Lore Vs Law : KauKau and Pseudo-Authority In New Zealand

“…we don’t recognise your laws either” – “We’re not just a jacked-up organisation”

Unlike other forms of extremism which are often male-dominated spaces, New Zealand’s sovereignist landscape features notable female participation, including roles as ‘authorities’ and self-styled gurus. This profile focuses on Michelle Reti-KauKau (MRK), a sovereignist figure whose activities blur the lines between culturally framed assertions of self-sovereignty, pseudolegal tactics and behaviours that flirt with unlawful or harmful domains. Her profiles illustrates how sovereignist practices can exist in complex tension with community ventures, socio-cultural discourse, and the mainstream legal processes. 

Te Kooti Aroha: Extrajudicial ‘Sentencing’.

In 2020, MRK’s sovereign ‘Maori Restorative Justice’ (MRJ) and its pseudo-extrajudicial court “Te Kooti Aroha’ came to the courts attention. On January 30th , she proceeded to ‘sentence’ an eighteen year old defendant to three months supervision and anger-management, then falsely advised him that he did not need to attend the Napier District Court. This misrepresentation almost derailed an authentic restorative justice process and risked the defendant’s arrest. A member of the legitimate Hawke’s Bay Restorative team visited MRK who confirmed she had ‘attended to the case’.

At the subsequent court hearing, counsel informed the court that MRK had falsely “exerted judicial powers’ after approaching the defendant. Judge Bridget MacKintosh confirmed that MRK was “certainly not sanctioned by anybody” and cautioned that if individuals chose that pathway they should know it would not end well, and it should be discouraged. MRK defended her actions to the media, asserting that MRJ did not recognise New Zealand laws. She claimed the authority to “adjudicate” and commented that the individuals were sentenced in her court ‘Te Kooti Aroha” by a Auckland-based “Chief Justice”. Although MRK claimed MRJ had operated ‘legally’ throughout the North Island for years,  no evidence substantiates this. It is more likely she is borrowing this legitimacy from the authentic Te Kooti Rangatahi youth court initiated  in 2008. 

Te Ara Pumanawa Trust

MRK concurrently chaired the ‘Te Ara Pumanawa Trust’, under which she produced Section 27 (S27) legal-aid funded assessments for defendants without formal solicitor instruction. Corrections records confirmed she held approved-visitor status at the Hawkes Bay Prison to interview inmates, a privilege reviewed once her unsanctioned sentencing activities came to light. Subsequently, it was found that between May 2019 and February 2020, MRK visited the Hawkes Bay Regional Prison under an official guise on ten occasions. It is not clear if these visits were for separate individuals or multiple visits to a lesser number of inmates.

On the 14 February 2020, Legal Services announced a review of any reports written by MRK as she was not trained or authorised to conduct them. Three reports were investigated and failed the key requirement of focusing on the defendant. Instead, they included non-applicable international treaties, general statistics, and politically-toned commentary with irrelevant references while foregrounding her own profile over the defendants needs. Legal services Commissioner Brett Dooley opted against legal sanctions on MRK but directed the Ministry to strengthen existing guidelines and funding criteria. 

Homeguard Global and Factional Proscription.

During Covid the (now largely defunct) Homeguard Global (HGG) sovereign cluster emerged, led until early 2025 by pseudo-Admiral Gregory Cook. Within HGG, Reti-Kaukau ‘served’ as a sovereign ‘staff-sergeant’ until February 2025 when internal disputes spilled out over social media, culminating in various allegations, counter-allegations and sovereign branded public notices.

A sovereign branded ‘excommunication’ notice was posted online by Cook as the “High Protector, Proctor of Admiralty Lore” and claimed Reti-KauKau was “wanted” for a raft of [sovereign] offences. For example, “Conspiracy to Create War, Treason to Confederation of United Tribes, Native Magistrate Kings Bench Court”, “AWAL, sedition, fraud, “misappropriation of native titles”, identity theft among others. Cook also rebuffed personal allegations and ordered her to respond to his notice within seven days. Subsequent to this notice (see below) , public online exchanges indicated that not only was there a physical confrontation of some kind but HGG internally combusted and ‘formally’ dissolved. 

Te Moana- Nui -A-Kiwa and the Withdrawal of Endorsement

While Reti-Kaukau was a [pseudo] ‘staff-sergeant’ within Homeguard Global (HGG) she was also aligned with a separate sovereign pseudo-entity: the ‘Te Moana Nui A Kiwa’ (TMAK) embassy. On February 21,  2025, a TMAK notice signed by “CJ [Chief Justice] Michelle Reti-KauKau and Micheal Harris” announced that  TMAK “officially revokes and withdraws the endorsement and support” of  HGG, Cook and other affiliated individuals such as John Wanoa (“Native Magistrates Kings Bench’) also known as ‘King William’.  It delineates a menu of prohibited un-loreful acts such as kidnap and fraud, then warns that ‘commanders who wilfully aided in committing “crimes against civilians and key personnel “… “Will be held accountable”. The notice closes with ‘trespass orders’ cautioning the other not to enter their boundaries for any reason.

Despite its unique prose to outsiders, this notice is orthodox sovereign in that it somewhat echoes conventional warrants tone and form but invokes titles and quasi-official letterhead. The exchanges exemplify how pseudo-legal entities co-opt authority statuses they reject from the state, to assert extrajudicial personal authority.

—————————————————————

These sovereign notices reveal three defining features of sovereign-pseudo law strategies. Firstly, they mimic official forms and ‘legal’ terminology to cloak their commands in the guise of higher authority. Second, it is not unusual in New Zealand for sovereign allies to fracture into rivals that issue counter warrants and revocation notices in a struggle for legitimacy. Third, they assert a territorial logic that invokes their own boundaries that parallels yet repudiates New Zealand’s statutory sovereignty, legislation, and authorities. This brief overview of  MRKs  present-day sovereign activities, from MRJ and the Te Ara Pumanawa Trust to the internal disputes of HGG and TMAK demonstrates how sovereign actors adaptively interlink and sometimes conflict across multiple pseudolegal settings and agendas. For example, by conflating restorative-justice practices with sovereignist claims to pseudo-judicial authority, she exemplifies a grey-zone activity that not only challenges authorities but risks damaging the work done by legitimate cultural entities and eroding confidence in legitimate restorative-justice processes. Not to mention the harm to individuals who are taken in by these false authorities. 

• See https://www.unmaskingextremism.com/unmarshalltakeover for more on John Wanoa.