MNN. August 10, 2005. Some people were afraid that by bringing this case into Canadian and American ?top? courts, we would be subjecting ourselves to the shortcomings of these colonial legal systems. They asked, ?Are you happy that one black man, six white men (maybe seven) and one white woman (maybe 2) might be deciding the rights of Kanien’keha:ka people??
Free from politics.
We brought our constitutional jurisdiction question to U.S. and Canadian Supreme Courts into a neutral forum, free from politics. We wanted to confront their false assumption that we have no rights except what they give us. This is totally false.
Decisions made outside constitutions.
Keeping the question out of these two ?top? courts does not solve the problem. Both countries are making decisions outside the constitution anyway. Unless these two courts bring their constitutions into line with the rule of law, our sovereignty and possessions will continue to be lost. By what we?re doing we hope they will have no choice but to respect our sovereignty and return our possessions.
Narrow question of law.
The courts have restricted us to a very narrow question of law. Political questions are irrelevant.
Is your constitution in force and effect? If so, why aren?t you obeying it?
Our sovereignty is not ?political?. Constitutional law confirms its existence. There have been no constitutional amendments. Law can?t be ?created? by a judge. Law must exist before they can judge. Otherwise, it is political lobbying by a judge to create law. The judge can?t do this. The judge can only recognize a previously created statute, precedent or unwritten customary law which has always existed. Judges cannot repeal or amend existing constitutional law. ?Rule of law? means the law rules, not the political feelings of the judges.
U.S. and Canada must clean their constitutional houses. It?s time they got rid of their colonial cobwebs. They should sweep their old federal extermination laws and policies into the dustbin. They can tear down their moldy old strategies and
USSC Justice Clarence Thomas? point.
The law as it is written has to rule without political considerations. Politics belongs in the legislative branches of both Indigenous and non-Indigenous societies. We always say, “Never mind the political questions. Let’s look at the law”…
Pierre George and Iokerononh file in Canada.
On August 10, 2005, Kanion?ke:haka and Pierre George filed in the Supreme Courts of both the U.S. and Canada. Both courts were put on notice about the law, summarized by Iokenononh, in his affidavit to the Supreme Court of Canada:
?The Great Lakes/St. Lawrence/Hudson River Drainage Basin of Northeastern North America is subject to the Kaianereh?ko:wa. The Kaianereh?ko:wa continues to govern. Since 1871 in the U.S. and 1876 in Canada the federal, state and provincial courts have intentionally applied federal, state and provincial law. The Kaianere?ko;wa is the governing law. All previous attempts to stop the genocide were stopped by the combined chicanery of the non-indigenous legal
The Court?s task in evaluating a claim for an aboriginal right is to examine the pre-sovereignty aboriginal practice and translate that practice, as faithfully and objectively as it can, into a modern legal right.?
This means the judges can make the laws as they go along according to which side of the bed they got up from. Read 05-165 ?In the Supreme Court of the United States In re Kanonion?ke:haka Kaianereh?ko:wa Kanon?ses:neh as a ?Non-party?, The Canadian St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians as ?Plaintiffs? vs. The State of New York as ?Defendants??.
No self-defeat here.
At this point we entered a new age of having a fuller understanding of our legal situation. Had we undermined ourselves at this point, we would have been beat before we started.
|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.