi Hika’s muskets from culling out any more of the rest of the remaining Maori population, and it had so far been culled of a huge 70,000, and had been murdered of half of all Maori, which was acutely real and of huge compelling significance for requiring British help to retain peace, and get protection, to be achieved by signing the Treaty.

   The Treaty in consideration gave the queen entire sovereignty for ever and responsibility, to protect all and every Maori. The Treaty clearly did involve that consideration, as it did grant full British citizen-ship to all, and gave the British protection to everyone. [see the Treaty preamble, and all of the agreed Treaty Articles.]
   With in the Treaty, it was, the Queen guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property, and the agreement also that if Maori land was sold off by Maori, as at first sale from Maori to settlers, it went via the Crown, and it got a ‘title’, and was surveyed, and a fair price was paid for it by the buyer, and that it was paid.

   After the treaty was signed and the Queen got full sovereignty for ever, there were some NZ Acts made by the Queen and the immediate importation of British laws into NZ, to ‘the effect of importing both English Common law and English Statute law’ into NZ, as at the 6 Feb 1840 Treaty signing. To also be enacted as law in NZ “There are many examples of the introduction of English law into colonies by such legislation. R v Christian (No 2) [2006] UKPC 47, [2007] 2 WLR 120 concerned the applicability of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, enacted by the Westminster Parliament, to the Pitcairn Islands. Section 14 of the Judicature Ordinance, 1970, which had been made by the Governor under a power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Pitcairn Islands conferred by the British Settlements Act 1887 and the Pitcairn Order 1970 (SI 1970/1434), provided that “the common law, the rules of equity and the statutes of general application as in force in and for England at the commencement of this Ordinance shall be in force in the Islands”. Also see the BRITISH IMPERIAL Acts that apply to NZ. see those At the end pages below.

   Our True Founding Document and First Constitution was Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter dated the 16 November 1840.
   1840 November 16 Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter ‘Enacted the Colony of New Zealand and Created and Established a Legislative Council, an Executive Council and the Courts and granted certain powers and authority to the Governor for the time being of the said Colony’. New Zealand became an Independent British Colony from New South Wales under the watchful eye of the British Parliament. The Royal Charter gave New Zealand its Independence as a British Colony and was our True Founding Document and First Constitution

   NZ CONSTITUTION Act 1852 :
   the second Constitution, Though imported laws applied from 1840, twelve years after the Queen got full sovereignty on 6 Feb 1840, and issued the Royal Charter of 16 Nov 1840, and NZ became a British Colony, she made the specific NZ Constitution Act of 1852. This set out the Governance and elections, and representatives in the NZ Parliament and binding laws. It was of course amended and was with many other laws as were enacted and were added. But no reverting to, nor existence of NZ co-governance was included, nor legislated.

   Reply
4. Noco Govern on July 30, 2023 at 5:19 pm

   Part 9
   The Maori claim fatal fault is all Taonga is a shared entitlement by all the people of the land, and those people in sharing, now includes the settlers and immigrants, but Maori are not sharing it nor including that those others are co-shareholders of the Taonga. Thus it is being held solely by the Maori strangle hold of it, and that demolishes it properly being in the sharing of the shared Taonga. Also for Maori to claim it is theirs and by not sharing it, they admit they have still got it, and of a certainty if they say they have not shared it with the Queen but only it is with themselves, that defines they have not had it taken by the Queen, nor by the settlers nor immigrants, if they havent shared with the settlers and immigrants nor with the Queen. Thus no Taonga can be included in any body of contents of being in or subject to Principles of debt due and still owing to Maori, nor can it be as defined in the Treaty as they never were defined in the Treaty. Maori were awarded undisturbed possession of their lands, unless of course if they sold some of it. Breaches of any disturbance of Maori are covered in the Crimes Act and Lands Acts, and the courts, not a wholesale retrieval of the Sovereignty and go back to times before the Treaty and of significance before the arrival of the settlers and the immigrants. And Maori cant assume the Declaration bestows the rights it did have in it before 1840.

   To be fair though the frauds by Ngapuhi go to demand they can try to lie about signing over sovereignty, and so must be to reverse their embarrassing silly past land sales, in hindsight for a pittance, that tossed them off their lands, and so their say so is to get back what they can, but it must by the taint of fraud and device to get back what they had tossed away, for it to be proven to the very high burden. ‘Say so’ by Maori in opportune hindsight will not suffice.

   But we must be aware of the Maori abhorrence at the thrust of burgeoning immigrants flooding in, and that Maori are responding by being shunted out of the most expensive areas, by such influx of thousands entering in and to buying up more property every week, and on it goes continuing with thousands more squeezing in evert week and having the money to buy up large and many established properties, and to do huge business.

   Is it that the law society submissions ought to cobble together to tell Parliament to stop the immigration, as it does eventually get to effect by pressure to displace Maori upon their own lands, those in rentals to others, and in leases to others. But of the ‘buyer beware’ as if Maori are overly represented in drugs and alcohol use and money wastage to support it, ought others buy them back their lands that they flicked off for dollars. If reinstated, will they sell off more so and imbibe further in expensive drugs and alcohol and cigarettes. But who has ultimate fault, buyer beware, and of immigration levels of influx, that if Maori still sell lands that they will and do suffer and erode away their establishment as non disturbed. But that is not my issue.

   The Maori shared Taonga is getting thinner, and the immigrants have their own 160 different cultures. The theory of if Maori get half governance they will get their land back, is a real device to get their land back, as that must be their only focused claimed result to benefit Maori. Co-governance will become taking the land.

   Notably Maori have expanded the Maori translation of Taonga to include so much, they do thus consent to naming, describing and knowing what it is of sovereignty that makes up and is all the elements of that sovereignty, and so admit they know what it is, and do so claiming the Taonga word meaning, was there all along as permeating right throughput time from say 1800 to 2023. Thus at 1835 and at 1840 the Ngapuhi well knew what all that was that they ceded in entirety to the queen for ever. To have signed that knowledge of it over back then, even so is that they did know of it and did relinquish all of what they include in that Taonga. That collateral was not limited to the quantum of only the non disturbance upon their lands, but was the fruits and quantum of the whole countries resources that was transferred to the Queen. The Treaty only defined that both settlers and Maori to retain themselves as undisturbed in possession of their lands, not the Sovereignty that was stacked up upon it, and aside to it, as coast, lakes, rivers, forest, fisheries, rain, water, and it was all of that which the Maori had signed and did sign in entirety to the Queen forever. And the international and Maritime territorial sovereignty as well, and the minerals and resources below the surface of where upon the Maori existed on top as undisturbed, with not any such awareness of nor involvement of minerals, and no concept of the science of metallurgy, and no concept of the extent of the tonnages of the oceans fisheries, nor that which the whalers were already exploiting and using, and did as was their customary resources they sailed to NZ to harvest. Way before the Declaration and way before the Treaty, the whalers fishing and selling and whaling customs were strongly in existence. Did the Taonga that Maori say was additional with the land, and is also to not be disturbed from Maori possession, and yet was it shared between everyone, and retained and kept by Maori. Was Taonga the right of property of the Sovereign, and did it get included in that which was of value, as included as in that entirely ceded to the sovereign for ever.

   THE 6 FEB 1840 TREATY. Accepting the Littlewood 4 Feb 1840 English last version that was written in fresh ink by the Hand of Busby, it was not copied by someone else. That was it, the original authentic final English Treaty document from which the Maori was translated. That Busby written final version in English dated 4 Feb 1840 was the last true only FINAL English Version by Busby written during the day of 4 Feb, to be used by Henry Williams on the evening of 4 Feb 1840 for translation into Maori for the next morning 5 Feb 1840 reading of it, and was then made ready from the 4 Feb and translated into on evening of 4 Feb, as the translated Maori Treaty and its contents was discussed on morning of the 5 Feb 1840 after being translated and made into a subsequent document as the Maori worded Treaty Version as translated from the 4 Feb Busby final version in English, being the Final English version. Written on the day of 4 Feb, and its evening translation into Maori and was used the next morning to be read and to be discussed on the next morning of 5 Feb, and through the day of 5 Feb and through late in the night of 5 Feb 1840. it was then signed the very next day of 6 February as it was Translated into Maori, ready to be signed by all.

   The last final English Busby version was corroborated by the United States copy of it, as exactly the same, word for word. There is no way the United States consulate did not exactly copy the last Final Busby version, to get it exactly correct in the English that America uses, immediately soon after the Last Final Busby English Version was completed in the hand by Busby by hos writing of it in pen and ink. Of it, of being the Final English version it was final and had to be before the translation of it, into Maori. Rather than risk a subsequent back translation of the Maori version from after the Maori version was made from that as in the English language, so there was no version used of back translation, but there was the final English version, which is the only real ENGLISH VERSION. The real English final version was done just before the Maori version was translated from it into Maori, of course. That English final was there and was accurate and exact so there was never a need for it not to be exactly directly copied and for instead a back translation version to be risked as instead. The English version had to be the final Busby English version and it was final. It was next translated from that Final Busby English version, into the Maori. Those two are the proper and final and authentic two versions in each language, as of their respective final versions, and can be distinctly relied upon as being so. That is what proper exact copying comprises of, no less. The Maori if it had words of slight differing meanings, was qualified by the prior English final version as to which of the meanings of the translated Maori word was to be relied upon, as being correct in Maori to exactly fit the word prior in English from which its intended meaning came from, from the English meaning. But can not then meander into a different Maori meaning just because the Maori word could revert to a slightly differing meaning in the meanings in Maori and take on the other sight difference but be not correct when the English meaning is presented along side of it. Which meaning is to be chosen, the exact fit to the English precursor, or a variant that differs from the intended as in English, just because the Maori word after being chosen could also and might have been able to have that added other dimension of giving a little of some differing other meaning that what was not the intended Meaning as prescribed by the prior English. It was a Treaty written by the English and not a Treaty written by the Maori, so the meanings had to fit the British English intended meaning. And that being exact to the English, and being the correct one of the variety of meanings.

   But to use that Maori translation from after the English final, with inherent differences lurking to disturb its actual intended meaning and be back translated from a non intended meaning, it well could not return back to the final English for being relied upon as an exact copy of it, with the choice of its correct back translation being exactly as it was, before even being translated into Maori. For the Official USA Consul Copy, it must be the same as the final Busby inked 4 Feb version in English. Otherwise by doubling up, with twice the error, that a meaning with double risk of errors in translation is inferior. But again the American copy was exact to the last 4 Feb Busby written English version. And only to that, so it was the last final English version used and it fitted to be the copied document.

   First the Final English is first used for the translation as that first into Maori, and then the Maori is the second document as the translation from the English into Maori. To then after the Maori version to go back into English by back translation is a non needed loop, which would have the back translation likely to get to have a little bit different in wording from the final English version’s translation into Maori, if any word in Maori had some slight differing meanings that could be used as in the alternative. That is to have a Maori word of some various meanings of which the word was selected, as best fit to the English precursor. Inherently there could be some slight other meanings attached to the word in Maori but by comparing it to the original English version words, it is made clear and exact which of the selected meanings it should have been. It is not wise to have got from English to a multi meaning Maori word without knowing which of the multiple meanings was the best and intended fit from the English and to be not guided by the original version of English to find the exact pathway back into English, is the risk of error that could be quite large and significant. Why get two meanings for something that has to be accurate. If the difference is large the second as back translation will be a bit or much different, and is more incorrect because there was a an original for comparison to choose what is correct. Why risk to be lost in translation of a part that was never meant nor included in the original English. The way it is done, is to hold out to the exact original before translation, and any double error by back translation to each English word as getting back to the original, by not knowing the effect of the variances in Maori half way had, for the back translation risks, is likely to be different, rather than use the exact return to the Original as the best fit of the real original English wording. To be sensible about exactness, is to rely on the original!!

   Even though the Maori words might be differently availed to be applied as to BEST FIT, why go there and why do that when copying the final English Treaty word’s as exact when that is what was wanted and for it to be the same. So why go back, some errors would arise, and to go back from that, would be of there being real likely risk of when using and relying on using the Maori translation version of the Final English version, to go back into being a second translation of it, that might when it got back into English again, be both a wee bit different and be done not by a central official as like Henry Williams, Busby or Hobson or an Official English staff officer. Why would the official staff not copy it direct rather than adopt the risks by a translation of it by double as back translation back with errors. But the point is the US consul wanted a copy of the final English text to be the last English Busby / Hobson version. But any way the common sense management was for the American United States to have an English copy, they would zero in on the last version in English, written in the hand of Busby himself to get an exact copy for the United states, and use that last final original Busby hand written document version, as used for the Maori translation to be read in the American united states, so for it was to be in exact English, it would need to be an exact copy of the final English Busby / Hobson version.

   If the united states wanted a Maori version too, it would copy the Maori version exactly. But not rely that an English USA copy could be an exact copy of it, if it was first being double translated, with a risk in using a lay linguist to translate it back which is always fraught with slight errors and misunderstanding the exactness of the Maori words involved. So a back Translation would have to be by a specialised linguist who would simply go direct to copying the original last english version and to know as a linguist of the errors from going through back translation with risks of not knowing all the vast slight differences in the meanings of the Maori words as were involved. Nor was there any double check issued by Busby nor by Williams nor a certification of the double translation of the back translation being true and correct. Instead the US consul would demand to copy of the original final Busby / Hobson English version used to create the translated Maori version and of that, as the one in Busby’s hand, to be the written document, to take a direct copy of that, and no less, to get a direct copy of the final English Busby hand written version that was used to copy from as the final English, to become by translation into Maori, as was the final English version used, and was the English version translated into Maori. That was the safe and exact document to copy, as it was written by Busby and by Hobson and was their original last final version in English. Next it was translated into Maori and was used in discussions on 5 Feb, and that Maori version was signed on 6 Feb 1840 by hundreds of chiefs, as over the following months and needed only further Maori copies as exactly the same copies of the translated copy of its Maori translation as from the final English, as exactly the same. As the treaty documents filled up with Maori signatures, it needed more copies, so it could be taken further throughout NZ and to the South Island, but had to be exactly the same.

   Any later rehash of the Maori version back into English especially afterwards was that it didnt predate the Maori version, and it did instead postdate the Maori version to become a back translated would pick up some error and be by biased interpreters with bias and to not know, did it return to the exact prior to Maori as to the final English version. Only the last final Busby written English version can tell us. No one can safely usurp the 4 Feb 1940 (Littlewood) final Busby hand written English version, and go through back translating after the printing of the Maori version of it and to know with certainty it is the same as the Last Busby Final version that was in English. The final English version was overall written by Busby and Hobson and translated by Henry Williams into Maori. But a back version would be written later but not by them, nor to their accuracy as not vetted as to be exact in meaning, as the Final version is the only one to copy, the one issued to be translated and that was dated 4 Feb 1840 as written by Busby and Hobson. A later back version from the Maori would be done by some office clerk or person who was not either Busby himself nor Hobson himself, thereby risking a bias and risk of error could enter into it. Busby or Hobson or Willians would only properly point to the Busby Hand written last final English one, as for that to be copied again as exactly the same English, for the likes of the American consul to request an English copy, and to be accurate and exact in every respect and word and detail and be precise. Not to rely on a doubled back translation.

   Note: the Treaty signing included to name the settlers as are included as along side of the Maori to all be equal British subjects. The settlers were not on the side of the Queen as like ganging up upon Maori, but also were beneficiaries of the Treaty as equally. So they too were needed to sign it, and did so as witnesses to it, as every Maori was a signatory was also a witness to the Treaty content and verified that the others did sign it. Then in NZ on 6 Feb 1840, both the Maori and settlers who were resident then, were all included as comprising of all of the people.

   A pivotal important question is: WHO DO THE MAORI CLAIM THEY HAVE THE current CONFLICT WITH, WITH WHOM ARE THEY today IN DISPUTE with. One would think with the Queen/King, but NO, as the dispute festers against the non Maori residents of NZ and competition about who should govern and who should not. But the Maoris are really only talking of their own family matters, but not state governance by the Queen or King. The Maori accuse to include the recent immigrants but about what really are the Maori really complaining and they do not show evidence any settlers or immigrants are directly doing Maori any harm. Why is that and what have the settler immigrants done to Maori, but the answer is always nothing, as nothing is provided as evidence of any harm or failure of the Treaty as is of harm being done by the non Maori against the Maori. The Maori activists complain of their conditions and of the activity and behaviour of Maori as if only victims, and is faked about what Maori are suffering and having to be doing to cope and how they can get help and it for the settler immigrants to provide that help. There is no complaint about others cultures and it is not about being opposed to the cultures and behaviour of the immigrants. This whole debarkle is a jumped up fiction as imagined and created by Maori as if they do have a daily continuous conflict with the Immigrants and the Settlers and the Off-spring of both. But the Maori do not name that, nor have evidence of that. This is about Maori perceiving that they can alter election law and Westminster precedent by faking they are hard done by and are persecuted, so they get more favoured at election time and receive more voted in candidates than the others as the setter immigrants. But what for and that is only to take and get more benefits from the government. But there is no evidence that the settlers, nor their offspring, nor the immigrants nor their offspring are doing that against Maori, nor that Maori getting more governance will cure Maori behaviour and their lies, rather than getting themselves to be better humans and be better in participation in the community, rather that their habitual persistent burglaries and drugs use and violence and destroying others family life and home safety.

   The co-governance accusations and demands are not between Maori and Settlers, nor Maori and immigrants, so it is not something of being in our nation’s peoples affairs as pertains to governance as per the people here in NZ, as effecting and involving each person here. Although the Maori are saying they are somewhat perturbed at something, But wont truth fully say what it is, nor give evidence, other than being greedy for more handouts and benefits. Maori talk of more Maori in prison as by proportion, but it is Maori who are the ones by proportion who are committing much more of the crimes. That is not the others persecuting Maori but that the police are doing their jobs and that Maori are the most who are offending. It is not done to annoy nor to be unfair to Maori, it is the others do not want the violent Maori burglars and rapists and drugs and gangs on the streets and causing violent harm. Most Maori also think that as well, as they too dont like the high level of Maori crime and Gangs and drugs and violence and rape and car thefts and ram raids etc etc. Will Co-governance allow the release of Maori criminals from prison, yes it will.

   Is it the size of the volume of influx of settlers that is quite alarming as tens of thousands come to immigrate into NZ every month to squeeze in. Co-Governance would certainly be used to cut that out and stop this huge immigration, and Maori no doubt believe that is a good thing and they will do that. But on the other hand will Maori youth get off drugs and burglaries to work hard and be the labour to make NZ self sufficient and be an exporter. NO they wont.
   The co-governance argument is said to be in governance so that is not between the races, not between setters and immigrants, but it is not even with the crown’s laws, so who are they in conflict with. But that it really is about the elected demographics making those laws, and Maori simply want way more election representation. The arguments is clearly attached only to the Maori race, and what they can get and can control, but is not with the other electors as those others who are the 5/6 of the resident population are not complaining of non governance, but only the Maoris are. It is an oxymoron for Maori to claim they are in conflict and dispute but no one else is in a dispute nor are disputing them, as it is only Maori demands to get way more, but the settlers and immigrants get no more than Maori, and the settler immigrants know to work and make and create what they have and can get by their hard work and care and being sensible. Maori are only half of a non argument of their faking there is an unfairness dispute, and are faking they deserve entitlement by getting way more in co-governance than with each settler and each immigrant, when it clearly and can only be, co-governance with intent to take for their own agendas, and of stopping immigration and of serving to give way more benefits to Maori. What else do they say, that Maori are disadvantaged and they will deport the settler immigrants and take back NZ for Maori, to live like they did in the good old days, and not have police, and no prisons and get hand outs.

   This is about Maori we were here first and it is still entirely only Maori country that you settlers and immigtrants are squatting in. It makes no sense to be 50/50 unless they can get that up to 70 / 30 in favour of Maori
   This is a dispute between Maori and their idea they do not pay nor want to pay for anything, but the government pays them. It is about refusing they ever gave the Queen their sovereignty, as never to the Queen and in hindsight are blaming the settler immigrant for being on the Queen’s side and acting as if the Maori did give entire sovereignty. But the Maori gave nothing else, so they had to have given entire sovereignty. Mostly all other Maoris agree they did give entire sovereignty for ever, but some recent Ngapuhi activists lie and fraud to say they never did. But what then did they give, and if they didnt give, then they did not honesty sign the Treaty, to give anything in consideration.

   So who are Ngapuhi really against, who and what are the Ngapuhi really putting their focussed aggression agaisnt and who and what are they putting their demands upon.
   Their required resolution is not to argue or challenge fellow settlers and immigrants but to up the Maori benefits and rights and claims, and reduce the settlers and immigrants rights, and take all the settlers and immigrants land. But is is not the co-governance an inflicted grievance against the settlers and white man and immigrants and foreigners, but what is their complaint and problem with those others, who are not Maori. Should it be with the Crown, but if they did not get to cede nor give sovereignty and they dispute that the Queen should be having it, then they should be chasing her and the King for it, but they attack the fellow settler immigrants as ‘we were here first’ and we get the oysters and yooz fellas get shells and we get governance and yooz get deported

   But Ngapuhi dont sympathise with the other chiefs of other tribes who if Ngapuhi are right did get taken in by the Treaty as to the Queen, and lost their sovereignty to the Queen, and yet Ngapuhi dont care to join them and help them of those other other tribes to get to retain back their sovereignty. The Ngapuhi and radical Maori activists are not trying to help get back any other tribes lost sovereignty, but are tribes who consented to sovereignty being ceded in entirety in the Treaty documents and confirmed again in the later settlements that have been done, where again those other Tribes consent they did give their entire sovereignty to the Queen.

   Why is it only Ngapuhi who are lying to say they never gave Sovereignty. Nor do Ngapuhi talk about what they will do to help themselves or what force they will use if they dont get their way, but there is a lot not being said about what they will be attempting to take from every one else, as Ngapuhi being the only ones still aggrieved and the only ones who now change the deal to say they did not cede their entire sovereignty for ever to the Queen.
   Ngapuhi say nothing and it is not said because it is to grossly to favour Ngapuhi Maori only in a very big way and underhandedly. This about Ngapuhi and that they are on the edge of a civil war if they dont get their way, and they have many many powerful automatic guns in possession and the guns again to commit massacres against the immigrants and settlers and the government and the police.

   It is only the Ngapuhi Maori who assert they did not sign over their sovereignty, but by now Maori consensus of the majority of all Maori is, that they clearly admit that they all did so. So it was similarly done by Ngapuhi, there was no faction refusing to hand over the only thing required of the Maori for consideration, that was to cede entirely all of sovereignty to the Queen for ever. Ngapuhi had no special treatment and no clause in the Treaty to permitting them to not cede entire sovereignty to the Queen for ever. But it was Ngapuhi who needed the Queens protection the most, as the southern Maoris were getting armed to get revenge for the 70,000 of their own families who were murdered by Ngapuhi. So Ngapuhi needed the Treaty and had to have given the Queen all the required powers and authority, by ceding their Ngapuhi sovereignty entirely and for ever to the Queen to get her needed protection of the warring tribes to the south from advancing north to murder off Ngapuhi.

   Ngapuhi lie and deceive to deflect to say the protection was needed for the British to stop the bad behaved drunks at Russell and was the protection that was needed, and cause the QUEEN TO HAVE GUN FRIGATES PATROLLING THE SEAS AND COAST OF NZ . How big a lie was that deception, but Ngapuhi are gross liars and deceivers, and have been in huge fraud about never giving over sovereignty, but they did so.
   There might have been time taken to discuss and decide to sign the Treaty, but thy didnt reject it, but it was about the whole Reality of a Treaty for the dire protection needed and stopping revenge and cannibal rampages and massacres and the urgent peace needed amongst all tribes, north, south, east and west, and Ngapuhi were due to be avenged by being all murdered by southern tribes. And no more musket raids and stopping the likes of DeThierry, that was required, but without there being any Ngapuhi with-holding over their one required consideration to be paid by all Maori and their payment for all the protection as the Ngapuhi claim was their alone deal to not cede anything and thus gave nothing at all. But there was no such deal but there is a recent fraud to attempt to get sovereignty, but there are too many factors that prove that to be a huge lie and a huge fraud. As Ngapuhi now say they never made the consideration as required but still they signed the Treaty that they did cede entirely as all their sovereignty. Not ceding sovereignty that today is a big deal to Ngapuhi, but back then, on 6 Feb1840 it didnt matter, it didnt get to be raised at all, of their retaining sovereignty, so there was no holding back on their ceding of their entire sovereignty to the Queen for ever, nor any variant was discussed, nor held up, nor put in writing. Without the Ngapuhi sovereignty being entirely ceded to the Queen for ever, they made no actual consideration for the benefits from the Queen they received in the Treaty, so they are fraudsters either way, signed as faked to the Treaty, or are lying about not giving entire sovereignty.

   Maori minister Matua Rata’s choice of the wrong English version is very faulty, he chose a back translation full of faults, and avoided the original English last version of it. And he made gross dishonest claims and took the fisheries and forests. We must repulse his choice, and to adhere to the Littlewood treaty that is the proper James Busby and Hobson Treaty in English, dated two days before the Maori Treaty. Rata’s version is fraud and must be investigated to not be beyond doubt. But it is of doubt and the 4 Feb Busby version as why below, is the English Original and has the intent of what the Queen agreed to, and as set out here below, as it was her Treaty and that translated of it in Maori was what Maori were signing up to, not a Matua Rata fraudulent Treaty in English tainted by not only a double back, back translation but also by a choice that went as far as it ventured to assist exaggerated Maori claims.

   See: MARTIN DOUTRE, TREATY EXPERT ON its HISTORY, MEANING & SABOTAGE by Maori

   See the evidence of the peoples who were here much earlier than Maori. http://www.celticnz.co.nz

   https://rumble.com/vkgsf3-episode-19-part-1-the-true-meaning-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi.html

   The term “Littlewood treaty” refers to a hand-written Treaty of Waitangi text found in a sideboard drawer on February 27, 1989, by John Littlewood and his sister Beryl Needham while clearing out their mum’s house after she had died.
   Beryl Needham took the document to her local MP Bill Birch, who suggested that she should take it to the Auckland Institute and Museum for analysis, which she did, and where it stayed for a year. Treaty expert Claudia Orange looked at the document and provided information about Henry Littlewood.
   Mr Littlewood took it to the Treaty House at Waitangi in a bid to establish its status but no interest was shown. Disinterest in details of the treaty coincided with top-level negotiations at the time that resulted in the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992.
   The family responded to an appeal in 1992 for information from a group called the Descendents of the English Witnesses to the Signatures on the Treaty of Waitangi, the convener of which wondered whether it was the missing draft given to missionary Henry Williams at 4.30pm on February 4, 1840, to translate into Maori.
   Note: There has never been any other English version nor English draft of the Treaty, dated after this one given to Henry Williams for translation at 4.30 pm February 4, 1840, to translate into the Maori Treaty, it thus is the final English version of the British offer of a Treaty for Sovereignty from and with the Maori, in exchange for British protection from Hongi Hika and foreigners and to be granted full British subjects. It is to be significantly noted the Maoris voluntarily accepted the terms of that English offer of Treaty in Maori, and were protected, and they all unreservedly became full British subjects under Queen Victoria. The accumulated benefits of being British subjects has been an immense bestowal for and upon Maori.
   News that government historians were examining the document appeared in the New Zealand Herald on September 11, 1992, under the headline “Draft puzzles experts”. In that report, Internal Affairs Minister Graeme Lee confirmed the existence of a draft of the treaty that made no mention of forests or fisheries, that is dated February 4, 1840, and was handwritten on paper with an 1833 watermark.
   Historian Donald Loveridge issued a memo on the document in 1993 in response to a request from the Treaty Issues Team at the Crown Law Office, noting that the document “is virtually identical in all respects to the Clendon translation”, a reference to an English text of the treaty sent by U.S. Consul James Reddy Clendon to the United States on February 20, 1840.
   That former British Resident James Busby wrote the text was confirmed in 2000, by Dr Phil Parkinson, a treaty researcher at National Archives.
   This Busby February 4 document, also known as the Littlewood treaty, became the subject of an article titled “End of the Golden Gravy Train” in the December-January 2004 issue of Investigate magazine. On January 27, 2004, National Party leader, Don Brash, delivered his first Orewa speech expressing opposition to perceived Maori racial separatism in New Zealand.
   The Treaty of Waitangi Information Unit commissioned Loveridge to do a full appraisal in 2006, 13 years after the document was found. In his appraisal, Loveridge re-stated his view the Busby February 4 document was a back translation of the Maori text of the treaty, especially because Clendon included the word “translation” in the covering letter with the documents he sent to the United States on February 20, 1840.
   He noted the lack of any evidence that Governor Hobson, James Busby, Henry Williams or James R. Clendon ever stated or implied that the “official” English text dated Feb. 6th, 1840, was not the one that provided the basis for the Maori text. He asserted that there was no satisfactory explanation for absence of such evidence.
   Loveridge did point to a 1972 article by Ruth Ross, titled “Texts and Translations”, in which she noted the existence of “five English versions” which “Hobson forwarded … to his superiors in Sydney or London”. One of these omits the words “Estates, Forests, Fisheries” from the second article. There is no indication any scholarship has been done to match that version to the official Maori text.
   But Loveridge also noted that “if Clendon’s description was not correct, however – for whatever reason – the possibility would remain that the date was used intentionally, and that the Littlewood document is in fact a copy of the missing draft”.
   If the Busby February 4 document was a translation from the Maori Te Tiriti, it is by far the best translation, and if recognised as such, the claimed need for “treaty principles” to reconcile differences between the official English text and the Maori language Te Tiriti would evaporate.
   The other point to note is that since there are only four words different between the Busby February 4 draft and Te Tiriti, with one of those differences being the date, for those who do not read Maori this Busby document is the text to read to understand the exact contents of Te Tiriti.
   The Busby February 4 draft/Littlewood treaty is displayed in the Constitution Room at National Archives in Wellington. Here is the text of that document. The four variations between the texts are underlined – two in the preamble, one in article three, and the date at the bottom:
   Busby February 4, 1840, draft (the Littlewood treaty)
   Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in her gracious consideration for the chiefs and people of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve them their land and to maintain peace and order amongst them, has been pleased to appoint an officer to treat with them for the cession of the Sovereignty of their country and of the islands adjacent to the Queen. Seeing that already many of Her Majesty’s subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving: And that it is desirable for their protection as well as the protection of the natives to establish a government amongst them.
   Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint me William Hobson a captain in the Royal Navy to be Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or hereafter be ceded to Her Majesty and proposes to the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes of New Zealand and the other chiefs to agree to the following articles.-
   Article first
   The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovereignty of their country.
   Article second
   The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes and the other chiefs grant to the Queen, the exclusive rights of purchasing such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as may be agreed upon between them and the person appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.
   Article third
   In return for the cession of their Sovereignty to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.
   Signed, William Hobson, Consul and Lieut. Governor.
   Now we the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes of New Zealand assembled at Waitangi, and we the other tribes of New Zealand, having understood the meaning of these articles, accept them and agree to them all. In witness whereof our names or marks are affixed. Done at Waitangi on the 4th of February, 1840.
   In Article 2, “the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand (tangata katoa o Nu Tirani), the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property (taonga).” The phrase “all the people” means “all the people” no more, no less, and includes Maori and settlers. By contrast in Article 3, when referring specifically to Maori, the text says “all the Maori people of New Zealand” (“tangata Maori katoa o Nu Tirani”).

   LITTLEWOOD TREATY WRITTEN in ORIGINAL HAND by JAMES BUSBY on 4 Feb 1840. There is no subsequent dated amendment, nor is it altered nor replaced by a newer version for Translating into Maori.

   In that report, Internal Affairs Minister Graeme Lee confirmed the existence of a draft of the treaty that made no mention of forests or fisheries, that is dated February 4, 1840, and was handwritten on paper with an 1833 watermark.
   Historian Donald Loveridge issued a memo on the document in 1993 in response to a request from the Treaty Issues Team at the Crown Law Office, noting that the document “is virtually identical in all respects to the Clendon translation”, a reference to an English text of the treaty sent by U.S. Consul James Reddy Clendon to the United States on February 20, 1840.
   That former British Resident James Busby wrote the text was confirmed in 2000, by Dr Phil Parkinson, a treaty researcher at National Archives.
   This Busby February 4 document, also known as the Littlewood treaty, became the subject of an article titled “End of the Golden Gravy Train” in the December-January 2004 issue of Investigate magazine. On January 27, 2004, National Party leader, Don Brash, delivered his first Orewa speech expressing opposition to perceived Maori racial separatism in New Zealand.
   The Treaty of Waitangi Information Unit commissioned Loveridge to do a full appraisal in 2006, 13 years after the document was found. In his appraisal, Loveridge re-stated his view the Busby February 4 document was a back translation of the Maori text of the treaty, especially because Clendon included the word “translation” in the covering letter with the documents he sent to the United States on February 20, 1840.
   But the Littlewood document was dated 4 Feb 1840, and, to be a back translation it would have post dated the Maori language version, and that Maori language Translation didnt exist till 5 Feb 1840 when Henry Williams translated it. It is way more plausible the word ‘translation’ referred to the fact the treaty to be signed was Translated from the Littlewood version written by Busby, of 4 Feb 1840 and what was signed at the Treaty, was translated into Maori as on 5 Feb by Henry Williams. As it didnt prior exist in Maori before 4 Feb 1840, it could not be translated from Maori and appear on 4 Feb, as it was not in Maori till after Rev Henry Willians translated it on 5 Feb, for the signing of it as Maori translation version on 6 Feb 1840. It was written by the British officials in their language, before it was translated into Maori. It had to be in Maori for it to be a Treaty with Maori and to be in their language, by the rules of treaty with natives.
   But why doubt it, it exactly fits. But doesnt accord to the M.Rata selection selected to garner Fisheries and forests and seabed for exclusive Maori ownership.
   He noted the lack of any evidence that Governor Hobson, James Busby, Henry Williams or James R. Clendon ever stated or implied that the “official” English text dated Feb. 6th, 1840, was not the one that provided the basis for the Maori text. He asserted that there was no satisfactory explanation for absence of such evidence.
   Loveridge did point to a 1972 article by Ruth Ross, titled “Texts and Translations”, in which she noted the existence of “five English versions” which “Hobson forwarded … to his superiors in Sydney or London”. One of these omits the words “Estates, Forests, Fisheries” from the second article. There is no indication any scholarship has been done to match that version to the official Maori text.
   But Loveridge also noted that “if Clendon’s description was not correct, however – for whatever reason – the possibility would remain that the date was used intentionally, and that the Littlewood document is in fact a copy of the missing draft”.
   If the Busby February 4 document was a translation from the Maori Te Tiriti, it is by far the best translation, and if recognised as such, the claimed need for “treaty principles” to reconcile differences between the official English text and the Maori language Te Tiriti would evaporate.
   The other point to note is that since there are only four words different between the Busby February 4 draft and Te Tiriti, with one of those differences being the date, for those who do not read Maori this Busby document is the text to read to understand the exact contents of Te Tiriti.
   The Busby February 4 draft/Littlewood treaty is displayed in the Constitution Room at National Archives in Wellington. Here is the text of that document. The four variations between the texts are underlined – two in the preamble, one in article three, and the date at the bottom:
   Busby February 4, 1840, draft (the Littlewood treaty)
   Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in her gracious consideration for the chiefs and people of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve them their land and to maintain peace and order amongst them, has been pleased to appoint an officer to treat with them for the cession of the Sovereignty of their country and of the islands adjacent to the Queen. Seeing that already many of Her Majesty’s subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving: And that it is desirable for their protection as well as the protection of the natives to establish a government amongst them.
   Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint me William Hobson a captain in the Royal Navy to be Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or hereafter be ceded to Her Majesty and proposes to the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes of New Zealand and the other chiefs to agree to the following articles.-

   Article first
   The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovereignty of their country.

   Article second
   The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes and the other chiefs grant to the Queen, the exclusive rights of purchasing such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as may be agreed upon between them and the person appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.

   Article third
   In return for the cession of their Sovereignty to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.

   Signed, William Hobson
   Consul and Lieut. Governor.
   Now we the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes of New Zealand assembled at Waitangi, and we the other tribes of New Zealand, having understood the meaning of these articles, accept them and agree to them all. In witness whereof our names or marks are affixed. Done at Waitangi on the 4th of February, 1840.
   In Article 2, “the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand (tangata katoa o Nu Tirani), the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property (taonga).” The phrase “all the people” means “all the people” no more, no less, and includes Maori and settlers. By contrast in Article 3, when referring specifically to Maori, the text says “all the Maori people of New Zealand” (“tangata Maori katoa o Nu Tirani”).

   May 21 Britain declares sovereignty over the Islands of New Zealand under the jurisdiction of NSW and Maori are given the same rights as the people of England under English Law. Queen Victoria did not have the power or authority to give Maori special rights in the Tiriti o Waitangi not already enjoyed by all the people of England under English Law.

   Reply
5. Noco Govern on July 30, 2023 at 6:44 pm

   Part 9
   [[ 9 ]]
   The Maori claim fatal fault is all Taonga is a shared entitlement by all the people of the land, and those people in sharing, now includes the settlers and immigrants, but Maori are not sharing it nor including that those others are co-shareholders of the Taonga. Thus it is being held solely by the Maori strangle hold of it, and that demolishes it properly being in the sharing of the shared Taonga. Also for Maori to claim it is theirs and by not sharing it, they admit they have still got it, and of a certainty if they say they have not shared it with the Queen but only it is with themselves, that defines they have not had it taken by the Queen, nor by the settlers nor immigrants, if they havent shared with the settlers and immigrants nor with the Queen. Thus no Taonga can be included in any body of contents of being in or subject to Principles of debt due and still owing to Maori, nor can it be as defined in the Treaty as they never were defined in the Treaty. Maori were awarded undisturbed possession of their lands, unless of course if they sold some of it. Breaches of any disturbance of Maori are covered in the Crimes Act and Lands Acts, and the courts, not a wholesale retrieval of the Sovereignty and go back to times before the Treaty and of significance before the arrival of the settlers and the immigrants. And Maori cant assume the Declaration bestows the rights it did have in it before 1840.

   To be fair though the frauds by Ngapuhi go to demand they can try to lie about signing over sovereignty, and so must be to reverse their embarrassing silly past land sales, in hindsight for a pittance, that tossed them off their lands, and so their say so is to get back what they can, but it must by the taint of fraud and device to get back what they had tossed away, for it to be proven to the very high burden. ‘Say so’ by Maori in opportune hindsight will not suffice.

   But we must be aware of the Maori abhorrence at the thrust of burgeoning immigrants flooding in, and that Maori are responding by being shunted out of the most expensive areas, by such influx of thousands entering in and to buying up more property every week, and on it goes continuing with thousands more squeezing in evert week and having the money to buy up large and many established properties, and to do huge business.

   Is it that the law society submissions ought to cobble together to tell Parliament to stop the immigration, as it does eventually get to effect by pressure to displace Maori upon their own lands, those in rentals to others, and in leases to others. But of the ‘buyer beware’ as if Maori are overly represented in drugs and alcohol use and money wastage to support it, ought others buy them back their lands that they flicked off for dollars. If reinstated, will they sell off more so and imbibe further in expensive drugs and alcohol and cigarettes. But who has ultimate fault, buyer beware, and of immigration levels of influx, that if Maori still sell lands that they will and do suffer and erode away their establishment as non disturbed. But that is not my issue.

   The Maori shared Taonga is getting thinner, and the immigrants have their own 160 different cultures. The theory of if Maori get half governance they will get their land back, is a real device to get their land back, as that must be their only focused claimed result to benefit Maori. Co-governance will become taking the land.

   Notably Maori have expanded the Maori translation of Taonga to include so much, they do thus consent to naming, describing and knowing what it is of sovereignty that makes up and is all the elements of that sovereignty, and so admit they know what it is, and do so claiming the Taonga word meaning, was there all along as permeating right throughput time from say 1800 to 2023. Thus at 1835 and at 1840 the Ngapuhi well knew what all that was that they ceded in entirety to the queen for ever. To have signed that knowledge of it over back then, even so is that they did know of it and did relinquish all of what they include in that Taonga. That collateral was not limited to the quantum of only the non disturbance upon their lands, but was the fruits and quantum of the whole countries resources that was transferred to the Queen. The Treaty only defined that both settlers and Maori to retain themselves as undisturbed in possession of their lands, not the Sovereignty that was stacked up upon it, and aside to it, as coast, lakes, rivers, forest, fisheries, rain, water, and it was all of that which the Maori had signed and did sign in entirety to the Queen forever. And the international and Maritime territorial sovereignty as well, and the minerals and resources below the surface of where upon the Maori existed on top as undisturbed, with not any such awareness of nor involvement of minerals, and no concept of the science of metallurgy, and no concept of the extent of the tonnages of the oceans fisheries, nor that which the whalers were already exploiting and using, and did as was their customary resources they sailed to NZ to harvest. Way before the Declaration and way before the Treaty, the whalers fishing and selling and whaling customs were strongly in existence. Did the Taonga that Maori say was additional with the land, and is also to not be disturbed from Maori possession, and yet was it shared between everyone, and retained and kept by Maori. Was Taonga the right of property of the Sovereign, and did it get included in that which was of value, as included as in that entirely ceded to the sovereign for ever.

   THE 6 FEB 1840 TREATY. Accepting the Littlewood 4 Feb 1840 English last version that was written in fresh ink by the Hand of Busby, it was not copied by someone else. That was it, the original authentic final English Treaty document from which the Maori was translated. That Busby written final version in English dated 4 Feb 1840 was the last true only FINAL English Version by Busby written during the day of 4 Feb, to be used by Henry Williams on the evening of 4 Feb 1840 for translation into Maori for the next morning 5 Feb 1840 reading of it, and was then made ready from the 4 Feb and translated into on evening of 4 Feb, as the translated Maori Treaty and its contents was discussed on morning of the 5 Feb 1840 after being translated and made into a subsequent document as the Maori worded Treaty Version as translated from the 4 Feb Busby final version in English, being the Final English version. Written on the day of 4 Feb, and its evening translation into Maori and was used the next morning to be read and to be discussed on the next morning of 5 Feb, and through the day of 5 Feb and through late in the night of 5 Feb 1840. it was then signed the very next day of 6 February as it was Translated into Maori, ready to be signed by all.

   The last final English Busby version was corroborated by the United States copy of it, as exactly the same, word for word. There is no way the United States consulate did not exactly copy the last Final Busby version, to get it exactly correct in the English that America uses, immediately soon after the Last Final Busby English Version was completed in the hand by Busby by hos writing of it in pen and ink. Of it, of being the Final English version it was final and had to be before the translation of it, into Maori. Rather than risk a subsequent back translation of the Maori version from after the Maori version was made from that as in the English language, so there was no version used of back translation, but there was the final English version, which is the only real ENGLISH VERSION. The real English final version was done just before the Maori version was translated from it into Maori, of course. That English final was there and was accurate and exact so there was never a need for it not to be exactly directly copied and for instead a back translation version to be risked as instead. The English version had to be the final Busby English version and it was final. It was next translated from that Final Busby English version, into the Maori. Those two are the proper and final and authentic two versions in each language, as of their respective final versions, and can be distinctly relied upon as being so. That is what proper exact copying comprises of, no less. The Maori if it had words of slight differing meanings, was qualified by the prior English final version as to which of the meanings of the translated Maori word was to be relied upon, as being correct in Maori to exactly fit the word prior in English from which its intended meaning came from, from the English meaning. But can not then meander into a different Maori meaning just because the Maori word could revert to a slightly differing meaning in the meanings in Maori and take on the other sight difference but be not correct when the English meaning is presented along side of it. Which meaning is to be chosen, the exact fit to the English precursor, or a variant that differs from the intended as in English, just because the Maori word after being chosen could also and might have been able to have that added other dimension of giving a little of some differing other meaning that what was not the intended Meaning as prescribed by the prior English. It was a Treaty written by the English and not a Treaty written by the Maori, so the meanings had to fit the British English intended meaning. And that being exact to the English, and being the correct one of the variety of meanings.

   But to use that Maori translation from after the English final, with inherent differences lurking to disturb its actual intended meaning and be back translated from a non intended meaning, it well could not return back to the final English for being relied upon as an exact copy of it, with the choice of its correct back translation being exactly as it was, before even being translated into Maori. For the Official USA Consul Copy, it must be the same as the final Busby inked 4 Feb version in English. Otherwise by doubling up, with twice the error, that a meaning with double risk of errors in translation is inferior. But again the American copy was exact to the last 4 Feb Busby written English version. And only to that, so it was the last final English version used and it fitted to be the copied document.

   First the Final English is first used for the translation as that first into Maori, and then the Maori is the second document as the translation from the English into Maori. To then after the Maori version to go back into English by back translation is a non needed loop, which would have the back translation likely to get to have a little bit different in wording from the final English version’s translation into Maori, if any word in Maori had some slight differing meanings that could be used as in the alternative. That is to have a Maori word of some various meanings of which the word was selected, as best fit to the English precursor. Inherently there could be some slight other meanings attached to the word in Maori but by comparing it to the original English version words, it is made clear and exact which of the selected meanings it should have been. It is not wise to have got from English to a multi meaning Maori word without knowing which of the multiple meanings was the best and intended fit from the English and to be not guided by the original version of English to find the exact pathway back into English, is the risk of error that could be quite large and significant. Why get two meanings for something that has to be accurate. If the difference is large the second as back translation will be a bit or much different, and is more incorrect because there was a an original for comparison to choose what is correct. Why risk to be lost in translation of a part that was never meant nor included in the original English. The way it is done, is to hold out to the exact original before translation, and any double error by back translation to each English word as getting back to the original, by not knowing the effect of the variances in Maori half way had, for the back translation risks, is likely to be different, rather than use the exact return to the Original as the best fit of the real original English wording. To be sensible about exactness, is to rely on the original!!

   Even though the Maori words might be differently availed to be applied as to BEST FIT, why go there and why do that when copying the final English Treaty word’s as exact when that is what was wanted and for it to be the same. So why go back, some errors would arise, and to go back from that, would be of there being real likely risk of when using and relying on using the Maori translation version of the Final English version, to go back into being a second translation of it, that might when it got back into English again, be both a wee bit different and be done not by a central official as like Henry Williams, Busby or Hobson or an Official English staff officer. Why would the official staff not copy it direct rather than adopt the risks by a translation of it by double as back translation back with errors. But the point is the US consul wanted a copy of the final English text to be the last English Busby / Hobson version. But any way the common sense management was for the American United States to have an English copy, they would zero in on the last version in English, written in the hand of Busby himself to get an exact copy for the United states, and use that last final original Busby hand written document version, as used for the Maori translation to be read in the American united states, so for it was to be in exact English, it would need to be an exact copy of the final English Busby / Hobson version.

   If the united states wanted a Maori version too, it would copy the Maori version exactly. But not rely that an English USA copy could be an exact copy of it, if it was first being double translated, with a risk in using a lay linguist to translate it back which is always fraught with slight errors and misunderstanding the exactness of the Maori words involved. So a back Translation would have to be by a specialised linguist who would simply go direct to copying the original last english version and to know as a linguist of the errors from going through back translation with risks of not knowing all the vast slight differences in the meanings of the Maori words as were involved. Nor was there any double check issued by Busby nor by Williams nor a certification of the double translation of the back translation being true and correct. Instead the US consul would demand to copy of the original final Busby / Hobson English version used to create the translated Maori version and of that, as the one in Busby’s hand, to be the written document, to take a direct copy of that, and no less, to get a direct copy of the final English Busby hand written version that was used to copy from as the final English, to become by translation into Maori, as was the final English version used, and was the English version translated into Maori. That was the safe and exact document to copy, as it was written by Busby and by Hobson and was their original last final version in English. Next it was translated into Maori and was used in discussions on 5 Feb, and that Maori version was signed on 6 Feb 1840 by hundreds of chiefs, as over the following months and needed only further Maori copies as exactly the same copies of the translated copy of its Maori translation as from the final English, as exactly the same. As the treaty documents filled up with Maori signatures, it needed more copies, so it could be taken further throughout NZ and to the South Island, but had to be exactly the same.

   Any later rehash of the Maori version back into English especially afterwards was that it didnt predate the Maori version, and it did instead postdate the Maori version to become a back translated would pick up some error and be by biased interpreters with bias and to not know, did it return to the exact prior to Maori as to the final English version. Only the last final Busby written English version can tell us. No one can safely usurp the 4 Feb 1940 (Littlewood) final Busby hand written English version, and go through back translating after the printing of the Maori version of it and to know with certainty it is the same as the Last Busby Final version that was in English. The final English version was overall written by Busby and Hobson and translated by Henry Williams into Maori. But a back version would be written later but not by them, nor to their accuracy as not vetted as to be exact in meaning, as the Final version is the only one to copy, the one issued to be translated and that was dated 4 Feb 1840 as written by Busby and Hobson. A later back version from the Maori would be done by some office clerk or person who was not either Busby himself nor Hobson himself, thereby risking a bias and risk of error could enter into it. Busby or Hobson or Willians would only properly point to the Busby Hand written last final English one, as for that to be copied again as exactly the same English, for the likes of the American consul to request an English copy, and to be accurate and exact in every respect and word and detail and be precise. Not to rely on a doubled back translation.

   Note: the Treaty signing included to name the settlers as are included as along side of the Maori to all be equal British subjects. The settlers were not on the side of the Queen as like ganging up upon Maori, but also were beneficiaries of the Treaty as equally. So they too were needed to sign it, and did so as witnesses to it, as every Maori was a signatory was also a witness to the Treaty content and verified that the others did sign it. Then in NZ on 6 Feb 1840, both the Maori and settlers who were resident then, were all included as comprising of all of the people.

   A pivotal important question is: WHO DO THE MAORI CLAIM THEY HAVE THE current CONFLICT WITH, WITH WHOM ARE THEY today IN DISPUTE with. One would think with the Queen/King, but NO, as the dispute festers against the non Maori residents of NZ and competition about who should govern and who should not. But the Maoris are really only talking of their own family matters, but not state governance by the Queen or King. The Maori accuse to include the recent immigrants but about what really are the Maori really complaining and they do not show evidence any settlers or immigrants are directly doing Maori any harm. Why is that and what have the settler immigrants done to Maori, but the answer is always nothing, as nothing is provided as evidence of any harm or failure of the Treaty as is of harm being done by the non Maori against the Maori. The Maori activists complain of their conditions and of the activity and behaviour of Maori as if only victims, and is faked about what Maori are suffering and having to be doing to cope and how they can get help and it for the settler immigrants to provide that help. There is no complaint about others cultures and it is not about being opposed to the cultures and behaviour of the immigrants. This whole debarkle is a jumped up fiction as imagined and created by Maori as if they do have a daily continuous conflict with the Immigrants and the Settlers and the Off-spring of both. But the Maori do not name that, nor have evidence of that. This is about Maori perceiving that they can alter election law and Westminster precedent by faking they are hard done by and are persecuted, so they get more favoured at election time and receive more voted in candidates than the others as the setter immigrants. But what for and that is only to take and get more benefits from the government. But there is no evidence that the settlers, nor their offspring, nor the immigrants nor their offspring are doing that against Maori, nor that Maori getting more governance will cure Maori behaviour and their lies, rather than getting themselves to be better humans and be better in participation in the community, rather that their habitual persistent burglaries and drugs use and violence and destroying others family life and home safety.

   The co-governance accusations and demands are not between Maori and Settlers, nor Maori and immigrants, so it is not something of being in our nation’s peoples affairs as pertains to governance as per the people here in NZ, as effecting and involving each person here. Although the Maori are saying they are somewhat perturbed at something, But wont truth fully say what it is, nor give evidence, other than being greedy for more handouts and benefits. Maori talk of more Maori in prison as by proportion, but it is Maori who are the ones by proportion who are committing much more of the crimes. That is not the others persecuting Maori but that the police are doing their jobs and that Maori are the most who are offending. It is not done to annoy nor to be unfair to Maori, it is the others do not want the violent Maori burglars and rapists and drugs and gangs on the streets and causing violent harm. Most Maori also think that as well, as they too dont like the high level of Maori crime and Gangs and drugs and violence and rape and car thefts and ram raids etc etc. Will Co-governance allow the release of Maori criminals from prison, yes it will.

   Is it the size of the volume of influx of settlers that is quite alarming as tens of thousands come to immigrate into NZ every month to squeeze in. Co-Governance would certainly be used to cut that out and stop this huge immigration, and Maori no doubt believe that is a good thing and they will do that. But on the other hand will Maori youth get off drugs and burglaries to work hard and be the labour to make NZ self sufficient and be an exporter. NO they wont.
   The co-governance argument is said to be in governance so that is not between the races, not between setters and immigrants, but it is not even with the crown’s laws, so who are they in conflict with. But that it really is about the elected demographics making those laws, and Maori simply want way more election representation. The arguments is clearly attached only to the Maori race, and what they can get and can control, but is not with the other electors as those others who are the 5/6 of the resident population are not complaining of non governance, but only the Maoris are. It is an oxymoron for Maori to claim they are in conflict and dispute but no one else is in a dispute nor are disputing them, as it is only Maori demands to get way more, but the settlers and immigrants get no more than Maori, and the settler immigrants know to work and make and create what they have and can get by their hard work and care and being sensible. Maori are only half of a non argument of their faking there is an unfairness dispute, and are faking they deserve entitlement by getting way more in co-governance than with each settler and each immigrant, when it clearly and can only be, co-governance with intent to take for their own agendas, and of stopping immigration and of serving to give way more benefits to Maori. What else do they say, that Maori are disadvantaged and they will deport the settler immigrants and take back NZ for Maori, to live like they did in the good old days, and not have police, and no prisons and get hand outs.

   This is about Maori we were here first and it is still entirely only Maori country that you settlers and immigtrants are squatting in. It makes no sense to be 50/50 unless they can get that up to 70 / 30 in favour of Maori
   This is a dispute between Maori and their idea they do not pay nor want to pay for anything, but the government pays them. It is about refusing they ever gave the Queen their sovereignty, as never to the Queen and in hindsight are blaming the settler immigrant for being on the Queen’s side and acting as if the Maori did give entire sovereignty. But the Maori gave nothing else, so they had to have given entire sovereignty. Mostly all other Maoris agree they did give entire sovereignty for ever, but some recent Ngapuhi activists lie and fraud to say they never did. But what then did they give, and if they didnt give, then they did not honesty sign the Treaty, to give anything in consideration.

   So who are Ngapuhi really against, who and what are the Ngapuhi really putting their focussed aggression agaisnt and who and what are they putting their demands upon.
   Their required resolution is not to argue or challenge fellow settlers and immigrants but to up the Maori benefits and rights and claims, and reduce the settlers and immigrants rights, and take all the settlers and immigrants land. But is is not the co-governance an inflicted grievance against the settlers and white man and immigrants and foreigners, but what is their complaint and problem with those others, who are not Maori. Should it be with the Crown, but if they did not get to cede nor give sovereignty and they dispute that the Queen should be having it, then they should be chasing her and the King for it, but they attack the fellow settler immigrants as ‘we were here first’ and we get the oysters and yooz fellas get shells and we get governance and yooz get deported

   But Ngapuhi dont sympathise with the other chiefs of other tribes who if Ngapuhi are right did get taken in by the Treaty as to the Queen, and lost their sovereignty to the Queen, and yet Ngapuhi dont care to join them and help them of those other other tribes to get to retain back their sovereignty. The Ngapuhi and radical Maori activists are not trying to help get back any other tribes lost sovereignty, but are tribes who consented to sovereignty being ceded in entirety in the Treaty documents and confirmed again in the later settlements that have been done, where again those other Tribes consent they did give their entire sovereignty to the Queen.

   Why is it only Ngapuhi who are lying to say they never gave Sovereignty. Nor do Ngapuhi talk about what they will do to help themselves or what force they will use if they dont get their way, but there is a lot not being said about what they will be attempting to take from every one else, as Ngapuhi being the only ones still aggrieved and the only ones who now change the deal to say they did not cede their entire sovereignty for ever to the Queen.
   Ngapuhi say nothing and it is not said because it is to grossly to favour Ngapuhi Maori only in a very big way and underhandedly. This about Ngapuhi and that they are on the edge of a civil war if they dont get their way, and they have many many powerful automatic guns in possession and the guns again to commit massacres against the immigrants and settlers and the government and the police.

   It is only the Ngapuhi Maori who assert they did not sign over their sovereignty, but by now Maori consensus of the majority of all Maori is, that they clearly admit that they all did so. So it was similarly done by Ngapuhi, there was no faction refusing to hand over the only thing required of the Maori for consideration, that was to cede entirely all of sovereignty to the Queen for ever. Ngapuhi had no special treatment and no clause in the Treaty to permitting them to not cede entire sovereignty to the Queen for ever. But it was Ngapuhi who needed the Queens protection the most, as the southern Maoris were getting armed to get revenge for the 70,000 of their own families who were murdered by Ngapuhi. So Ngapuhi needed the Treaty and had to have given the Queen all the required powers and authority, by ceding their Ngapuhi sovereignty entirely and for ever to the Queen to get her needed protection of the warring tribes to the south from advancing north to murder off Ngapuhi.

   Ngapuhi lie and deceive to deflect to say the protection was needed for the British to stop the bad behaved drunks at Russell and was the protection that was needed, and cause the QUEEN TO HAVE GUN FRIGATES PATROLLING THE SEAS AND COAST OF NZ . How big a lie was that deception, but Ngapuhi are gross liars and deceivers, and have been in huge fraud about never giving over sovereignty, but they did so.
   There might have been time taken to discuss and decide to sign the Treaty, but thy didnt reject it, but it was about the whole Reality of a Treaty for the dire protection needed and stopping revenge and cannibal rampages and massacres and the urgent peace needed amongst all tribes, north, south, east and west, and Ngapuhi were due to be avenged by being all murdered by southern tribes. And no more musket raids and stopping the likes of DeThierry, that was required, but without there being any Ngapuhi with-holding over their one required consideration to be paid by all Maori and their payment for all the protection as the Ngapuhi claim was their alone deal to not cede anything and thus gave nothing at all. But there was no such deal but there is a recent fraud to attempt to get sovereignty, but there are too many factors that prove that to be a huge lie and a huge fraud. As Ngapuhi now say they never made the consideration as required but still they signed the Treaty that they did cede entirely as all their sovereignty. Not ceding sovereignty that today is a big deal to Ngapuhi, but back then, on 6 Feb1840 it didnt matter, it didnt get to be raised at all, of their retaining sovereignty, so there was no holding back on their ceding of their entire sovereignty to the Queen for ever, nor any variant was discussed, nor held up, nor put in writing. Without the Ngapuhi sovereignty being entirely ceded to the Queen for ever, they made no actual consideration for the benefits from the Queen they received in the Treaty, so they are fraudsters either way, signed as faked to the Treaty, or are lying about not giving entire sovereignty.

   Maori minister Matua Rata’s choice of the wrong English version is very faulty, he chose a back translation full of faults, and avoided the original English last version of it. And he made gross dishonest claims and took the fisheries and forests. We must repulse his choice, and to adhere to the Littlewood treaty that is the proper James Busby and Hobson Treaty in English, dated two days before the Maori Treaty. Rata’s version is fraud and must be investigated to not be beyond doubt. But it is of doubt and the 4 Feb Busby version as why below, is the English Original and has the intent of what the Queen agreed to, and as set out here below, as it was her Treaty and that translated of it in Maori was what Maori were signing up to, not a Matua Rata fraudulent Treaty in English tainted by not only a double back, back translation but also by a choice that went as far as it ventured to assist exaggerated Maori claims.

   See: MARTIN DOUTRE, TREATY EXPERT ON its HISTORY, MEANING & SABOTAGE by Maori

   See the evidence of the peoples who were here much earlier than Maori. http://www.celticnz.co.nz

   https://rumble.com/vkgsf3-episode-19-part-1-the-true-meaning-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi.html

   The term “Littlewood treaty” refers to a hand-written Treaty of Waitangi text found in a sideboard drawer on February 27, 1989, by John Littlewood and his sister Beryl Needham while clearing out their mum’s house after she had died.
   Beryl Needham took the document to her local MP Bill Birch, who suggested that she should take it to the Auckland Institute and Museum for analysis, which she did, and where it stayed for a year. Treaty expert Claudia Orange looked at the document and provided information about Henry Littlewood.
   Mr Littlewood took it to the Treaty House at Waitangi in a bid to establish its status but no interest was shown. Disinterest in details of the treaty coincided with top-level negotiations at the time that resulted in the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992.
   The family responded to an appeal in 1992 for information from a group called the Descendents of the English Witnesses to the Signatures on the Treaty of Waitangi, the convener of which wondered whether it was the missing draft given to missionary Henry Williams at 4.30pm on February 4, 1840, to translate into Maori.
   Note: There has never been any other English version nor English draft of the Treaty, dated after this one given to Henry Williams for translation at 4.30 pm February 4, 1840, to translate into the Maori Treaty, it thus is the final English version of the British offer of a Treaty for Sovereignty from and with the Maori, in exchange for British protection from Hongi Hika and foreigners and to be granted full British subjects. It is to be significantly noted the Maoris voluntarily accepted the terms of that English offer of Treaty in Maori, and were protected, and they all unreservedly became full British subjects under Queen Victoria. The accumulated benefits of being British subjects has been an immense bestowal for and upon Maori.
   News that government historians were examining the document appeared in the New Zealand Herald on September 11, 1992, under the headline “Draft puzzles experts”. In that report, Internal Affairs Minister Graeme Lee confirmed the existence of a draft of the treaty that made no mention of forests or fisheries, that is dated February 4, 1840, and was handwritten on paper with an 1833 watermark.
   Historian Donald Loveridge issued a memo on the document in 1993 in response to a request from the Treaty Issues Team at the Crown Law Office, noting that the document “is virtually identical in all respects to the Clendon translation”, a reference to an English text of the treaty sent by U.S. Consul James Reddy Clendon to the United States on February 20, 1840.
   That former British Resident James Busby wrote the text was confirmed in 2000, by Dr Phil Parkinson, a treaty researcher at National Archives.
   This Busby February 4 document, also known as the Littlewood treaty, became the subject of an article titled “End of the Golden Gravy Train” in the December-January 2004 issue of Investigate magazine. On January 27, 2004, National Party leader, Don Brash, delivered his first Orewa speech expressing opposition to perceived Maori racial separatism in New Zealand.
   The Treaty of Waitangi Information Unit commissioned Loveridge to do a full appraisal in 2006, 13 years after the document was found. In his appraisal, Loveridge re-stated his view the Busby February 4 document was a back translation of the Maori text of the treaty, especially because Clendon included the word “translation” in the covering letter with the documents he sent to the United States on February 20, 1840.
   He noted the lack of any evidence that Governor Hobson, James Busby, Henry Williams or James R. Clendon ever stated or implied that the “official” English text dated Feb. 6th, 1840, was not the one that provided the basis for the Maori text. He asserted that there was no satisfactory explanation for absence of such evidence.
   Loveridge did point to a 1972 article by Ruth Ross, titled “Texts and Translations”, in which she noted the existence of “five English versions” which “Hobson forwarded … to his superiors in Sydney or London”. One of these omits the words “Estates, Forests, Fisheries” from the second article. There is no indication any scholarship has been done to match that version to the official Maori text.
   But Loveridge also noted that “if Clendon’s description was not correct, however – for whatever reason – the possibility would remain that the date was used intentionally, and that the Littlewood document is in fact a copy of the missing draft”.
   If the Busby February 4 document was a translation from the Maori Te Tiriti, it is by far the best translation, and if recognised as such, the claimed need for “treaty principles” to reconcile differences between the official English text and the Maori language Te Tiriti would evaporate.
   The other point to note is that since there are only four words different between the Busby February 4 draft and Te Tiriti, with one of those differences being the date, for those who do not read Maori this Busby document is the text to read to understand the exact contents of Te Tiriti.
   The Busby February 4 draft/Littlewood treaty is displayed in the Constitution Room at National Archives in Wellington. Here is the text of that document. The four variations between the texts are underlined – two in the preamble, one in article three, and the date at the bottom:
   Busby February 4, 1840, draft (the Littlewood treaty)
   Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in her gracious consideration for the chiefs and people of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve them their land and to maintain peace and order amongst them, has been pleased to appoint an officer to treat with them for the cession of the Sovereignty of their country and of the islands adjacent to the Queen. Seeing that already many of Her Majesty’s subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving: And that it is desirable for their protection as well as the protection of the natives to establish a government amongst them.
   Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint me William Hobson a captain in the Royal Navy to be Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or hereafter be ceded to Her Majesty and proposes to the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes of New Zealand and the other chiefs to agree to the following articles.-
   Article first
   The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovereignty of their country.
   Article second
   The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes and the other chiefs grant to the Queen, the exclusive rights of purchasing such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as may be agreed upon between them and the person appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.
   Article third
   In return for the cession of their Sovereignty to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be gran