Please post & circulate.

TO LISTEN TO MOTION ON JAN. 14, 2022 AT 1.30 Go down list to Montreal, click on green icon pencil and hearing registration form pops up to register. https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/hearing-lists

[Thahoketoteh  of MNN coverage of FCC v. kahnistensera court case] The teiohateh two row is the relationship between us and the colonists, the canoe and the ship. The peace, friendship and respect was to keep us side by side on our land and water. The ship is temporarily tied to our land with the silver covenant chain. We are now asking those on the ship to respond.   

PART I AUDIO: [in 3 parts]

 

MNN. Jan. 10, 2022. Section 35 [1] of the Constitution Act of Canada, 1982, provides “the existing precolonial aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal people [of turtle island] ARE HEREBY RECOGNIZED AND AFFIRMED”. Section 52 [1] affirms that “‘any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, OF NO FORCE OR EFFECT. 

Therefore, the kaianerekowa, which is the existing aboriginal legal system which we have inherited from precolonial times which was never revoked or conceded, is the supreme law of “Canada”. All laws not recognized by kaianerekowa are of no force or effect on any of our land.

AUDIO

No: T-1696-21

FEDERAL COURT

BETWEEN:

THE KANIEN’KEHA:KA KAHNISTENSERA (MOHAWK MOTHERS) KAHENTINETHA, KAWENAA, KARENNATHA AND KARAKWINE, supported by the MEN’S FIRES OF KAHNAWAKE, AKWESASNE, KANEHSATAKE, OHSWEKEN AND KENHTEKE

Applicants

And

SOCIÉTÉ QUÉBÉCOISE DES INFRASTRUCTURES,

MCGILL UNIVERSITY; OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPLE & VICE CHANCELLOR;

CITY OF MONTRÉAL; and STANTEC CONSTRUCTION: 

Respondents

APPLICANTS’ RESPONSE TO THE RESPONDENTS’ REQUEST

TO STRIKE OUT THE APPLICANTS’ PLEADING

(Rules 4, 8, 25, 221 and 369 of the Federal Courts Rules)

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

Notice of Motion………………………………….………………………………….…..3

Written Submissions of the defendant…………….….…………………………………..6

Proposed Court Order …………………………………………………………………..16

CONSIDERING THAT the SQI Société québécoises des infrastructures (« SQI ») will present a request to strike out the Applicants’ motion to the Court on January 14, 2022, at 1:30 PM-EST. 

THE MOTION SEEKS to (1) confirm that the Federal Court is the competent court to judge the present case. 

THE GROUNDS FOR THIS MOTION ARE AS FOLLOWS: 

1. In their Avis de requête, the Respondents suggest that the Federal Court would not have the ability to judge our case and ask to strike it out.
2. The Respondents allege that the case does not meet the three-part test established by the Supreme Court to determine if it belongs to the jurisdiction of the Federal Court.
3. However, as sovereign traditional rotinonhsonni people, the Applicants are adamant that the Federal Court is the only instance available within the State of Canada which can examine their case, as it concerns the nation-to-nation relationship between Canada and the rotinonhsonni confederacy.
4. The Applicants argue that not receiving the case in the Federal Court would violate the Silver Covenant Chain and Two Row Wampum treaties between the Rotinonhsonni Confederacy and the British Crown the fiduciary obligation of the Crown towards Indigenous peoples, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Constitution of Canada, 1982. The Rotinonhsonni Confederacy has no dialogue or historical relationship with the Canadian province of Quebec, which lacks competence in Indigenous issues.
5. The Applicants also argue that the case concerns Bill-15, which is an Act of the Canadian Parliament, acknowledging and affirming the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, notably the right to patriate human remains.

The kanien’kehá:ka kanistensera, kahentinetha, kawenaa, karennatha and karakwine, supported by the men’s fire of kahnawake, akwesasne, kanehsatake, ohsweken and kenhteke. PO Box 991, kahnawake, Quebec, J0L 1B0 Email: kahnistensera@riseup.net; kahentinetha2@protononmail.com

ADRESSED TO:

Me Alexandre Rouanet-Bazinet,BERGERON, of DENILLE & ASSOCIATES, Counsel for SQI the defendant Société québécoise des infrastructures E-mail: arouanetbazinet@sqi.gouv.qc.ca : 438-831-4032 / f.: 514 873-2516  DAJ@sqi.gouv.qc.ca

Me Brigitte Savignac, of CLYDE & CIE CANADA S.E.N.C.R.L., Counsel for the defendant Stantec inc., 630, boul. René-Lévesque Ouest, Bureau 1700, Montréal (Québec) H3B 1S6, Telephone : (514) 843-3777, Brigitte.savignac@clydeco.ca

Me Doug Mitchell, of IMK AVOCATS, Counsel for the defendant McGill University, Place Alexis Nihon / Tower 2, 3500 De Maisonneuve Boulevard West, Suite 1400, Montreal (Quebec) H3Z 3C1, Telephone 514 935-2725

Me Simon Vincent, of BÉLANGER SAUVÉ, S.E.N.C.R.L., Counsel for the defendant, City of Montreal, 5, Place Ville Marie, bureau 900, Montreal (Quebec) H3B 2G2, Telephone: 514 876-6203

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANTS

Context

1. The plaintiffs hereby requesting an injunction order from the Federal Court of Canada are the kahnistenhsera (life-givers, i.e. women), which wampum 44 of the kaianerekowa, the precolonial constitution of the rotinonhsonni (Iroquois) confederacy, declares as the sovereign caretakers of a’nowarà:ke, turtle island, for the coming generations, tahatikonhsontóntie. As sovereign indigenous people, the kaianerekowa is our basis of all adjudication and resolution, and our duties and rights are exercised in our protocols, clan system and oral tradition which come from time immemorial. 

2. Following serious allegations that Indigenous children were used and may have died from being subject to MK-Ultra “mind control” experiments conducted by Dr. Ewen Cameron at McGill University’s Allan Memorial Institute in the 1950s and 1960s, the kahnisténhsera have demanded the immediate cessation of planning and construction work on the sites of the Royal Victoria Hospital and the Allan Memorial Institute authorized by the City of Montreal (file 1217400001) to investigate potential unmarked graves on site. 

3. In a letter to the Office de Consultation Publique de Montréal (OCPM) dated November 9, 2021, the Provost and Vice-Principal (Academic) of McGill University has agreed that an investigation into unmarked graves on said sites was necessary and committed to collaborating in it. However, no effort has been done to reach out to the kahnisténhsera to realize this investigation. The Société québécoise des infrastructures (SQI), which was declared to be the owner of the Allan Memorial Institute by Nicole Brodeur, president of the OCPM, during the hearing of the kahnisténhsera, has contacted the Band Council offices of Kahnawake and Kanehsatake on November 9, 2021, to discuss collaborating on the matter. However, Band Councils have no jurisdiction on traditional indigenous homelands outside of the boundaries of reservations, and they are in a conflict of interest given that they as allies administer funds from the federal government of Canada, which unconstitutionally imposed the Band Council system on the kanien’keha:ka people through the Indian Act. Moreover, the SQI has later denied owning the said sites.

4. The kahnisténhsera are still waiting for the parties involved to collaborate and provide funding for a kahnisténhsera led investigation on potential atrocities conducted on the sites of the Royal Victoria Hospital and Allan Memorial Institute. The unmarked graves of our children are part of the ongoing crimes against humanity and genocide of the indigenous people in Canada, following the definition of the United Nations 1948 Genocide Convention. Recovering the remains of Indigenous people killed because of genocidal policies has been acknowledged as an utmost priority by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, whose validity has been affirmed by the Parliament of Canada in Bill C-15  

5. As kahnisténhsera the Applicants are seeking relief by requesting the Federal Court of Canada to issue an order impeding demolition and construction work on said sites in order to allow an Indigenous-led archaeological and forensic investigation on the presence of human remains. 

6. Through the lawyers of the Société Québécoise des infrastructures, the Respondents have filed a Dossier de requête en radiation d’une demande et en prolongation de délai to the Court on December 7, 2021. They argue that the Federal Court lacks the jurisdiction to judge the case. 

7. The Applicants are adamant that the Federal Court of Canada is the proper court to examine the case. The following arguments explain why.

Arguments 

1. The Respondents argue that the case does not pass the test created by the Supreme Court in Windsor (City) v. Canadian transit co, 2016 SCC 54 (“Windsor”), to determine the jurisdiction of the Federal Court determined by the Federal Court Rules, R.S.C. 1985, c F-7 (“FCA”); 1] There must be a grant of jurisdiction by an Act of the Federal Parliament; 2] There must be a body of federal law that is essential to the resolution of the dispute and is the basis for the statutory grant of jurisdiction; 3]The law relied upon in the case must be “a law of Canada” within the meaning of section 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867. 

2. The Respondents argue that Article 35 of the Constitution Act of Canada, 1982, which the Applicants rely on in their original motion, is not a “law of Canada” within the meaning of section 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867. 

3. The argument used in Windsor para. 63 makes a distinction between Canada as a country and Canada as a level of government within Canada, stating that “After the 1982 ‟patriationˮ, the Constitution is certainly a law of Canada the country, as opposed to a law of the United Kingdom, but it is not one of the “Laws of Canada”, the federal laws, referred to in 101of the Constitution Act, 1867.” In para. 64, it states that “Surely constitutional law is neither federal nor provincial. The Constitution logically precedes that distinction”. It is on that basis that it concluded in para. 33 that by addressing the Constitution of Canada, the Canadian transit company was not addressing the jurisdiction of a Federal Court, as it was “not seeking relief “under an Act of Parliament or otherwise” (i.e., under federal law) as required by s. 23(c) of the Federal Courts Act. Section 23”. 

4. However, the Applicants are adamant that the Federal Court of Canada is the only court available in the legal system of the State of Canada to examine the case.

5. It must be noted that even though it would confer jurisdiction to the Federal Court of Canada, the Applicants are not seeking relief under the provisions of the Specific Claims Tribunal Act, which only concerns non-sovereign “First Nations” incorporated under the Indian Act, who have thus relinquished their sovereign rights protected by the United Nations Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous People and the Constitution of Canada, 1982. The Specific Claims Tribunal Act only allows for monetary compensation; whereas the present case concerns issues of sovereignty, land and genocide which cannot be resolved only with monetary compensations. Consequently, the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Canada is rather evidenced by the following points:

6. First, para. 4 of the Federal Court Rules, R.S.C. 1985, c F-7 states that “The Federal Court has concurrent original jurisdiction to hear and determine proceedings to determine disputes in which the Crown is or may be under an obligation and in respect of which there are or may be conflicting claims”. The fiduciary responsibility of the Crown vis-à-vis the sovereign Indigenous peoples of a’nowarà:ke, turtle island, is an obligation of the Crown engaging the Federal Court as a referee in conflicting claims between the Applicants and the Respondents.

7. Second, the case engages strictly Federal jurisidictions and responsibilities, such as the Calls for Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada indicating that the search for unmarked graves is a top priority for the State of Canada to advance “reconciliation” with Indigenous peoples.

8. Third, most importantly the case directly engages at least one “law of Canada” in the meaning of section 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867. This law is Bill C-15, An Act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the Parliament and Senate of Canada, and having received royal assent on June 21, 2021. In para. 17a, the Act affirms “the Declaration as a universal international human rights instrument with application in Canadian law.” The current motion asks the Federal Court of Canada to assess the application of Bill C-15, as an “Act of Canada” in the current issue. Provided that the search for unmarked graves of sovereign Indigenous peoples, their right not to be subjected to genocide, and their right not to own and to live freely in their traditional unceded lands constitute the backbone of the present case, the following paragraphs from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples apply directly to it:

PART II AUDIO:

(Art. 1) Indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights⁴ and international human rights law.

(Art. 7) 1. Indigenous individuals have the rights to life, physical and mental integrity, liberty and security of person. 2. Indigenous peoples have the collective right to live in freedom, peace and security as distinct peoples and shall not be subjected to any act of genocide or any other act of violence, including forcibly removing children of the group to another group.

(Art. 12) 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to manifest, practice, develop and teach their spiritual and religious traditions, customs and ceremonies; the right to maintain, protect, and have access in privacy to their religious and cultural sites; the right to the use and control of their ceremonial objects; and the right to the repatriation of their human remains. 2. States shall seek to enable the access and/or repatriation of ceremonial objects and human remains in their possession through fair, transparent and effective mechanisms developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned.

(Art. 19) States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.

(Art. 25) Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands, territories, waters and coastal seas and other resources and to uphold their responsibilities to future generations in this regard.

(Art. 26) 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired. 2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired. 3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned.

(Art. 27) States shall establish and implement, in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned, a fair, independent, impartial, open and transparent process, giving due recognition to indigenous peoples’ laws, traditions, customs and land tenure systems, to recognize and adjudicate the rights of indigenous peoples pertaining to their lands, territories and resources, including those which were traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used. Indigenous peoples shall have the right to participate in this process. 

9. Fourth, the case directly engages the original jurisdiction of the Federal Court for extraprovincial matters. This extraprovincial jurisdiction applies to conflicting claims between subject and subject, and not only to claims where the Crown is a party. 25 of the Federal Court Rules, R.S.C. 1985, c F-7 (“FCA”) states: “The Federal Court has original jurisdiction, between subject and subject as well as otherwise, in any case in which a claim for relief is made or a remedy is sought under or by virtue of the laws of Canada if no other court constituted, established or continued under any of the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 has jurisdiction in respect of that claim or remedy”. It is a fact that no other court has jurisdiction in respect of the present claim, which engages the fiduciary responsibility of the Crown vis-à-vis Indigenous peoples, Bill C-15 as a law of Canada, and the Constitution of Canada, 1982. 

10. Fifth, the Respondents’ argument to strike out the case based on the Supreme Court ruling in Windsor to the effect that the Constitution of Canada is not a “law of Canada” rather reinforces the Applicants’ claim that the Federal Court of Canada is the only available instance within the State of Canada that may examine the case. The following reasons lead to this conclusion:

1867. The Respondents base their argument for striking out the case on the notion that the Constitution of Canada, 1982, is not a “law of Canada” within the meaning of section 101 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Yet the Respondents fail to mention the Applicants’ reference to Article 52 of the Constitution of Canada, 1982, which states that it is the “Supreme law of the land”, that all the “laws of Canada” that are not consistent with the Constitution are null and void, and that its provisions are not subject to the Notwithstanding Clause [that nothing can contradict the kaianerekowa that supercedes anything and everything.]. This includes Article 35, which “affirms” the “existing rights” of “Aboriginal people”, and cannot be revoked. On the unceded Kaienke’ha:ka territory of Montreal, the supreme law of the land acknowledged the Constitution of Canada, 1982, is the kaianerekowa (Great Peace, constitution of the rotinonhsonni confederacy), which states that the Applicants, as kahnisténhsera, are the sovereign caretakers of the land.
1868. The rotinonhsonni (Iroquois) confederacy has an historical nation-to-nation agreement with the British Crown, namely the Silver Covenant Chain which Queen Elizabeth II has polished in the sovereign kanien’keha:ka territory of Tyendinaga in 2010. The Silver Covenant Chain originally allowed the British ship to dock at a’nowarà:ke, provided that it would respect the teiohá:te (Two Row Wampum), stating that the European peoples’ ship would not encroach on the ways of life and the land of Indigenous peoples. When the Constitution of Canada was “patriated” in 1982, it has been assumed that Canada would inherit the fiduciary responsibility and the nation-to-nation relationship with Indigenous peoples previously assumed by the Crown of the United Kingdom. However, the Province of Quebec has never established any diplomatic relationship with the traditional government system of the rotinonhsonni (Iroquois) confederacy, and therefore lacks jurisdiction in matters concerning traditional rotinonhsonni and kanien’keha:ka peoples.
1869. If the Supreme Court ruling in Windsor states that the Constitution of Canada, 1982, is not a “law of Canada”, it is because it is higher than all the “laws of Canada”, and overrides them by virtue of Article 52. As it acknowledged that the Constitution of Canada is higher than the “laws of Canada”, this argument cannot be used to send the current case to a lower court, but implies that it belongs to the highest possible court. If the Federal Court does not assert jurisdiction, and if no such higher court is available within Canada, it is because the case belongs to the sovereign jurisdiction of the rotinonhsonni confederacy, the kaianerekowa (Great Peace) on its unconceded traditional homeland.
1870. Traditionally, the nation-to-nation relationship between the sovereign rotinonhsonni confederacy and the sovereign of Canada, the Crown of the United Kingdom was in the legal jurisdiction of the Privy Council of the Commonwealth of the United Kingdom. As a British court, the Privy Council was the “higher court” assuming jurisdiction over the relationship between the “laws of Canada” and sovereign Indigenous peoples. However, the Privy Council of the Commonwealth was abolished in 1949, and the Canadian federal courts inherited its judicial obligations vis-à-vis Indigenous peoples.
1871. If the Federal Court of Canada is not the highest court having jurisdiction over constitutional matters engaging sovereign Indigenous peoples, the Applicants would appreciate to know which is the higher court responsible for upholding the Constitution of Canada, 1982.
1872. In the meanwhile, the Applicants’ understanding is that Article 52 of the Constitution of Canada, 1982, affirms that all the “laws of Canada” that are inconsistent with the Constitution are null and void, and that the Notwithstanding Clause does not apply to the Constitution. This includes Article 35, which acknowledges the sovereignty of “existing Aboriginal rights”, which in the case of the traditional homeland of the rotinonhsonni and kanien’keha:ka peoples, is the kaianerekowa (Great Peace).
1873. The Applicants also point out that the Royal Proclamation of 1763, where the British Crown promised that Indigenous peoples would not be “disturbed” in their sovereign unceded territories, has never been revoked, and is still part of the constitutional groundwork of Canada.

11. In essence, the Applicants argue that the case is brought before the Federal Court of Canada because it concerns Canadian subjects who have violated the supreme law of the land, the constitution of the rotinonhsonni confederacy, the kaianerekowa (Great Peace), whose supremacy is acknowledged by the Constitution of Canada, 1982, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. It is the fiduciary obligation of the Crown to uphold the kaianerekowa.
    

    OUR FIGHT IS NEVER BEHIND US UNTIL THE GREAT PEACE WINS.

PART III Audio

Clarifications on traditional rotinonhsonni protocol :

1. The 1763 Royal Proclamation, the 1982 Constitution Act of Canada, the Constitution of the United States of America and all other legal foundations of settler colonial occupation have no power to turn trespassers into true natural sovereigns on a’nowarà:ke, turtle island. According to the kaianerekowa, great peace, the kahnisténhsera, “life-givers”, are each the sovereign caretakers for the coming generations, tahatikonhsontóntie. The kaianerekowa provides that any decision must be gained through our clan system and our consensual decision-making process. 

2. The Silver Covenant Chain and the teiohá:te (Two Row Wampum) is the protocol that originally allowed European settlers to share an existence on a’nowarà:ke, turtle island. The settlers agreed to keep their culture, language, and ways on their ship, ensuring that the indigenous canoe would always remain sovereign on the continent of a’nowarà:ke. Neither the teiohá:te nor the kaianerekowa permitted settlers to encroach in any way on the land except to grow food in the depth of a plough for their sustenance. There were not allowed to build infrastructures nor extract our natural resources. Furthermore, the infrastructures at McGill University and in the City of Montreal were built with borrowed Iroquois Trust Funds which have never been repaid, and that were confiscated to our people using the racist pretext that indigenous peoples were incapable of managing their own funds. 

3. Canada, Quebec, Montreal and McGill University have no legal relationship, agreement, treaties or covenants with the rotinonhsonni confederacy and the sovereign kanien’keha:ka people using the protocols of the kaianerekowa. Due to this legal limbo, McGill University, the SQI and the City of Montreal are currently trespassing upon the following Iroquoian ancestral homelands: kawehnote teiontiakon [Montreal Island], tekanontak/ononta tiotiake [two mountains connected, Mount Royal], and skanawatsta [across the mud flats, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue]. The Sulpicians have purported that they were granted these lands from the King of France but have failed to show any proof that these sites were ever ceded or sold by the Iroquoian peoples. All parties that have bought and sold said lands throughout history have been guilty of handling stolen property.

4. We understand English as the diplomatic language we can use for communication with non-indigenous parties. Communicating without our permission in French, a language that we do not understand, violates international protocol. Should the defending parties insist on speaking French to us, we will reply in kanienkehaka Mohawk language, the original language of our Iroquoian homelands. 

5. Canada and its affiliated institutions are currently violating the sovereign rotinonhsonni constitution of the kaianerekowa, the Great Peace. Section 35 [1] of the Constitution Act of Canada 1982 provides: “the existing [pre-colonial] aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal people [of turtle island] are hereby recognized and affirmed”. Section 52[1] affirms that “any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.” Therefore, the kaianerekowa, which is the existing aboriginal legal system which the rotinonhsonni confederacy has inherited from precolonial times, and which was never revoked or conceded, is the supreme law of “Canada”. Consequently, all laws of Canada that are not recognized by the kaianerekowa are of no force or effect on the original homelands of the Iroquoian people. 

6. The kaianerekowa is based on the natural world. It follows sha’oié:ra, “the way of creation forever”, and cannot be revoked. The Federal Court of Canada must accept our truth, that the original peoples of a’nowarà:ke and their legal systems are part of the sustainable ecological reality that allows life to continue. They are part of the earth, water, air and sun that are necessary for life. The corporation of Canada [licence ISO# CA 3166-1], and the British common law and French Civil law on which it is based, have no foothold on the natural reality of a’nowarà:ke, having rather allowed its destruction by supporting environmentally harmful projects that were in violation with the kaianerekowa.  

7. After the discovery of 215 unmarked graves of Indigenous children in Kamloops, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau admitted that “We are guilty of genocide”, suggesting that the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions’ “Call for actions” must be followed to allow a reconciliation between settler and indigenous peoples in Canada. Mohawk language contains no word for “I am sorry”. We say Enhskerihwakwatá:ko, “I will make it right”. We are here today to request that the Canadian judicial process stops facilitating the genocide of indigenous peoples on a’nowarà:ke, and respects the 1948 Genocide Convention. Our message is based on our law and culture and cannot be challenged by any foreign entities and laws, which have no force or effect. 

8. No Indigenous people ever ratified Canada to become a nation. We and our lands have never been for sale. The Doctrine of Discovery, the Right of Conquest, and John Locke’s right of appropriating land through improvement, are based on racist ideologies that contradict the Unites Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, the basic principles of democracy and the common sense of most Canadians in 2022. This is why the City of Montreal, McGill University and the corporation of Canada acknowledge that a’nowarà:ke is unceded indigenous land. The legal consequences of this fact, which implies the unbreachable sovereignty of the kaianerekowa on traditional Iroquoian homelands, must be assessed by the Federal Court of Canada. 

9. We are not addressing this court to debate or be bound by the legal procedures of a judicial system that must first assess its fundamental nation-to-nation relationship with the sovereign indigenous peoples of a’nowarà:ke. We are placing our provisions of the kaianerekowa before you for your records. It is up to the Canadian court system to judge its own citizens if they violate the kaianerekowa. The kaianerekowa exists since time immemorial and can never be amended as it is based on the natural world. The kaianerekowa does not recognize other laws on a’nowarà:ke. All laws of Canada, case laws, treaties, and procedures have no force or effect unless they are recognized by the supreme law of the land, the kaianerekowa.
10. Today we are embarking onto the European ship to remind settlers of the original law of this land. The colonial court under your sail has no jurisdiction over us, the sovereign kanienkehaka:onwe. You have jurisdiction over your own people on your ship. Without our permission the governance of your people overreached its jurisdiction, violating the kaianerekowa. Your ship is temporarily chained to our shores by a Silver Covenant Chain agreement. We request that your colonial settler population respect us, follow your laws, to stop the genocide and crimes against us. We are not Canadian subjects. Our culture is based on the natural world. We will tell you the truth, and we will expect you to respect it.

A’nowarà:ke, January 8, 2022.

toknikon, the sovereign caretakers,

The kanien’kehá:ka kanistensera, kahentinetha, kawenaa, karennatha and karakwine, supported by the men’s fire of kahnawake, akwesasne, kanehsatake, ohsweken and kenhteke. PO Box 991, kahnawake, Quebec, J0L 1B0 Email: kahnistensera@riseup.net; kahentinetha2@protononmail.com

COURT ORDER

CONSIDERING the Notice of Motion filed in the Federal Court of Canada by the Applicants on November 9, 2021;

CONSIDERING the Respondent Société québécoise des infrastructures’ Dossier de requête en radiation d’une demande et en prolongation de délai (request to strike out the Applicants’ pleading and to prolong the delay)

CONSIDERING THAT the Respondent’s request to strike out the Applicants’ pleading is not legally justified;

FOR THESE REASONS, THE TRIBUNAL:

DISMISSES the Respondents’ Dossier de requête en radiation d’une demande et en prolongation de délai dated November 7, 2021.

THE WHOLE with costs.

The Beatles knew when it was over.: “I read the news today, oh boy, About a lucky man who made the grade. And though the news was rather sad, Well, I just had to laugh”

mohawknationnews.com; thahoketoteh@hotmail.com 

kahnistensera@riseup.net