THE  WAIMARINO  BLOCK  By Peter Martin & Monica Eastick


The Waimarino block is a particularly good example of bad conduct by a typically unscrupulous crown. When the crown claimed ownership of the largest land purchase in New Zealand history, the Waimarino block's, majority of land owners were...children.

Waimarino block part 1-1
Waimarino block part 2-1
waimarino block.png

It is important to point out that the Crown being in London is not the culprit.


The Crown that committed this crime was the New Zealand Land Company- that was Established in 1841.


In the purchase of the Waimarino Block the Crown has admitted that it did not pay a fair price, nor make the purchase honestly for the huge piece of land that bordered the Whanganui River and spanned up around Mt Ruapehu and Lake Taupo .

In the Crown's closing submissions to the Waitangi Tribunal       -Whanganui Lands Inquiry at Putiki Marae, it stated in 1886: "when purchasing the Waimarino block the Crown did not pay the right price and the Crown did not undertake the sale in good faith, so what does this mean?

In contract law, the implied covenant of:


1) good faith and

2) fair dealing


It is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other:


1) honestly

2) fairly,

3) and in good faith , so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract.

Theoretical considerations, in continental Europe is that there are three main functions of good faith:

(i)       interpretation;

(ii)      supplementation, (that is the insertion in the contract of duties to be loyal, to protect, to co-operate and to inform;)

(iii)     correction or limitation, to prevent abuse of right.

The example offered by Renard has argued that, in general, the concepts of fair dealing and good faith contain two broad prohibitions.

The first Prohibition is that parties must not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct.

Secondly, there is a prohibition against unconscionable conduct.

Renards definition of the Theoretical Considerations,however, may not be seen as being entirely satisfactory.


Mainly because  both New Zealand and Australia Crown Entity's partake mainly in deceptive and misleading conduct as part of the main statute mechanism here in our countrys.


Which in our opinion is a grotesque and disgusting practice that needs to be stopped immediately.

The Crowns unconscionable conduct may 'found' an action in equity, as the imposition of a requirement to act in good faith or engage in fair dealing would appear to be rooted in the common law. 


Primarily this is because, as already noted, it is envisaged that good faith would be implied in all contracts independent of the parties' intentions although they may be free to modify or negate the duty by express agreement.

In the Waitangi Tribunal recommends the tangata whenua be returned the title to land in the park and a substantial management role for them, I and others at Maori Ranger Security Division would recommend in addition to the return of title to the hapu owners that the whenua be returned to its original untitled status:


* as usacaption title which is the acquisition of a title or right to property by uninterrupted and undisputed possession and succession for a prescribed term.

*Which basically means returning all of the WAIMARINO BLOCK land to UNEXTINGUISHED NATIVE ABORIGINAL TITLE.

The 450,000-acre (182,108ha) block is between Pipiriki and Taumarunui, on the eastern bank of the Whanganui River, and runs in a triangle to the summit of Mt Ruapehu.

Most of the block is in the Whanganui National Park.


Wellington barrister and lecturer at Victoria University, Tom Bennion is currently representing three undisclosed groups, two with interests in the Waimarino block and one group with interest in the Pipiriki township.


Mr Bennion said "the block contained valuable forests and was on what was the planned route for the North Island main trunk railway."


Mr Bennion  mentioned that "if compensation was to be made he could not speculate on what the settlement would amount to, its an incalculable loss for the Whanganui hapu/whanau."


"Treaty settlements for other tribes have included a sum in cash, first rights to purchase surplus Crown properties, return without cost of properties of cultural importance, and a greater say in local environment management."


Mr Bennion also said that most of the land was purchased in 1886, with a few small reserves made. But there were multiple serious problems with the deal. "

For example it is cited that the Crown paid a local chief to take the application into the court, and even filled out the application form for him who was that chief?

So what’s next?


If it is admitted by the Crown that they cheated on the Waimarino Land Block deal and ripped underage children off, and the Crown have been told to give the land back , and still have done nothing about it? Then what does that mean?


In our opinion: the evidence constitutes 'Contract null and void'.


The Contract is 'null and void' because of the lack of the mental capacity of the underage children, who were contracted in the Waimarino Land Block Deal.


Also because of the guilty knowledge the Crown displayed equates to what is termed: Mens rea (/ˈmɛnz ˈreɪə/; Law Latin for "guilty mind")


'Mens rea' is the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action, or, lack of action would cause a crime to be committed.


'Mens rea' is a necessary element of many crimes, and its obvious they knew it was wrong before, and after they had committed this crime against children.


We can tell that the people involved in this Crown deal knew they had committed a crime, because the crown felt the need to lie to the court and their own people. They even went to the extent to employ an unnamed chief, who looked like they would own land, in order to make the so obviously crooked deal seem slightly normal.


The Crown went to this extend to cover their actions,  to reduce the risk of being caught and create dissension in its own people.


Peter Martin and Monica Eastick will be updating a video that discusses this crime against those Maori children shortly - and also be discussing the CRIME that current day female JUDGE McKENZIE from TAUPO  DISTRICT COURT  committed when she CONVICTED innocent  TURANGI Maori Land Owners for hunting on their own land ...on what small amount of land they have left.


How can JUDGE MCKENZIE in the month of August 2020 , convict the TURANGI  Maori Landowners for hunting on their own land?


The answer to that question is: Because all land in a Maori Trust really belongs to NZ GOV.


That is why we encourage all Land Owners to exit the NZ GOV and exit the Maori Trusts and return their land back into UNEXTINGUISGHED NATIVE ABORIGINAL LAND TITLE.

25 August, 2020

Ref Wai 903, A60, Ref Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896, Urewera District Native Reserve Act 1896, Contracts by Minors – 1966 Encyclopaedia of New Zealand

waimarino sales.jpg