Greetings Here is a copy of my LCRO correspondence my intention in providing a copy of this is to announce this update and progression of this case involving my ex lawyer who took on the job to represent my tow 1840 claim. Please do not approach the Court or jeopardise my case in any way. Letters of support may be helpful and I will also try to send this through to the Maori land court and also Waitangi Tribunal Thanks for your time and co-operation E Koa Tou Rangatiratanga. 13 June 2013 ATTENTION LCRO REVIEW OFFICER - LCRO REF: 3176 Thank you for meeting with me today 13 June 2013 @ 10:00am at the scheduled hearing to review my complaint to The New Zealand Law Society. My complaint was lodged with The New Zealand Law Society 7 July 2010. This complaint was pertaining to the service and conduct of my Lawyer Mr John Kahukiwa and his firm Corban and Revell. My complaint dated 7 July 2010 identified the following; 1. At the time of my complaint application 7/7/2010 there were no costs attached to resolving the complaint. a. However these applications, phone calls, attendances, documentation preparation, time and energy applied to resolve this complaint identify costs which were not evident at that time of the application 7/7/2010. 2. I identify my complaints pertaining to the working relationship between John Kahukiwa – Corban Revell. 3. On my complaint application dated 7/7/2010 these are the identified complaints; misrepresentation, Conflict of Interest, unprofessionalism, unnecessary delays and damages resulting in losses. 4. At the time I submitted my complaint application 7/7/2010 I was not entirely familiar with the legal jargon terms commonly used for complaint by NZLSC court. In my complaint application I just described my complaint utilizing my words from a logical perspective and a natural sense of law and justice system. 5. I am after all the Maori Judge Te Kaiwhakawa of I Ana Ture, the negotiated and approved sole extra legal system for New Zealand available to me as Te Kuini e hiahia ana ano via Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840. I am Te Kuini e hiahia ana ano E Ihowa Atua E rite ana Anna Hilda Henry Te Ingoanui. 6. All that I required from the NZLSC was a meeting to explain in the english language what I needed to produce to maintain my complaint 7/7/2010. Because in the Maori language I would wait for a public hearing date and give all my information through karakia (inoi) I am the legal minister of Te Wakaminenga. 7. After speaking with the lcro review officer I am adamant that my complaint falls within the boundaries of judgement against Mr Kahukiwa and Corban & Revell and compensation is a legal opportunity available to me,under this ruling. 8. This behavior by John is not supported in the National court legislation pertaining to the Rules of conduct for lawyers. 9. The result of this behavior has contributed to unnecessary delays and damages resulting in losses to me personally and to my case as a whole. 10. My lawyer John insisted that he had begun the process of registering my claim and I would have an update of his work in the near future. This did not eventuate Mr Kahukiwa and James his assistance told me this information which is recorded on the audios but did not infact follow through with what they had said that they were awaiting followup from the court. 11. In todays hearing I provided LCRO with a copy of my whakapapa (geneology) which is an advantageous part of my treaty of waitangi claim and also identifies me as the direct descendant to the Kingitanga E Ihowa Atua. This whakapapa is registered in Tikanga I am Ngatipakau and Johns assistant James sighted and signed receipt of this original whakapapa. I would not have divulged a lot of this private information if infact I was aware that these lawyers had no intention of representing me. My whakapapa was hidden away since 2000 and given to me by a Rangatira Nanny Rea, it contains land maps of my land in Tainui and further down which you can sight on my link to Te Akoranganui links listed at the end of this report. 12. Again I thank you for this opportunity through this hearing and this review I was also able to expand on these matters which I identified in my NZLS Complaint Application 7 July 2013 for example. 13. I was referred to John Kahukiwa he is identified as a fluent maori speaker highly praised in the legal arena. This was the caliber I sought to represent my treaty of Waitangi case. I have also had representation by Corban and Revell before in a paternity matter and know from this experience that they are a successful and professional law firm. 14. Over the duration of our working relationship 2008-2010 I had approximately 6 meetings where in some of these meetings John had assigned me work to do, he explained that this would help my case. 15. John also assured me that his firm and him would follow up on other work such as submitting my claim into the Waitangi tribunal based upon his recommendation for securing for me legal aid funding. The rest of our communications existed via telephone and email. 16. John instructed me to make contact with people from my Marae in regards to my complaint to the Maori Land Court in his capacity of providing legal service to me. Sometimes when people are aware that you have legal representation they are more obliged to follow the rules and be more co-operative. 17. Meetings took place with John Kahukiwa and James both employess of Corban and Revel 27/05/2009, 16/07/2009, 2010 not all the hui were recorded by audio. You have confirmed receipt of these audio recordings, please refer to letter from NZLCS Vernon Tamatea dated 22 October 2010. The letter supports that these audio recordings of different meetings are clear and audible. 18. In these audio recordings I am awaiting progress reports for the work that John and Co. had agreed to do, and the work that John set me to do. At a later stage because I want to help my case progress I asked if there was any other work I could do. a. To support our working relationship I have provided documentation we shared I note that John relies on an unsigned agreement submitted by me, this does not eliminate the working relationship which existed to be finalized with the return of my registered applications. 19. In the capacity of providing legal service to me Mr John Kahukiwa and Co. participated in Hui Te Paparahi o te raki conducted in the North. 20. His role was not to gather information or to keep updated with Iwi focus as I thought unbeknown to me I was told by whanau that he spoke in these consultation hui giving information pertaining to Tino Rangatiratanga and Rangatiratanga. 21. Johns participation in these hui is a conflict of interest and he has compromised my information by promoting a different view of the meaning of Tino Rangatiratanga and Rangatiratanga. This view of Johns maybe shared with other members of the iwi but this is not supportive of Johns working relationship with me and does not benefit or persue the bests interests pertaining to my treaty claim, hence a conflict of interest. 22. The Treaty of Waitangi states that I am the legal translator of the Maori information E rite ana te kaiwakarite, there was never a legal English The Treaty of Waitangi 1840 – The translation was put together to help the people understand the purpose of the treaty at a later stage. This is supported by legislation which states I am the legal translator of the maori information Te Kaiwakarite and the owner of the maori language E Ihowa Atua. 23. This participation by John and others in these hui have contributed to a non legislated interpretation of the treaty of a Waitangi 1840. This is called Pakeha Kino without Authority. 24. By misrepresentation I am meaning that these actions by John and co. are not supportive to his service to me, or to my interests or my pursued treaty of Waitangi 1840 claim the basis of our working relationship.But whilst accepting my information he has provided definition and representation pertaining to Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840. 25. The compensation I seek is for the damages to me personally. 26. In maori there is no authorized speaker to the treaty of Waitangi and its contents but myself in terms of identifying treaty grievance and claims for settlement. Although John is a fluent speaking maori he does not possess the knowledge of I Ana Ture. This is a common problem within Maoridom, there are many people claiming to speak fluent maori but there interpretation of maori is incorrect because they are not the owners of the language. 27. I am registered as the owner of the language. In Johns deliverance of very important definitions within a separate forum he has contributed to the misguided definition of Tino Rangatiratanga and Rangatiratanga this has created a different viewpoint from the legislated purpose and the actual legislated intention of Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840. 28. I find Johns actions to be unprofessional because the maori legislation is written in Fluent Maori and so is the treaty of Waitangi and good researchers will find definite research that supports these facts I hereby identify in this communications to you. 29. The unnecessary delays I attribute to John having so much information pertaining to me and my Treaty of Waitangi Greivance and waiting 2 years before he let me know that he no longer wanted to provide legal service to me. A part of this information is recorded on the audio recordings where I identify my mental health involvement as a client due to Gang victimization evident during this time of my Treaty of waitangi claim This Termination to me from John was provided via email. 30. The unnecessary delays have hindered the progress of my case, and resulted in this complaint due to misconduct and lack of agreed service. 31. The losses I have incurred include no submission of my treaty of Waitangi grievance; my claim is not for ownership of the land I already have this legislation. My grievance is more about having my slaves to uphold and maintain my authority to maintain my position in government and do my work and make the necessary corrections for the agreement of Te treaty of Waitangi 1840 to be upheld within government, and the public in alignment with the I Ana ture (the treaty of waitangi 1840 maori legislation). 32. Within my claim I have also requested the establishment of Puangi Ta Te Manawa Te Wharewaka o Hauora I personally designed this to vessel the work of my Ministry Te Wakaminenga. These delays have meant that the government have paid other non authorised peoples for work which is only authorised to my identity. Although this is a fact I do not wish to go to deep into disclosure because the costs associated to these losses are for the forum of a different court because they exceed the compensation amount and jurisdication of this court. 33. The more relevant damages and losses have occurred due to Johns misconduct where he and James have agreed to submit and register my claim, and to apply for legal aid of which I am entitled which I have not received confirmation of any of these agreed work submissions. 34. Although the court cannot support that my application for these funds would have been successful I would reiterate that I was referred to John in his professional capacity not only as a lawyer but also as a maori elite one of the best in the treaty of waitangi and maori land court arena. 35. With the support of Johns firm Corban and Revell who have clearly expanded their high profile organization since moving from Henderson to Central Park a much more extravagant worksite and in addition with staff increases almost tripling their staff numbers are signs which support the success of this firm. 36. I think it would not be appropriate for this court LCRO to undermine John and Corban and Revells determination set of tactics and techniques for achievement. 37. They are professionals and these funding applications apply to monies below 25 thousand dollars which comprises of a grant for 15 thousand dollars for some kind of legal assistance maybe research and also legal aid. The legal aid money would have been used to pay themselves so I find it difficult to believe I would not have been awarded these monies. In past cases my lawyers have sent these applications off before on my behalf and I have always been supported with favourable granted legal aid. 38. The other damages I have incurred are reputable damages, after John and Corban and Revell did this to me I have found it difficult to obtain legal representation again for my treaty of Waitangi application. 7 of the other recommended and local lawyers I found all work for Corban and Revell. They were not interested. I think word had spread around that I had laid this complaint to the NZLCS for Johns involvement with my Treaty of Waitangi and Maori Land Court claim. 39. Other damages included is the trust factor, having to share my kingitanga knowledge and information with another stranger, with another legal representative each time I introduce myself and explain my grievance, Tony Shepherd also did this to me took my information identified his support to help and then did not contact me again. So I also have little faith after this experience in information sharing within the legal arena, and my feelings have sincerely been hurt. 40. This delay to register my treaty of Waitangi grievance claim has diverted the treaty of Waitangi settlements process to a political forum rather than the legal forum or its sole purpose a will to identify my inheritance as the land owner Te Kuini e hiahia ana ano e rite ana the Authorised Judge and Atua (Rangatiratanga) owner of the maori language and legal translator amongst other various titles and deeds. 41. These damages and losses of land transactions meetings pertain to these difinitions of Tino Rangatiratanga and Rangatiratanga which support my sole identity and chieftainship ownership. Not according to John and others, although I am the only living heir identified on Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840. HRM Elizabeth II of England was identified as Te Kuini o Ingarangi to manage my estate until my arrival the legal legislation including the 1975 treaty of waitangi act does not allow for any legislative changes or transactions other than management costs which are accessible without even touching my inheritance as part of this self money making deposit investment scheme put into government to protect my inheritance. 42. The financial costs I could have enjoyed if my treaty claim was registered by John are not just specified to land ownership. The Treaty of Waitangi claim submitted by us would have ensured that the prospects and public or government wanting to access my lands, or survey or conduct transactions knew that I am the legal land owner to contact as stipulated in the Treaty of Waitangi and supported within my other relevant documentation. 43. These costs and prices I could have identified and promoted of which I would be eligible for payments just to meet with prospective buyers of people wanting to access my lands to mine for minerials, oil, gold,or agree to land leases. These are consultation meetings I could hold without necessarily having made any actual land transactions. 44. I have incurred other damages which have been publicly identified within NZ media, hui and government advertising and promotions. 45. The damages include Mining on my lands, trespassing, Theft of minerals, gold, water, oil, non authorized and non legislated Buildings on my land, non authorized and non legislated speakers for my land and for my iwi. These damages I associate to the fact that John and Co. assured as recorded on these audio recordings that my claims had been submitted. 46. Government Supported this direct breach to the treaty of Waitangi 1840, of illegal representation and non authorized eligibility to support a public submission of Treaty of Waitangi claims rather than uphold the legal intention of my representation by me the legal identified heir. 47. Although I can be compensated through the treaty grievance system some of these damages are irreversible. Damages which would have arisen if there was no misconduct by John and Co. and if their was no conflict of interest and if there were more assertive penalties for premeditated law offenders. I would hope LCRO would share this view for many New Zealanders are prosecuted within the legal system based upon crimes of a lesser nature and spend time in prison as well as having to pay reparation costs which are awarded to the victims and also the courts. 48. The other losses I have suffered are the funds for which my lawyer Mr John Kahukiwa said he would apply for on my behalf pertaining to legal aid which were never forthcoming. 49. I also identify the time and energy spent, wasted a part of my life in this complaints system, which should not go without recognition. At least the court people get paid for their time and energy. 50. Correspondence you requested to support my complaint are identified below I will have to forward individual copies of these email to your identified lcro court officer Philippa Geere-Watson at Philippa [email protected] 1. Emails include: I will have to forward each email to the identified officer at the court Philippa Gere but I did take a copy of my court file and I am aware that you are in possession of most of this information. 2. Email of 11 October 2009 3 Attachments to John Kahukiwa Subject: Maori land Court Application 2008 - Information supportive and pertaining to this case and to my service Puangi Ta Te Manawa which support my sole identity and criteria and authority for tow 1840 claim. 3. Email of 19 October 2009 Sent to John Kahukiwa at Corban and Revell. Email attachments include Information pertaining to my model service eg. PTTM Brochure tow 1840 claim and information pertaining to my childrens programme I designed as a part of my sole identity and instruction none of this has ever been done before. 4. Email of 6 December 2009 I discuss the following up upon instructions from my lawyer Mr John Kahukiwa. And again not knowing the english legal jargon I am wanting to get another update on the progress of my Maori Land court application. Thank you very much for your time, I am the Maori Judge of the Kotianga I Ana Ture. I hope this information is enough to support my complaint. I have one Judge already identified publicly as a corrupt officer of law enforcement due to corruption in the Family court. This became necessary when the English system did not give to me the exclusive rights and equal opportunities of a Judge authorised within the New Zealand Legal Law System pertaining to the first legal document of this country I am solely identified in Te Wakaputanga and Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840. Could you please support my complaint for compensation based upon the legally identified amounts which fall into the jurisdiction of this court. E koa Tou Rangatiratanga. LINK TO KA TIKA PANUI MAY 2012 NEW ZEALANDS PANUI https://plus.google/photos/113323812574221996075/albums/5889951518085219121 PS: Due to my treaty claim representing the majority number of people I have to provide regular updates on relevant cases and information and I do this by announcing the progress of this complaint to the public. My intention is to keep my iwi informed as my chieftainship pertains to the whole of Aotearoa Nu Tirani New Zealand & Ngapuhi nui tonu e.
Posted on: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 07:22:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015