 The following is a letter send to Brian Haggith of the Ontario Provincial Police by Patrick Ellis, Saulteaux of Arborg [Manitoba]. It outlines two crucial issues. The question of jurisdiction which we never gave to the settlers over our land or over us. The other is the issue of Indian Title. Let us know what you think this means. It hits the issues of our constitutional jurisdiction over Turtle Island which no Indigenous people ever gave up. That the Indian Act is illegal. That Crown land is a hoax. Kahentinetha Horn, MNN
I thought I would drop you a note in the hopes of humping up your position against the hooples …first of all, whatever Mr. J. Brant [Joseph Brant] and George the third conjured up then, doesn’t work today. … Brant was a Captain in the British Army, 33rd degree freemason and a traitor (see Joseph Brant :Man of Two Worlds). George the Third owned no land when he and Captain Brant conspired to “give Indian land to Indians” … The haldimand treaty is bogus due to the fact that there would have had to have been amendments to the Royal Proclamation and there have been no such amendments and not even since 1776 or the first bankruptcy of 1789 down south … The Charter does not apply to “Indians” but contains evidence that the powers-that-be know what their responsibilities are because they mention the Royal Proclamation …. Six Nations is right, square in the middle of Indian Territory, recognized as being such since 1763 and without benefit of any amendments thereto since that time … I had sent Brian Haggith a three page letter outlining the facts of the ascertation of rights by the six nations…. If you would like the two maps send me your fax number and I would be happy to send them to you … if you wish to speak with me my number is on the Haggith letter … Megwich [Patrick Ellis] CHALLENGING JURISDICTION: In any action, both parties must give their clear and unequivocal consent to be without a Jury. Without that consent, the Court has no Jurisdiction to proceed summarily and the Jurisdiction of the Court must be challenged. This Challenge can only be judged by a Special Jury. Should a Judge or Magistrate disregard or dismiss this Challenge, then he or she is liable to imprisonment for 5 years. Should a Judge or Magistrate disregard or dismiss this Challenge, that is a violation of Due Process and the Rule of Law. Due Process is a course of legal proceedings according to rules and principles that have been established in a system for jurisprudence for the enforcement and protection of private rights. Due Process derives from early English Common Law. The first concrete expression of the Due Process idea embraced by Anglo-American law appeared in the 39th Article of Magna Carta 1215. (Encyc. Brit.) The Rule of Law is the supremacy of law and embodies three concepts: the absolute predominance of regular law, so that the government has no arbitrary authority over the citizen; the equal subjection of all (including officials) to the ordinary courts; and the fact that the citizen’s personal freedoms are formulated and protected by the ordinary law. (Oxford Ref. Dictionary of Law). Challenges to the Jurisdiction of the Court are for (i) “Subject Matter” (ie: the power to deal with the matter to be tried); (ii) “Relationship” (ie: the power to deal with the Defendant); and (iii) “Competence” (ie: the power of the Court to act pursuant to the Laws of the State). (Britannica) “Once jurisdiction is challenged, it must be proven.” (Jagens v. Lavine, 415 S.Ct.768). “Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time, even on final determination.” (Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 2nd 906 at 910). “Where there is an absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon direct collateral attack.” (Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 382; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471). – Compiled by John Wilson, http://www.rightsandwrong.com.au. BY FAX May 29th., 2006 TO: Brian Haggith
Inspector
Ontario Provincial Police
Cayuga Detachment
Cayuga, Ontario
n0a 1e0 AND TO: All Members of the Ontario Provincial Police Via Cayuga Detachment Reference: Indian Title Dear Brian; In order for you to best understand what you are up against with respects to the Caledonia protests I feel compelled to write you in order that any misunderstandings may be avoided as well to enlighten you on some points of law that you may not be aware of. First of all, I must say that those falling under the Police Act of Ontario, including those masquerading as “Indian Police” officers viz First Nations Police, subscribe to one of two oaths. One oath is to the “constitution” of CANADA, the other, to the QUEEN. In subscribing to an oath to the “constitution” of CANADA officers have pledged allegiance/alignment to a corporation. There is no “Canadian” constitution and there cannot be a constitution until such time as all Indians are murdered off and the people participate in the “constitutional” process. Pledging alignment to the QUEEN is also pledging allegiance to another corporation (sole). In pledging allegiance to the QUEEN and opposing the Indians is the prohibited act of High Treason. To undertake allegiance to the corporation of CANADA would, in my view, constitute an undeclared act of war against the Indians, Turtle Islanders and Elizabeth Windsor. Next up are the demarcation zones defining Indian Territory and lands that have been ceded, surrendered or Treatied. The zones appear on the attached map of Royal Proclamation 1763 territories. You can find reference to the Royal Proclamation within section 25(a) of your Charter of Rights and Freedoms 1982. Also, you may see another map, post 1923, athttp://anishinabe.org. The post 1923 map shows the so-called treaties post 1763 and they are problematic for the following reasons; 1. “Canada” is a corporation, a trustee, and not a sovereign entity therefore, incapable of entering into bona fide Treaties. 2. Parties to the first part signed for the second part. This violates the Statute of Frauds. 3. If the so-called Treaties were valid then the Royal Proclamation 1763 would have to be amended and there have been no such amendments since 1763 and certainly not consequent to the so-called American Revolution of 1776 or the first bankruptcy of 1789 when Congress was invented to deal with the bankruptcy. When you purchased your house did the lawyer advise you title was “free and clear” or that title was the subject of a lien, Indian Title? If you happen to peruse the website you will also find my application of petition for writ of mandamus as against Michael Horgan, deputy minister of INAC. The questions posed to him ought to shed substantial light on what really going on. For example, the Royal Proclamation 1763 provides that the Indians are under the protection of the monarch. Can you tell me what part of the Criminal(‘s) Code of Canada provides for “Crimes Committed Against Indians”? Do you see my point? Perhaps it might not be a bad idea to seek an interlocutory injunction against the Legislature, on the subdivision, until such time as the mandamus has been dealt with. You will also note the areas referred to as “Ruperts Land”. Rupert owned no land and the Treaties within that three million square mile area were between the Indians and the Hudson’s Bay Co’y. Even though the Hudson’s Bay Co’y surrendered its charter in 1870 there were no releases entered into between the Indians and the Hudson’s Bay Co’y at or prior to the surrender therefore, the Hudson’s Bay Co’y is still on the hook with the Indians to this very day. Following this I wish to draw to your attention to the second attachment. This is the Royal Instructions by Victoria Saxe-Coburg-Gotha concerning Canada in 1867. As you will note, there was no confederation, there was no constitution what there was, was a consolidation of the three Provinces into four (?). Victoria authorized a consolidation and the only thing that was consolidated was the Indian Fund with the Consolidated Revenue Fund undertaken in order to cheat the Indians out of their royalties and to pay off the fictitious bank loans created for useless railways. After the consolidation Act of 1867 the House of Commons and House of Lords U. K. go on to debate the Canada Railway Loan Bill. The Indians have contracts with several nations and those contracts were consolidated into the hands of George the Third in 1763. Again, there were no releases entered into between the Indians and the other nations nor did the Indians agree that George the Third was allowed to consolidate all Treaties into his hands. The Indians had nothing to do with the Royal Proclamation 1763. The Royal Proclamation is not the Indian’s “constitution” as it did not come to pass through any Indian surrender or capitulation. Moving along, I do not know if you are aware of this or not but there appears to have been some sort of conspiracy between George the Third and Canadian Joseph Brant to set up a shell game with the Six Nations. It is unclear to me how “free”mason George the Third could give Indian Land to “free”mason Joseph Brant for the Six Nations Reserve. Again, referring to the attached map, Brantford is deep within Indian Territory. The system of the elected chiefs in council at the Six Nations Reserve came to pass in 1952 when Louis St. Laurant forced his Indian Act on the Six Nations using armed force. The current elected system is in opposition to Indian Customs and Traditions therefore unlawful. The elected chiefs are “Canadian” and are not working for the best interests of the Indians as a whole. This is one of the areas you may be experiencing problems with. Speaking frankly, I do not know what bullshit the likes of Murray D. Segal and General Michael Bryant are feeding, or have fed, members of the Ontario Provincial Police and in particular the late officer Deanes, but if I were a member of the Ontario Provincial Police I would be suing all those who had anything to do with Officer Deanes being fed lies for the murder of Dudley George and the crap Deanes had to endure consequent to those lies. It is my hope that this letter sheds light on the reality of Indians and it is hoped that another Deanes/George tragedy can be avoided. It can be safe to say that the politicians do not serve the interests of the Indians or those, like you I presume, who are not Indian but are born on Turtle Island. To be born here and to work against the Indians and the Turtle Islanders for a foreign jurisdiction renders those traitors. The problems can be traced back to the banking/currency fraud and the monetary system which is the slavery. It would appear that members ought to be pledging allegiance to either the Indians or to Elizabeth Windsor and not to corporations. Should you require further information please feel free to contact me. Should you wish my assistance in this matter I would be more than willing to assist the Ontario Provincial Police and the Six Nations. Should you require copies of the documents I rely and to present them to you and your brothers and sisters of the Ontario Provincial Police as proof of my position I would be more than happy to oblige at the nominal cost of copying, shipping and handling. A key document is; Indian Claims/Robinson Treaties, transcripts of proceedings, Exchequer Court, Ottawa, 1894, 509 pages. Although I was unable to attend the George enquiry I did furnish the Chair with a copy of those transcripts as well my five page notes from the document. What I have briefed you on David Ramsay is aware of. The land issue is squarely in the hands of Ottawa per s. 91.24 of the 1867 Act and cannot be delegated to the Provinces. In closing, I strongly urge you and other members of the Ontario Provincial Police to undertake your own research on the aforementioned facts as lawyers for the Police are definitely not looking out for your best interests. The lawyers in Ontario work, directly or indirectly, for the Inner Temple within the country of London, or Londinium (please refer to ch. 11 Magna Carta 1215) Thank you for your attention to this matter and I remain, Yours truly, Patrick Ellis Saulteaux (Mus Ka Say A Na Nee) Administrator Anishinabe Nations of Turtle Island P. O. Box 608 Arborg, Manitoba r0c 0a0 Ph: 204-364-2213 Fx: N/A Email: turtleislandlien@hotmail.com | 
MNN. Nov. 6, 2006. Joseph Brant, born a Mohawk and educated by the British, became a British subject, violating Wampum 58.Under Wampum 35, he was appointed a Pine Tree Chief, a ceremonial position with no powers in council. Should any man of the nation assist with special ability or show great interest in the affairs of the nation, if he proves himself wise, honest and worthy of confidence, the chiefs of the League may elect him to a seat among them and he may sit in the council of the League. He shall be proclaimed a Pine Tree, sprung up for the nation, and be installed as such at the next assembly for the installation of chiefs. Should he ever do anything contrary to the rules of the Great Peace, he may not be deposed from office. No one shall cut him down, but thereafter everyone shall be deaf to his voice and his advice. Should he resign from his seat and title, no one shall prevent it.A Pine Tree Chief has no authority to name a successor nor is his title hereditary. His sole responsibility was to translate. The British and their marionette, Brant, illegally sold and signed away large tracts of Mohawk land in New York State and Ontario. He and the British knew full well he had no authority to do this. Therefore, all his transactions were and are fraudulent.Today Canada and Ontario are using Brant’s phony land sales and giveaways as the basis for their claims to our lands. They know very well it doesn’t hold water. The following deposition by the Six Nations Chiefs and War Chiefs was to inform everyone that Brant’s words and deeds were illegal. In 1808 he murdered his own son Isaac. He could never live with the Mohawks because of his treachery. Brant died in 1811 alone in his mansion in Burlington. Fifty years later, he was brought to Brantford where he lies in a Masonic grave. [The document is blurred and we have indicated on our transcript the illegible parts with a ? mark. We apologize for any indeliberate misnomers].
