NOT
ROHE RULEstart with legal character
What Bledisloe said the Board was for, what the deed actually grants, and why representation is not delegated governmental jurisdiction.
THE MĀORI
KING?political selection
The south-of-Auckland seat, the late-1932 parliamentary challenge, and what the evidence does — and does not — prove about Kīngitanga.
1840
1932four northern lines
All four lines point back to rangatira involved in He Wakaputanga and Te Tiriti. That overlap is real; the exact reason for the 1932 selection still has to be proved.
FOLLOWS
WHO?particular positions
Father-to-son examples, Kīngitanga-linked appointments, regional representatives and the deed's requirement to fill the same “particular representative position”.
18 NOV
1932find the missing instrument
The statutory deed and National Library manuscript say 18 November. A 1966 historical account says 6 May. Until the earlier instrument is produced, the dates cannot be merged.
→
NOVEMBERwho designed the offices?
The May public plan and the November deed are materially different. Generic categories became permanent family and territorial offices before Parliament incorporated the Board.
≠
VESTINGprove the authority
The family and political links justify investigation, but no instrument found so far vests the 1932 trust offices with the law-making authority of Te Wakaminenga, rangatira or hapū.
Critical instrument issue · corrected 1 September 2026
6 May?
18 November.
The Schedule 1 Trust Deed Parliament incorporated states that it was executed on 18 November 1932, and the National Library catalogue dates the surviving Declaration of Trust manuscript the same day.
A preserved 1966 encyclopaedia entry says a deed of trust was executed on 6 May while the Board and deed of gift were still being completed. That alleged May instrument has not yet been located. Bledisloe's public letter of 10 May still described the proposed Board prospectively, which makes the missing instrument material to the investigation. The series now treats 18 November as the proved statutory deed date and 6 May as an unresolved earlier-instrument claim.
Open the instrument audit ↗Research method
Read each capacity.
Then find its source.
The deed tells us who was represented. The remaining task is to find contemporary evidence explaining why each capacity was chosen and what legal or governance consequence, if any, was intended.
No constitutional, territorial or ownership theory is assumed at the outset. Where a relationship with earlier Māori political history is documented, it is recorded. Where the reason or legal effect is not stated, the question remains open.
Return to Trust Paper Trail ↗