info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Time for, We the people debate of the Treaty of Waitangi
36 views
Skip to first unread message
Gordon
Jan 19, 2024, 2:06:16 AMJan 19
to
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350151916/highly-contentious-leaked-ministry-doc-raises-issues-treaty-principles-bill
This is good news. It needs to be done.
The people of NZ need to have a discussion/debate what they understand the
traty means to them. It is a founding document but it does seem that that it
has no clear meaning to all people, or the majority.
What is its function 180 years after it was signed? What is it relevance in
to-days world. As it stands it seems that any one can interupt it to their
advantage.
It is going to be difficult and somewhat long but it has to be done. Let us
all hope that it can be be done with dignity and respect.
This is good news. It needs to be done.
The people of NZ need to have a discussion/debate what they understand the
traty means to them. It is a founding document but it does seem that that it
has no clear meaning to all people, or the majority.
What is its function 180 years after it was signed? What is it relevance in
to-days world. As it stands it seems that any one can interupt it to their
advantage.
It is going to be difficult and somewhat long but it has to be done. Let us
all hope that it can be be done with dignity and respect.
Tony
Jan 19, 2024, 2:49:51 AMJan 19
to
is in itself opposed to democracy. Talking is always, without exception, worth
doing.
So the folks who are opposed to the discussion are in need of education or
leadership.
Mutley
Jan 19, 2024, 3:18:08 PMJan 19
to
government bad and really pushing the race wars .
Rich80105
Jan 19, 2024, 3:33:48 PMJan 19
to
broader debate - sadly many people still appear to be ignorant of the
terms of the contract agreed by the British colonising power with the
indigenous people of New Zealand all those years ago. We can be
thankful that the public service is assisting with that discussion -
see for example discussion here:
https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2024/01/nationals-racism-breaches-te-tiriti.html
While the criticism of National should be perhaps more pointed towards
ACT and NZ First as well, it recognises that National were guilty of
allowing this repugnant proposal to be included in their coalition
agreement; it must be hugely embarrassing for them and Luxon in
particular, as it does indicate that they and Luxon in particular) was
probably not really acting in good faith - the early commentary was
that the agreement for a 1st reading was to give an opportunity for a
majority of MPs to be persuaded - that chance is now seen as
effectively nil, to the deserved embarrassment of Luxon. Instead he
has cast further doubt on the willingness of National to abide by the
terms of contracts, for that is the realty of proposals to change the
treaty without agreement from both sides - indeed the legislation
seeks unilateral change by the current majority in parliament.
The criticism of Labour for not condemning the proposed legislation is
also fair - it is important that on such a contentious issue voters
are able to assess the integrity of our politicians, and to have a
good debate on the principles of integrity of government and the
sanctity of contract.
Rich80105
Jan 19, 2024, 3:36:14 PMJan 19
to
message that this is not the "leadership" that is expected from them
as coalition leaders; and that Labour and The Green Party should be
more vocal in opposing the proposals.
Tony
Jan 19, 2024, 4:03:35 PMJan 19
to
liar.
Tony
Jan 19, 2024, 4:05:27 PMJan 19
to
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 07:49:48 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350151916/highly-contentious-leaked-ministry-doc-raises-issues-treaty-principles-bill
>>>
>>>This is good news. It needs to be done.
>>>
>>>The people of NZ need to have a discussion/debate what they understand the
>>>traty means to them. It is a founding document but it does seem that that it
>>>has no clear meaning to all people, or the majority.
>>>
>>>What is its function 180 years after it was signed? What is it relevance in
>>>to-days world. As it stands it seems that any one can interupt it to their
>>>advantage.
>>>
>>>It is going to be difficult and somewhat long but it has to be done. Let us
>>>all hope that it can be be done with dignity and respect.
>>Putting aside all talk of a referendum, any opposition to having the
>>discussion
>>is in itself opposed to democracy. Talking is always, without exception,
>>worth
>>doing.
>>So the folks who are opposed to the discussion are in need of education or
>>leadership.
>
Sarcsam removed.
>On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 07:49:48 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Gordon <Gor...@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
>>>https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350151916/highly-contentious-leaked-ministry-doc-raises-issues-treaty-principles-bill
>>>
>>>This is good news. It needs to be done.
>>>
>>>The people of NZ need to have a discussion/debate what they understand the
>>>traty means to them. It is a founding document but it does seem that that it
>>>has no clear meaning to all people, or the majority.
>>>
>>>What is its function 180 years after it was signed? What is it relevance in
>>>to-days world. As it stands it seems that any one can interupt it to their
>>>advantage.
>>>
>>>It is going to be difficult and somewhat long but it has to be done. Let us
>>>all hope that it can be be done with dignity and respect.
>>Putting aside all talk of a referendum, any opposition to having the
>>discussion
>>is in itself opposed to democracy. Talking is always, without exception,
>>worth
>>doing.
>>So the folks who are opposed to the discussion are in need of education or
>>leadership.
>
Rich80105 obviously agrees that the Maori interests who are opposed to
discussion should meet with all parties and talk. So far they have refused to
do so.
Crash
Jan 19, 2024, 4:33:04 PMJan 19
to
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 09:33:46 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Yet again Rich you ignore a fact pointed out to you many times - that
all parties to the Treaty of Waitangi are no longer alive so there can
be no concept of 'sanctity of contract' in any respect.
There is no reason to fear what the Government is doing. They have
committed to introduce an Bill which will attempt to define Treaty
principles as they should apply today. There are clearly many people
who fear what the consequences might be so they want this Bill
stopped, despite the fact that it has not been introduced yet and has
not gone through the Select Committee consultation process that will
ensue. There is a commitment from the current Government that it will
not progress further (at least through the current Parliamentary
term). The Bill will include provision for a binding referendum.
What is the harm in having this debate? Are those that oppose this
Bill so lacking in their confidence to win the debate and referendum
that they must stop the Bill?
--
Crash McBash
wrote:
all parties to the Treaty of Waitangi are no longer alive so there can
be no concept of 'sanctity of contract' in any respect.
There is no reason to fear what the Government is doing. They have
committed to introduce an Bill which will attempt to define Treaty
principles as they should apply today. There are clearly many people
who fear what the consequences might be so they want this Bill
stopped, despite the fact that it has not been introduced yet and has
not gone through the Select Committee consultation process that will
ensue. There is a commitment from the current Government that it will
not progress further (at least through the current Parliamentary
term). The Bill will include provision for a binding referendum.
What is the harm in having this debate? Are those that oppose this
Bill so lacking in their confidence to win the debate and referendum
that they must stop the Bill?
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
Jan 19, 2024, 4:59:24 PMJan 19
to
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 21:05:25 -0000 (UTC), Tony
it was Luxon that refused to meet with Maori, but to be fair to him he
did send a junior minister. I am not aware of Maori refusing to
discuss or being opposed to discussion.
did send a junior minister. I am not aware of Maori refusing to
discuss or being opposed to discussion.
Rich80105
Jan 19, 2024, 5:25:13 PMJan 19
to
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 10:33:02 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
That is of course not true. A contract signed between two peoples (the
British Crown and Maori Chiefs) was intended to survive those who
signed - contracts with companies can for example still be valid when
th e person that validly signed no longer works for the company. A
lease agreement for example can still be valid should the property be
sold to another owner.
>
>There is no reason to fear what the Government is doing. They have
>committed to introduce an Bill which will attempt to define Treaty
>principles as they should apply today. There are clearly many people
>who fear what the consequences might be so they want this Bill
>stopped, despite the fact that it has not been introduced yet and has
>not gone through the Select Committee consultation process that will
>ensue. There is a commitment from the current Government that it will
>not progress further (at least through the current Parliamentary
>term). The Bill will include provision for a binding referendum.
I agree that there is no reason to fear what this coalition government
is proposing - the largest party in that coalition has stated that it
will no get past the first reading. It is however a waste of time and
money, and has clearly fooled some people as to the nature of the
agreement, and upset many who understand the betrayal that such
legislation would be to the descendants of those who signed it in good
faith - especially with the knowledge that there was little faith
demonstrated by the representatives of the Crown for so many years.
>
>What is the harm in having this debate? Are those that oppose this
>Bill so lacking in their confidence to win the debate and referendum
>that they must stop the Bill?
No problem with the debate, but it was clearly just a ''negotiating
tactic by National who deserve the contempt of New Zealanders for not
stopping the crazy proposal from ACT when it was first presented, and
saving us huge amounts of money with fruitless discussion on a
proposal that we can be grateful appears to have no hope of success.
wrote:
British Crown and Maori Chiefs) was intended to survive those who
signed - contracts with companies can for example still be valid when
th e person that validly signed no longer works for the company. A
lease agreement for example can still be valid should the property be
sold to another owner.
>
>There is no reason to fear what the Government is doing. They have
>committed to introduce an Bill which will attempt to define Treaty
>principles as they should apply today. There are clearly many people
>who fear what the consequences might be so they want this Bill
>stopped, despite the fact that it has not been introduced yet and has
>not gone through the Select Committee consultation process that will
>ensue. There is a commitment from the current Government that it will
>not progress further (at least through the current Parliamentary
>term). The Bill will include provision for a binding referendum.
is proposing - the largest party in that coalition has stated that it
will no get past the first reading. It is however a waste of time and
money, and has clearly fooled some people as to the nature of the
agreement, and upset many who understand the betrayal that such
legislation would be to the descendants of those who signed it in good
faith - especially with the knowledge that there was little faith
demonstrated by the representatives of the Crown for so many years.
>
>What is the harm in having this debate? Are those that oppose this
>Bill so lacking in their confidence to win the debate and referendum
>that they must stop the Bill?
tactic by National who deserve the contempt of New Zealanders for not
stopping the crazy proposal from ACT when it was first presented, and
saving us huge amounts of money with fruitless discussion on a
proposal that we can be grateful appears to have no hope of success.
Tony
Jan 19, 2024, 6:04:56 PMJan 19
to
and his marxist mates refusing to discuss anything to do with the treaty. And
you know it - be honest for once.
Tony
Jan 19, 2024, 6:09:46 PMJan 19
to
nearlt always no longer valid. None of those people exist, Queen Victoris is
dead - your argument is fatuous.
>
>
>>
>>There is no reason to fear what the Government is doing. They have
>>committed to introduce an Bill which will attempt to define Treaty
>>principles as they should apply today. There are clearly many people
>>who fear what the consequences might be so they want this Bill
>>stopped, despite the fact that it has not been introduced yet and has
>>not gone through the Select Committee consultation process that will
>>ensue. There is a commitment from the current Government that it will
>>not progress further (at least through the current Parliamentary
>>term). The Bill will include provision for a binding referendum.
>I agree that there is no reason to fear what this coalition government
>is proposing - the largest party in that coalition has stated that it
>will no get past the first reading. It is however a waste of time and
>money, and has clearly fooled some people as to the nature of the
>agreement, and upset many who understand the betrayal that such
>legislation would be to the descendants of those who signed it in good
>faith - especially with the knowledge that there was little faith
>demonstrated by the representatives of the Crown for so many years.
A waste of time and money in debating a founding document? What planet are you
>
>>
>>There is no reason to fear what the Government is doing. They have
>>committed to introduce an Bill which will attempt to define Treaty
>>principles as they should apply today. There are clearly many people
>>who fear what the consequences might be so they want this Bill
>>stopped, despite the fact that it has not been introduced yet and has
>>not gone through the Select Committee consultation process that will
>>ensue. There is a commitment from the current Government that it will
>>not progress further (at least through the current Parliamentary
>>term). The Bill will include provision for a binding referendum.
>I agree that there is no reason to fear what this coalition government
>is proposing - the largest party in that coalition has stated that it
>will no get past the first reading. It is however a waste of time and
>money, and has clearly fooled some people as to the nature of the
>agreement, and upset many who understand the betrayal that such
>legislation would be to the descendants of those who signed it in good
>faith - especially with the knowledge that there was little faith
>demonstrated by the representatives of the Crown for so many years.
on? It is never a waste. It cannot be by definition. You are scared of what
might be revealed.
>
>>
>>What is the harm in having this debate? Are those that oppose this
>>Bill so lacking in their confidence to win the debate and referendum
>>that they must stop the Bill?
>
>No problem with the debate, but it was clearly just a ''negotiating
>tactic by National who deserve the contempt of New Zealanders for not
>stopping the crazy proposal from ACT when it was first presented, and
>saving us huge amounts of money with fruitless discussion on a
>proposal that we can be grateful appears to have no hope of success.
Garbage - not worth responding to.
>>
>>What is the harm in having this debate? Are those that oppose this
>>Bill so lacking in their confidence to win the debate and referendum
>>that they must stop the Bill?
>
>No problem with the debate, but it was clearly just a ''negotiating
>tactic by National who deserve the contempt of New Zealanders for not
>stopping the crazy proposal from ACT when it was first presented, and
>saving us huge amounts of money with fruitless discussion on a
>proposal that we can be grateful appears to have no hope of success.
Rich80105
Jan 19, 2024, 8:15:28 PMJan 19
to
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 23:04:54 -0000 (UTC), Tony
I don't know where you got that idea - Maori want it to be discussed,
and in particular they want the reality of what it says to be better
understood. Clearly ACT do not understand the commitments made as a
result of the Treaty, and want to legislate changes without widespread
discussion, or even complying with the Treaty in its current form.
National just want Luxon's mistake to go away (and some are
embarrassed that Luxon pretended that this is not a political issue so
would not attend a meeting with Maori, and NZ First are sitting on the
fence.
Read both the stuff url above and this:
https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/01/19/leaked-ministry-doc-warns-bill-could-break-spirit-and-text-of-treaty/
and in particular they want the reality of what it says to be better
understood. Clearly ACT do not understand the commitments made as a
result of the Treaty, and want to legislate changes without widespread
discussion, or even complying with the Treaty in its current form.
National just want Luxon's mistake to go away (and some are
embarrassed that Luxon pretended that this is not a political issue so
would not attend a meeting with Maori, and NZ First are sitting on the
fence.
Read both the stuff url above and this:
https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/01/19/leaked-ministry-doc-warns-bill-could-break-spirit-and-text-of-treaty/
Rich80105
Jan 19, 2024, 8:26:08 PMJan 19
to
Google is your friend - try it sometime:
The ability of citizens to bring civil legal proceedings against the
Crown and its servants is an important part of New Zealand's
constitution, and is protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act
1990. The Crown Proceedings Act 1950 is the principal statute that
governs the civil liability of the Crown.
and:
https://www.lawcom.govt.nz/our-work/crown-proceedings-act-1950/#:~:text=The%20ability%20of%20citizens%20to,civil%20liability%20of%20the%20Crown.
Enough?
a crazy proposal is clearly difficult for you; clearly he has been
told to get out of it with as little discussion as possible. National
promised ACT that they would allow it to be introduced to enable
sufficient MPs to be persuaded, to now deciding that no MP from
National will support it. Still Seymour probably didn't expect good
faith bargaining anyway . . .
Tony
Jan 19, 2024, 9:02:02 PMJan 19
to
>Google is your friend - try it sometime:
If you trust Google then you are even more stupid than you hvae proven to date.
>
>The ability of citizens to bring civil legal proceedings against the
>Crown and its servants is an important part of New Zealand's
>constitution, and is protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act
>1990. The Crown Proceedings Act 1950 is the principal statute that
>governs the civil liability of the Crown.
Off topic - entirely irrelevant.
>The ability of citizens to bring civil legal proceedings against the
>Crown and its servants is an important part of New Zealand's
>constitution, and is protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act
>1990. The Crown Proceedings Act 1950 is the principal statute that
>governs the civil liability of the Crown.
>
>and:
>https://www.lawcom.govt.nz/our-work/crown-proceedings-act-1950/#:~:text=The%20ability%20of%20citizens%20to,civil%20liability%20of%20the%20Crown.
>
>Enough?
You have added nothing and proven zero - as usual.
>and:
>https://www.lawcom.govt.nz/our-work/crown-proceedings-act-1950/#:~:text=The%20ability%20of%20citizens%20to,civil%20liability%20of%20the%20Crown.
>
>Enough?
Tony
Jan 19, 2024, 9:03:07 PMJan 19
to
getting tiresome.
Crash
Jan 20, 2024, 3:00:54 PMJan 20
to
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 11:25:12 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
That is nonsensical. A contract is binding only on the signatories
and in the case of something like the TOW the people they represent at
the time of the signing. Whether that is binding on others in the
future is for them to decide.
The other examples you cite (leases, employment contracts etc) are
irrelevant.
--
Crash McBash
and in the case of something like the TOW the people they represent at
the time of the signing. Whether that is binding on others in the
future is for them to decide.
The other examples you cite (leases, employment contracts etc) are
irrelevant.
Crash McBash
Crash
Jan 20, 2024, 3:58:34 PMJan 20
to
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 14:26:07 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
What a load of irrational rhetoric. Its all you have Rich.
The fact is that Act and National (with consent from NZF) agreed to
allow a bill to be introduced and sent to a select committee.
National's support from that point on is not committed but they may
well do so. Even if the Bill was to be passed, the result is no more
than a binding referendum.
Why do some Maori oppose this? It is an opportunity for them much
like anyone else, but it appears that they consider that this harmless
and non-binding ini9tiative needs to be stopped in its tracks.
--
Crash McBash
The fact is that Act and National (with consent from NZF) agreed to
allow a bill to be introduced and sent to a select committee.
National's support from that point on is not committed but they may
well do so. Even if the Bill was to be passed, the result is no more
than a binding referendum.
Why do some Maori oppose this? It is an opportunity for them much
like anyone else, but it appears that they consider that this harmless
and non-binding ini9tiative needs to be stopped in its tracks.
--
Crash McBash
Tony
Jan 20, 2024, 4:06:54 PMJan 20
to
Rich80105
Jan 20, 2024, 4:27:17 PMJan 20
to
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 09:58:32 +1300, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid>
That was the initial agreement - since then Luxon has clearly received
some advice - he has guaranteed that the bill will not get past the
select Committee
>
>Why do some Maori oppose this? It is an opportunity for them much
>like anyone else, but it appears that they consider that this harmless
>and non-binding ini9tiative needs to be stopped in its tracks.
What opportunity does it offer Maori? If it is harmless and
non-binding, what benefit is the proposed legislation to anyone?
some advice - he has guaranteed that the bill will not get past the
select Committee
>
>Why do some Maori oppose this? It is an opportunity for them much
>like anyone else, but it appears that they consider that this harmless
>and non-binding ini9tiative needs to be stopped in its tracks.
non-binding, what benefit is the proposed legislation to anyone?
Tony
Jan 20, 2024, 4:32:18 PMJan 20
to
to have that discussion - or is that not allowed anymore in marxism philosophy?
Crash
Jan 20, 2024, 4:43:08 PMJan 20
to
On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 10:27:20 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com>
That is in the coalition agreement between National and ACT (see the
'Strengthening Democracy' section on Page 9: "Introduce a Treaty
Principles Bill based on existing ACT policy and support it to a
Select Committee as soon as practicable."). Any advice given on this
will be been before the agreement was signed.
>>
>>Why do some Maori oppose this? It is an opportunity for them much
>>like anyone else, but it appears that they consider that this harmless
>>and non-binding ini9tiative needs to be stopped in its tracks.
>
>What opportunity does it offer Maori?
The same as anyone else.
>If it is harmless and
>non-binding, what benefit is the proposed legislation to anyone?
We will not know until the Bill is introduced as promised, where
everyone can see its contents and submit to the Select Committee.
The meeting this weekend seems opposed to this despite the Bill
wording not yet being published. That is irrational.
--
Crash McBash
'Strengthening Democracy' section on Page 9: "Introduce a Treaty
Principles Bill based on existing ACT policy and support it to a
Select Committee as soon as practicable."). Any advice given on this
will be been before the agreement was signed.
>>
>>Why do some Maori oppose this? It is an opportunity for them much
>>like anyone else, but it appears that they consider that this harmless
>>and non-binding ini9tiative needs to be stopped in its tracks.
>
>What opportunity does it offer Maori?
>If it is harmless and
>non-binding, what benefit is the proposed legislation to anyone?
everyone can see its contents and submit to the Select Committee.
The meeting this weekend seems opposed to this despite the Bill
wording not yet being published. That is irrational.
--
Crash McBash
Mutley
Jan 21, 2024, 4:37:58 PMJan 21
to
according to them is red necked racism
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Jan 24, 2024, 12:54:41 AMJan 24
to
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 09:36:16 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
> ... Seymour, Peters and Luxon are I am sure getting the
Today they were called a “Three-Headed Taniwha”. Which is ironic,
considering two of those heads are Māori ...
> ... Seymour, Peters and Luxon are I am sure getting the
> message that this is not the "leadership" that is expected from them as
> coalition leaders ...
Today they were called a “Three-Headed Taniwha”. Which is ironic,
considering two of those heads are Māori ...
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Jan 25, 2024, 3:24:43 PMJan 25
to
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 11:25:12 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
> A contract signed between two peoples (the British Crown and Maori
> Chiefs) ...
> A contract signed between two peoples (the British Crown and Maori
It was rather more than two peoples. Each tribe (and subtribe?) chose to
sign it or not. Some did, some didn’t.
Can a contract apply to those who didn’t sign it?
Rich80105
Jan 25, 2024, 3:54:36 PMJan 25
to
and others; and for their descendants. Hence the plural - "peoples" as
in Maori and English (now Maori and the NZ Government, as embodied in
"the Crown"). Yes some did not sign; and yes the Treaty provisions
have not always been abided by from either side.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Jan 25, 2024, 5:09:27 PMJan 25
to
Rich80105
Jan 25, 2024, 5:16:04 PMJan 25
to
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 22:09:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
<l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:53:40 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 20:24:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>> <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Can a contract apply to those who didn’t sign it?
>>
>> Each person signing was making a commitment on behalf of themselves and
>> others; and for their descendants. Hence the plural - "peoples" as in
>> Maori and English (now Maori and the NZ Government, as embodied in "the
>> Crown"). Yes some did not sign; and yes the Treaty provisions have not
>> always been abided by from either side.
>
>Is that a yes or a no?
Yes.
>On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:53:40 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 20:24:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>> <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Can a contract apply to those who didn’t sign it?
>>
>> Each person signing was making a commitment on behalf of themselves and
>> others; and for their descendants. Hence the plural - "peoples" as in
>> Maori and English (now Maori and the NZ Government, as embodied in "the
>> Crown"). Yes some did not sign; and yes the Treaty provisions have not
>> always been abided by from either side.
>
>Is that a yes or a no?
Ras Mikaere
Jan 26, 2024, 1:13:54 AMJan 26
to
THERE IS NO NEED FOR DEBATE -- ! !
THE TAINUI KIINGITANGA CONFEDERATION OF IWI
STILL HAVE YET TO SIGN THAT PIECE OF SHIT,
EVER CHANGING, FRAUDULENT PAAKEHAA DOCUMENT.
GO FUCK YOURSELVES PAAKEHAA.
AND USE A BALL POINT PEN THIS TIME.
Mutley
Jan 27, 2024, 6:28:08 PMJan 27
to
gravy train to see what they can screw out of the tax payers.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Jan 28, 2024, 12:45:48 AMJan 28
to
On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 11:15:11 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 22:09:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:53:40 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 20:24:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>> <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Can a contract apply to those who didn’t sign it?
>>>
>>> Each person signing was making a commitment on behalf of themselves
>>> and others ...
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 22:09:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:53:40 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 20:24:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>> <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Can a contract apply to those who didn’t sign it?
>>>
>>> Each person signing was making a commitment on behalf of themselves
>>
>>Is that a yes or a no?
>
> Yes.
Did those Māori who signed it, do so on behalf of those Māori who didn’t?
>>Is that a yes or a no?
>
> Yes.
Tony
Jan 28, 2024, 1:20:08 AMJan 28
to
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 11:15:11 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 22:09:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>> <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:53:40 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 20:24:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>>> <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Can a contract apply to those who didn’t sign it?
>>>>
>>>> Each person signing was making a commitment on behalf of themselves
>>>> and others ...
>>>
>>>Is that a yes or a no?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>Did those Māori who signed it, do so on behalf of those Māori who didn’t?
An intelligent question - well done.
>On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 11:15:11 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 22:09:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>> <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:53:40 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 20:24:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>>> <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Can a contract apply to those who didn’t sign it?
>>>>
>>>> Each person signing was making a commitment on behalf of themselves
>>>> and others ...
>>>
>>>Is that a yes or a no?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>Did those Māori who signed it, do so on behalf of those Māori who didn’t?
I await an answer with less than bated breath.
Rich80105
Jan 28, 2024, 5:35:16 AMJan 28
to
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 05:45:46 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Since all that signed were signing on behalf of others as well, then
certainly all who signed did so on behalf of others, but equally
clearly there were some tribes who did not sign - so nobody signed on
behalf of members of some tribes. Does that make sense to you?
<l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 11:15:11 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 22:09:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>> <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:53:40 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 20:24:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>>> <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Can a contract apply to those who didn’t sign it?
>>>>
>>>> Each person signing was making a commitment on behalf of themselves
>>>> and others ...
>>>
>>>Is that a yes or a no?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>Did those M?ori who signed it, do so on behalf of those M?ori who didn’t?
>On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 11:15:11 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 22:09:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>> <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:53:40 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 20:24:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>>> <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Can a contract apply to those who didn’t sign it?
>>>>
>>>> Each person signing was making a commitment on behalf of themselves
>>>> and others ...
>>>
>>>Is that a yes or a no?
>>
>> Yes.
>
Since all that signed were signing on behalf of others as well, then
certainly all who signed did so on behalf of others, but equally
clearly there were some tribes who did not sign - so nobody signed on
behalf of members of some tribes. Does that make sense to you?
Rich80105
Jan 28, 2024, 5:58:34 AMJan 28
to
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 06:20:04 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 11:15:11 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 22:09:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>> <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:53:40 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 20:24:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>>>> <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Can a contract apply to those who didnā€™t sign it?
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 11:15:11 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 22:09:24 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>> <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 09:53:40 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 20:24:40 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>>>> <l...@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Each person signing was making a commitment on behalf of themselves
>>>>> and others ...
>>>>
>>>>Is that a yes or a no?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>>Did those MÄ?ori who signed it, do so on behalf of those MÄ?ori who didnā€™t?
>>>>> Each person signing was making a commitment on behalf of themselves
>>>>> and others ...
>>>>
>>>>Is that a yes or a no?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>An intelligent question - well done.
>I await an answer with less than bated breath.
Oh you poor young lad, waiting with less than bated breath for all
>I await an answer with less than bated breath.
that time! Still you appear to have survived such lack of oxygen
frequently in the past; it comes through in your writing from time to
time . . .
Tony
Jan 28, 2024, 2:16:35 PMJan 28
to
Tony
Jan 28, 2024, 2:17:06 PMJan 28
to
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Feb 7, 2024, 11:44:53 PMFeb 7
to
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 23:34:22 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
> ... so nobody signed on behalf of members of some tribes.
Does the Treaty apply to those who didn’t sign?
> ... so nobody signed on behalf of members of some tribes.
Does the Treaty apply to those who didn’t sign?
Rich80105
Feb 8, 2024, 3:35:01 AMFeb 8
to
not sign?"
It gave:
"Some signed while remaining uncertain; others refused or had no
chance to sign. Almost all signed the Maori text. The Colonial Office
in England later declared that the Treaty applied to Maori tribes
whose chiefs had not signed. British sovereignty over the country was
proclaimed on 21 May 1840."
Ras Mikaere
Feb 13, 2024, 3:18:27 AMFeb 13
to
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" wrote in message news:uq1m83$1qvlk$3...@dont-email.me...
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 23:34:22 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
> ... so nobody signed on behalf of members of some tribes.
Does the Treaty apply to those who didn’t sign?
HAVE TREATED THE TAINUI AND OTHER NON-SIGNATORY IWI / TRIBES
WITH THE SAME EVIL WAYS . . . AS THEY DO WITH THE SELL-OUT
FAKE MĀORI OF THE NORTHLANDS --- OF WHICH THOSE DRUG
DEALERS, U.S.M.C., AND N.Z. POLICE -- ALL DO THEIR DRUG
RUNNING, DRUG DEALING ------------------
NAMELY: TORBY / BROWNS BAY
http://www.exorcist.org.nz/anzus_drug_mafias.html
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Feb 19, 2024, 12:11:04 AMFeb 19
to
On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 21:33:17 +1300, Rich80105 wrote:
> “The Colonial Office in England later declared that the Treaty applied
> to Maori tribes whose chiefs had not signed.”
Interesting. How do those tribes feel about that today?
> “The Colonial Office in England later declared that the Treaty applied
> to Maori tribes whose chiefs had not signed.”
Interesting. How do those tribes feel about that today?
0 new messages