|MNN. July 6, 2005. Could judiciaries in Ontario and New York State be collaborating? We wouldn?t be surprised!
The press release posted on the Ipperwash Inquiry website on July 6, 2005, states in part that:
?The Ipperwash Inquiry was established by the Government of Ontario on November 12, 2003, under the Public Inquiries Act. Its mandate is to inquire and report on events surrounding the death ? and to make recommendations that would avoid violence in similar circumstances in the future. ? The Commission plans to respond in due course to the action commenced by Pierre George.?
This press release is meant to mislead the public. After Pierre?s first objection, Linden informed us that his jurisdiction comes from an ?Ontario Order in Council?. In effect, Linden said that Section 109 of the Constitution of Canada 1867 has been repealed by a ?provincial? Order in Council. This is legally impossible. The Constitution sets out an amendment formula by which changes in the constitutional relationship between Canada and the Indigenous nations can be given legal force and effect. A very broad base of support of the sovereign peoples involved is essential. Section 109 constitutionally prohibits the application of the laws of Canada, including federal Indian law, and provincial law, to unsurrendered Indigenous territory.
Pierre?s constitutional question is not based on the ?Laws of Canada?. This press release is a smoke screen. On July 18th, 2005, Linden must prove to Pierre that Section 109 was repealed by the provincial Order in Council. There is no repeal. He has no jurisdiction.
We put the same objection to jurisdiction before Judge Hurd of New York State. The Oneidas wanted to stop the enforcement of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. In a press release, Hurd informed the public that he granted the injunction to the Oneidas in the case of the County of Sherill v. The Oneida Indian Nation of New York Inc. He can?t do this without considering our objection to his usurping the jurisdiction of the Kanion?ke:haka and the U.S. Constitution.
Judicial chicanery is happening in both places at the same time.
This judicial blindness to the constitution and to the rule of law has been the criminal modus operandi of the judiciary since the 1870?s to the present time. Today Commissioner Linden and Judge Hurd carry out the judicial fraud in public, not behind court house doors.
Our ancestors were suppressed and crushed for making the same outcry. Our voice is being heard because of this odd conjunction of historic events. It?s the first step in stopping genocide. The people and their constitutions are against that crime. The tragedy is that the judiciary is for it.
That is why the constitutionally loyal Indigenous people hope that Supreme Court will respect the U.S. Constitution and the Kaianereh?ko:wa/Great Law.
We sought emergency relief from Linden?s genocide in the Ontario Divisional Court. We will also seek emergency relief in the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals against Judge Hurd. We will also activate our previous emergency relief application in the Canadian St. Regis v. New York State, which is at the center of the horrendous casino fraud. We?re also going after the equally fraudulent contrived case of the Onondaga Nation v. New York State.
All the players in this gigantic fraud covering the whole Great Lakes drainage basin of Northeast North America is being played out in this three ring circus.