Constitutional Advisory Panel, Treatygate

When did we vote to change our name to Aotearoa New Zealand?

Constitutional Advisory Panel - email - Aotearoa NZ
Email from the Constitutional Advisory Panel,
arrogantly assuming you support a national name change. 

In its first email of the year, the Constitutional Advisory Panel has already concluded that you want to change the name of your country.

When did you vote on that, you may well ask?

You didn’t? Tough.

In lock-step with all mesmerised Maoriphiles who infest our academo-bureaucratic complex, this faux-neutral, fawningly racist panel has airily decided that the nation founded and known for 370 years as ‘New Zealand’ is now ‘Aotearoa New Zealand’.

The Duplicitous Dozen have nailed their colours to the mast, and those colours are brown.

It’s a decision dripping with irony.

After all, shouldn’t a group of constitutional advisors be the very first people to insist that any tinkering with the most sacred parts of a nation’s identity — such as its name — must first be signed off by a majority of voters?

Shouldn’t the appropriate constitutional vehicle for such a momentous change be a referendum?

Not an email?

So who are these constitutional con artists who want to engage with you with a steamroller?

CONstitutional Advisory Panel - IN ON THE

The rigged panel of Griever Maori and Appeaser Pakeha
charged by the National-Maori alliance with misrepresenting
your desire for a Treatyfied constitution.

They are, from left: Dr Leonie Pihama, Hinurewa Poutu, Emeritus Professor Dr Ranginui Walker, Hon. John Luxton, Deborah Coddington, Sir Tipene O’Regan, Emeritus Professor Dr John Burrowes QC, Professor Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Peter Tennent, Peter Chin, Bernice Mene, and Sir Michael Cullen.

And this is their first progress report on what they amusingly refer to as The ‘Conversation’ So Far.

These people believe in skirting the courtesies of democracy.

In holding themselves in contempt of the court of public opinion.

In overriding the will of the people whose views they are charged with seeking.

And why are they afraid to talk openly with us, the pesky majority?

Because these unelected, unrepresentative political stooges know full well that the vast non-Maori majority do not share their enthusiasm for such things as ditching the only name this country has ever had.

About which I must briefly digress…

New Zealand was Nu Tirani in 1840

Before the arrival of the British, Maori had no collective name for the country as a whole.

In fact, they didn’t even think of it as a country. Because it wasn’t.

These islands were simply a battleground for dozens of violently independent, crypto-communist cannibal dictatorships, whose shared a common hobby:  butchering, enslaving, and eating each other.

When, in 1840, the chiefs very sensibly decided to bury their hatchets and let the British run a proper country, they called it ‘Nu Tirani’ — the closest a language with no Zs, Ls or Ds could get to ‘New Zealand’.

‘Aotearoa’ was the Maori name for the North Island until well into the twentieth century. Apirana Ngata referred to it as that in his brilliant Treaty of Waitangi — An Explanation in 1922.

As Matthew Dentith helpfully confirmed on this blog recently, the proper Maori way of saying New Zealand is ‘Aotearoa Me Te Wai Pounamu’ — ‘North Island and South Island’.

Some (though not Matthew) would say that was a bit of a mouthful for the name of a country.

Repeat, repeat, repeat

But back to the Constitutional Steamroller Panel.

The change management strategy of these and other name-changers is to publish their unauthorised name whenever they can get away with it. Like Hitler, they know that if  they repeat the Big Lie often enough, it will sink into the public mind as fact.

(They know this trick works. They’ve been using it for decades to embed their twisted history of the Treaty.)

Telling evidence of this name-change-by-stealth strategy is provided in the book Scooped: The Politics and Power of Journalism in — you guessed it — Aotearoa New Zealand.

Here’s a sample page where authors Sean Phelan, Verica Rupar and Martin Hirst use the name Aotearoa New Zealand seven times and New Zealand twice.

Aotearoa New Zealand x 7 - Sean Phelan et al

Seven ANZs and two NZs. Mesmerised Maoriphiles
trying to change the name of our country by stealth.

A good analogy for the incremental name change is the ‘merger’ of the ANZ and National banks. (Really a takeover by the ANZ.)

In the beginning, there were two separate banks: ANZ and National — just as there are two (Maori and English) names for our country: Aotearoa and New Zealand.

Then ANZ took over the National — just as the Aotearoans would like to take over New Zealand.

And for a time, to appease the customers of the National,  the ANZ owners considerately shared double billing as ANZ National — just as the appeasers (if not the grievers) now speak of Aotearoa-New Zealand.

ANZ National

As with ANZ National, so with Aotearoa New Zealand?

But then, the inevitable end game.

After everyone had got used to the takeover, the ANZ quietly dropped the National Bank name, Suddenly, it was just ANZ.

And so it will happen with New Zealand, if the Treatygaters have their way.

First, Aotearoa-New Zealand. Then simply Aotearoa.

Look at this stamp, in which our official name has been downgraded to an afterthought. Clear evidence that this process is already underway…

Stamping out New Zealand

Stamp - Aotearoa taniwha

The downgrading of New Zealand has already begun.

Look, I won’t object if we decide to call our country Aotearoa, or Aotearoa Me Te Wai Pounamu, or even John Keyland for that matter.

(I didn’t say I’d like it. But I won’t object.) Not if the change is decided by referendum.

And that’s my point. We, the people — not they, the elite — must decide.

After announcing its new name for the country, the Constitutional Advisory Panel’s email continues with its pretence that it actually cares what you think…

Constitutional Advisory Panel - email - seek range of views

A “broad range of views”?
Not if the Te Papa Treaty ‘Debates’ are any guide.

We’ve got until the end of June to make sure they hear our views — whether they want to or not.

I’ll be contacting them to see if they’re honest enough to front up to a public meeting, as co-chair John Burrowes told me they “almost certainly” would.

I, for one, would engage with them civilly, provided they do the same.

But of that I can’t be confident, given the tweetings of Panellist Leonie Pihama after my appearance on Native Affairs with Joris de Bres and Ella Henry last year…

 Leonie Pihama - racist tweet

After watching me advocating racial equality on Maori TV,
Constitutional Advisory Panellist Leonie Pihama condemned
me as a right wing redneck and racist

Add to that Deborah Coddington, who has been lauding the Treaty ‘Debate’ speech of Matthew Palmer on her Facebook page, and being sarky to anyone who doesn’t favour the Palmer plan to put the Treaty into law.

Meanwhile, I hope you Wellingtonians will join me at the latest Te Papa Treaty ‘Debate’ — this one specifically about the Constitutional Review — this Thursday at 6.30pm.

Those planning to bear witness to the latest farce — and perhaps chat to an Advisory Panellist or two — might like to email me at

178 thoughts on “When did we vote to change our name to Aotearoa New Zealand?

  1. As to the legitimacy of the Littlewood Document I will refer you to ‘English Drafts of the Treaty of Waitangi, 2004, by Dr.Phil Parkinson in an extract at Chapter 7, page 62 Parkinson states as follows;

    “However, on examining the Littlewood Document myself, in 2000, I immediately recognised the handwriting as Busby’s(James Busby). The document is, as shown above, a back translation from Maori into English, from the printed text in Maori. It is of historical interest but is of no constitutional significance. It is not a draft of the Treaty nor is it a copy of it. It is simply a translation of the Treaty, as Loveridge(Dr.Donald Loveridge) might well have observed, not a very good translation”.

    So, there it is. Not only is the Littlewood Document unsigned it is according to one expert who examined it not a draft of the Treaty of Waitangi, but simply a translation of the Treaty.

  2. You are correct, Ngamoko: that is what Parkinson said – in 2006.

    But some time before that, in an email to Martin Doutre, he said the opposite. He agreed with Martin that it most likely was the final draft.

    Who ‘convinced’ him to change his mind?

    Remember, he had already committed heresy in the eyes of the Treatygaters by carelessly reporting that the handwriting was Busby’s.

  3. International law states that when there is more than one Treaty and one is in the native language, that in the native language takes precedence over all others.

  4. Ngamoko. All Mr. Parkinson proved is that he is an extremely poor historian and is desperately trying to cover his tracks for prior statements that have subsequently proved false.
    There is a common psychological phenomena among people who have spent much time and energy pursuing a direction that subsequently proves false or unjustifiable. They often tend to keep going. Those at last brave enough to admit the error and change direction, when asked why they kept going even when the error was clear, reply that they had spent so long working for the other side that to change direction would seem to mean that their whole life had been worthless. Many find it impossible to face this fact and easier just to ignore the truth and keep going down the false path.

    But lets go down the path you insist is the correct one and see where it leads us:
    1) The treaty signed by the majority of tribal chiefs was the Maori version. This does not give any of the modern meanings that .have been attempted to be made. The Maori claims made over the last 30 years cannot be made under the Maori version as it made no allowances for any of these meanings.
    2) The treaty signed by a small number of chiefs at Waikato Heads was the poorly translated English version. Lets ignore the fact that these chiefs signed this in the belief that it was an accurate translation of the Maori version – they expected to be bound by the original Maori translation. You however insist they be granted the rights accorded to the actual document they signed, where the English was more ambiguous that the Maori original. If you want to go down this path then it is ONLY the descendants of these few chiefs that have ANY grounds to make claims under the ambiguous meanings. ALL the rest of Maori signed the MAORI version that has none of these ambiguities. Therefore ALL of the claims of the last 30 years (apart possibly from the descendants of the Waikato Head signings – and most of these are still dubious) are CLEARLY FALSE AND FRAUDULENT as they have NO basis under the Maori treaty.
    3) So: ALL settlements apart from possibly the Waikato Heads tribal signings need to be returned along with compensation paid by these tribes to the rest of us for depriving us by fraud of our resources and income since the various settlements were paid.

    Your own logic has lead to this inescapable conclusion.

  5. Ngamoko, you listen but you still refuse to hear. No-one said the Littlewood document ,which was unsigned as we all know, was the true Treaty. The MAORI VERSION IS THE TRUE TREATY and it was translated from the Littlewood version. For those who don’t speak Maori, all they have to do to know what the Maori version said was read the Littlewood one. The English version in legislation is diffferent in several respects from the Littlewood one and was dated a day earlier than the Littlewood one, so therefore was an earlier draft and should not be in legislation.

    So to repeat – the Littlewood version was a draft and therefore was unsigned but it was the version from which the Maori version (which was signed) was translated.

    It doesn’t take much common sense to know that people whose first language was English would first draft a document in English and then have it translated into Maori.

    Is this too hard to take in??!!

  6. Conspiracy theory JA I’m not convinced that Parkinson wrote that email to Doutre. One way to find out is to contact Dr.Parkinson himself. Who knows it could be a forgery.

  7. Helen you are speaking double talk on the one hand you are saying that the LD was not the Treaty, then on the hand you are saying that the Maori version of the LD is the the Treaty. Which is it Helen? I don’t think you know yourself?

  8. Hamish under International Law if a treaty is written in two langauges then both languages are treated equally which was the case with the TOW.

  9. Aye?? thats exactly the point Helen was trying to make, the signed maori translated from the LD is the true Treaty! I can’t quite work out how that is speaking double..

  10. Then what about the signed English version of the Treaty, Hamish? Signed by Hobson and 40 chiefs. Is that not also the true Treaty?

  11. Mike you may have convinced yourself and your fellow travellers on this site as to the logic of your argument. But you won’t convince Maori. And Maori cannot be ignored as they have too much economic and political clout for that to happen.

  12. Someone please correct me if I’m wrong …. but from what I have read, International law regarding treaties states that if there is any disagreement over translations or content of treaties that are written in two languages(in the TOW case English and Maori), that the treaty written in the “native” language is deemed to be the legal document. Therefore it would follow that the Maori version of the TOW should undoubtedly be considered the only legal TOW.

  13. Judging from all the flack that I have been taking from folks on this blog regarding the Littlewood Document it appears that I have undermined an important aspect of the Treatygate and Colourblind campaign. You may have convinced yourselves as to the authenticity of the LD but academics such as Dr’s. Parkinson and Loveridge remained unconvinced. More importantly you will not convince Maori either, the other half of the equation. But more damming was Dr. Paul Moon’s revelation that it was unsigned which renders the LD useless in terms of treaty obligations.

  14. Steve, read Article 33 International Law on Treaties which states that if a treaty is written in two or more languages than all languages are treated equally.

  15. Steve, as to your point if there are disputes or disagreemants over translations then a Court will ultimately decide the outcome, not members of this blog.

  16. In summary Ngamoko – your arguments are bogus if you regard the Littlewood treaty as the correct English version and your arguments are bogus if you regard the Maori version as the real thing. Whichever way you turn you are screwed by your own poor thinking. QED.

  17. “too much economic and political clout” haha oh you’ve really made your intentions widely known now. How much more millions do you want? This is all about twisting and bending all the original best intentions of the Crown and the maori chiefs who signed it into one big ugly feeding frenzy for maori.

  18. Face reality Hamish! Maori are simply too strong economically and politically to be pushed around like our brothers and sisters in Australia and Canada.

  19. Oh dear you hit the nail on the head. They have pinned their hopes and dreams on the ld. No wonder they are getting feral, ngamoko, you are bursting their bubble

  20. Ngamoko says: “Judging from all the flack that I have been taking from folks on this blog regarding the Littlewood Document it appears that I have undermined an important aspect of the Treatygate and Colourblind campaign.”

    hehe that’s funny. Do you really think that the LD is the sole argument against the whole treaty gravy train rort? It’s not even the main argument, hell it’s not even the main issue. Just a useful bit of evidence, added to the mile high pile of other evidence, on how the truth continues to be either hushed up and hidden or distorted for the gain of wealth and power by unscrupulous, greedy people.

    I hope it doesn’t hurt too much when you are eventually knocked off your high horse. (which is of course a horse you wouldn’t have if we hadn’t provided brought them here).

    “too much economic and political clout” – that’s a joke too. Political clout? what – a 74 year old Sharples, hanging on, just, to his high paid position so in a few years he can be the richest old maori in the cemetery. Running a party who have lost so much support and so many members they are now hoping to encourage pakeha to join them! lol
    Economic clout? who with? Maori business only benefits maori people. A tiny percentage of the population, do you think we’d even miss it? We wouldn’t even notice it was gone!

  21. No, Aamy political clout in having seven Maori seats in parliament and Maori business having an asset base valued at $39 billion. That’s what I mean by economic and political clout.

  22. You’re welcome Steve it won’t advance your cause much if you look carefully at Articles 31, 32 and 33. If there are disputes over translations and differences between treaty texts then they should be resolved by mutual agreement.

  23. It is easy to condemn those rabble rousing part-Maori people for their greed, but unfortunately, if the positions were reversed, you would find the majority of unachieving pakehas would jump at the chance to get something for nothing. It is a human frailty common to the “you owe us a living” sectors of any society.
    Perhaps we should pity those who are in denial concerning their own mixed ancestry and who desperately grasp at the past to justify their present day failings.
    I honour those part-Maori who have risen above tribalism and become part of an integrated society.

  24. I couldn’t agree with you more Mitch. Except maybe for the ‘pity’ bit. I don’t pity them because the tactics they are employing are holding their own people back, and I think that’s despicable.

  25. I think many are missing the point here, whether he is factually correct or not NN so far to my mind has the situation displayed more in line with what is the current situation.

    The treaty means whatever, whoever is in power dictates that it means.

    It was never accepted that the . treaty was a partnership until Lord Cooke of Thorndon said it was, there was no such thing as treaty principles until Geoff Palmer said there was. All the claims that are coming because Key sent Sharples off to the UN conference on indegenous peoples rights were not in the pipeline till Key made this decision.

    To my way of thinking if the source of political power is not changed then we will be getting more of the same.

    If the constitution is based on the TOW, then the final arbiter of any dispute will be the supreme court.

    We all know who the chief justice of the supreme court is and her views on these matters.

  26. Ha Ha Ha Ngamoko.

    Debating 101:

    1) To indulge in a genuine debate you must have a principle to espouse, construct your argument around that principle and defend it. BUT you have no genuine principle and no defence for it. FAIL

    2) You must argue with regard to your principle and show how every facet of your argument leads back to the principle you espouse. BUT as you have no genuine principle to espouse you are unable to do this. FAIL

    3) You must never contradict or offer any argument with which you contradict your principle. BUT you change your evidence and attempted points on virtually every post, contradicting what you wrote and espoused previously. FAIL.

    Oh dear.

    I do agree with you on Maori political clout though. Yes Maori have managed to engineer quite a powerful racist entity out of a combination of political power with MMP and the racist Maori seats and a large and wealthy racist tribal financial base stolen from universal ownership where it belongs. It will not be easy to see justice done and all of this returned to where it benefits all as it used too. Still, I would advise you not to get too smug and complacent. A similar situation existed in South Africa where a powerful minority held the majority of the wealth in the country and dictated how the rest must live. This ended. Our oppression will end too. You just need to decide how and where you write your name into the story of its destruction.

  27. Lol wow ngamoko you have them really upset, on the defensive. It sounds like a gang bash the way they are carrying on. Classic bullying tactics

  28. Gawd mikie. Spare the dramatics. And just because you say fail, doesnt make it a fail. Ngamoko is putting you all to shame.

  29. The maori seats in parliament, NN. They could be abolished very easily if we had the right people in govt.

    And I don’t wish that because I wish to see maori disadvantaged, but because there should not be any seats in parliament based on race. Anybody who is in parliament should be there because they have been democratically voted to be there.

    Wishing to retain the maori seats is basically saying that you don’t believe any maori are good enough to get there by their own merits. It’s just another hand out from the taxpayers/govt.

  30. Debate 101 Mike.

    1. Neither do you. Fail.

    2. Neither can you. Fail.

    3. No. You fail.

    4. South Africa was enforced apartheid, enforced by the police and the army. Do you see that occuring in NZ? No. So, you fail again.

    Well done Mike you failed on all four counts.

  31. No, Aamy the Maori seats could not be abolished easily with, or, without the right people in government as Mr Key soon found out. You see a majority of Maori people still want the Maori seats to be retained.

  32. The greatest blow to democracy in NZ was the cutting of ties to the Privy Council. Here we had an unbiased offshore judiciary that could overrule our highest courts if the basic laws of democracy were violated.
    If we had a corrupt government (theoretically speaking, of course) then it would follow that corruptible judges wouldl be appointed to the most influential positions.
    John Key dismisses the possibility of reinstating our traditional ties with the Privy Council – thus racist policies are supplanting true democracy. And so arise the Ngamokos of this world.
    RIP honour and integrity.

  33. Maori have seven seats in parliament that would be a starter to block any legislation to abolish them. CIR’s are not binding on a government in NZ. There you have it Aamy.

  34. Well said Mike. NZ is an apartheid state with the indigenous white people, who have been here 10k years (just read martin doutre or kerry bolton for the truth on this) oppressed by the maori who conquered our peaceful, highly spiritual ancient white forebears. We need a Mandela to lead us to freedom. Maybe John Ansell is that man. Sadly the New World Order and its paid agents like NN and Paul Moon and others (all historians curators archaeologists in NZ and the rest of the west are in the pay/under the control of the NWO cabal) collude against John. And people of the oppressed white majority are too afraid to come to public meetings. If there was freedom in NZ tens of thousands would have flocked to John’s gatherings. As it was only a courageous 20 or so stood up in Wgtn against the apartheid police state. And if public opinion polls weren’t skewed by the same people who pay off NN and all our ‘experts’ on history I believe John’s colourblind/anti-apartheid party would be registering 10-15% of the vote already. Sadly whites hardly have rights in NZ today.

  35. Also I would like to highlight Mike’s insightful comparison of Maori of today (especialy the agitators who hang around on maraes, support the Maori Party etc) with the Nazis of the 1940s:

    ‘cheer the Nazis for their despicable actions – but you need to recall that although the toll was terrible on all sides, when it became clear to the rest what the schemers were up to, the end result was a levelling of their territory along with annihilation of those responsible.
    Be warned.’

    Yes. The Hitler-like qualities of Maori leaders like Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia have not escaped all of us. In fact the white majority which has to suffer under the Maori-Nazi jackboot is well aware of the link. And just as Mike says a new war may be necessary to defeat this new fascist menace and restore democracy.

  36. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties – 1969

    Article 4
    Non-retroactivity of the present Convention

    Without prejudice to the application of any of the rules set forth in the present Convention to which Treaties would be subject under International law independently of the Convention, the Convention applies only to Treaties which are concluded by States after the entry into force of the present Convention with regard to such States.

    (Transcribed by Trina)

    Article 31
    General rule of interpretation

    1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.

    2. The context for the purpose of the interpretation of a treaty shall comprise, in addition to the text, including its preamble and annexes:
    (a) any agreement relating to the treaty which was made between all the parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty;
    (b) any instrument which was made by one or more parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty and accepted by the other parties as an instrument related to the treaty.

    3. There shall be taken into account, together with the context: 12
    (a) any subsequent agreement between the parties regarding the interpretation of the treaty or the application of its provisions;
    (b) any subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation;
    (c) any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties.

    4. A special meaning shall be given to a term if it is established that the parties so intended.

    Article 32
    Supplementary means of interpretation

    Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the interpretation according to article 31:

    (a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or
    (b) leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.

    Article 33
    Interpretation of treaties authenticated in two or more languages

    1. When a treaty has been authenticated in two or more languages, the text is equally authoritative in each language, unless the treaty provides or the parties agree that, in case of divergence, a particular text shall prevail.

    Click to access 1_1_1969.pdf

    2. A version of the treaty in a language other than one of those in which the text was authenticated shall be considered an authentic text only if the treaty so provides or the parties so agree.

    3. The terms of the treaty are presumed to have the same meaning in each authentic text.

    4. Except where a particular text prevails in accordance with paragraph 1, when a comparison of the authentic texts discloses a difference of meaning which the application of articles 31 and 32 does not remove, the meaning which best reconciles the texts, having regard to the object and purpose of the treaty, shall be adopted.

  37. Woops! The link to the information in the above comment is meant to be at the bottom of the post as it is the link where all the above information has been copied from. Cheers.

  38. Heismental, you are obviously ignorant of the sterling work of some of the people who post on this very site! I suggest you educate yourself on your ancient Celtic, Phoenician, and Greek ancestors by googling Martin Doutre and Noel Hilliam and Kerry Bolton and Barry Brailsford. Martin is as well as being the number one expert on NZ’s white past also an expert on the frauds around the Treaty of Waitangi and many other New World Order hoaxes, like the missile attack on the Pentagon on September 11th by Zionists and the distortion of English history by those who would cover up the Egyptian connections to Stonehenge.
    I also recommend you read Noel Hilliam’s To the Ends of the Earth which proves Greeks were here thousands of years ago. Once we realise whites are the indigenous NZers we can see Maori for what it is – a foreign language of a foreign people. The rot began in this country when Maori became an official language. The Maori Language Act must be repealed by a Colourblind Govt. along with all other racialist pieces of legislation. This is European nation with an English language whatever the New World Order says. If you don’t believe the NWO controls historians everywhere and produces fake results in fake DNA tests to cover up the white colonisation of the Pacific and South America 10 k years ago ust take a look at this debate between NWO operative Paul Moon and Ross Baker head of the NZ Foundation. Ross blows Paul’s cover and shows that he is opposition to the Littlewood Treaty is based on being ‘got to’ by the usual suspects.

  39. There is no point in continuing to humour this clown Ngamoko Nikora and his endlessly repetitive attempts to sabotage this blog and this campaign for equality with what are actually mostly complete irrelevancies – so I for one will not continue.

    As for the “Littlewood” final English draft of the ToW, this link sums up its early history after its re-discovery in 1989. Even back then, C Orange was desperately and dishoneslty trying to write it off in her bullying, high-handed manner. Fortunately, she was not successful and its authenticity has since been established beyond doubt:

  40. On January 31, 2013 at 8:45 am Ngamoko Nikora said:

    Conspiracy theory JA I’m not convinced that Parkinson wrote that email to Doutre. One way to find out is to contact Dr.Parkinson himself. Who knows it could be a forgery.

    If it was a forgery, as ever-hopeful Ngamoko Nikora would love to have us all believe, then I imagine I would have long-since been sued by Dr. Phil Parkinson.

    I have used his letter in multiple articles and in my book:

    The Littlewood Treaty, The True English Text of the Treaty of Waitangi – Found.

    So what I would suggest to Ngamoko, or anyone else who’s interested in acquiring an official copy of the letter, is to request one from the Alexander Turnbull Library archives under the following designation:

    AT 13/19/4, 25507 Doutre, 24 December 2003.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s