MOHAWK MOTHERS DAY 1 IN FEDERAL COURT Audio

 

THE ATTEMPTED PROCEDURAL SWAMP!

Please post & circulate.

 

KAHNISTENSERA MOHAWK WOMEN’S NOMINATION BELT

AUDIO:

 

MNN. Jan. 14, 2022. Day 1, Federal Court of Canada. The prothonotary/judge, the lawyers for McGill, Montreal City, Quebec Government and Stantec Construction listed the court’s protocol demands for the whole two hours on Zoom. The kahnistensera Mohawk Mothers wanted to discuss the “substance”, which is the investigation of the unmarked graves of the children behind McGill University. The judge and the rest wanted the kahnistensera to each have a lawyer who knows the court rules. Even appointing one on their behalf. Those who represent themselves delay the justice system and the state wins by twisting around its rules. They want to avoid the kanienkehaka culture. They allotted two days for the women to answer their procedural questions. In the end, to get them out of their court system, they suggested outside mediation so there would be no resolution.

COURT TACTIC #1: THROW THOSE WOMEN INTO OUR PROCEDURAL SWAMP!

 

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

STANTEC INC.

Respondents

_____________________________________________________________________________

APPLICANTS’ RESPONSE TO THE PROTONOTARY AND RESPONDENTS’ REQUEST TO RESPOND TO FILING QUESTIONS

NOTICE OF MOTION

(Rules 120 and 121 of the Federal Courts Rules)

____________________________________________________________________________

CONSIDERING THAT on Jan. 14, 2022, 1:30 PM-EST the Federal Court Prothonotary and the Respondents have asked the Applicants to file a notice of motion on the following subjects:

 

  • Representation
  • Sequencing
  • Out of court litigation

THE MOTION SEEKS to (1) explain why the traditional protocol that the kaianerekowa, great peace, provides that the sovereign rotinonhsonni Applicants do not use a lawyer; (2) Confirm that the Applicants’ original request for an injunction must precede the Respondents’ motion to strike the case out of the Federal Court; and (3) notice to the parties that a litigation before the International Court of Justice of The Hague may be envisioned.

THE GROUNDS FOR THIS MOTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:

  1. In accordance with our traditional protocol, the above questions were submitted to the  kahnistensera (Mohawk Mothers), who have interpreted the provisions of our precolonial constitution, the kaianerekowa.

 

Representation

  1. Our case refers to Sections 35 and 52 of the Constitution of Canada Act, 1982, which states that “the existing pre-colonial aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal people [of turtle island] are hereby recognized and affirmed”. The Aboriginal rights of the rotinonshonni people is the kaianerekowa, great peace, whose constitution does not recognize other laws. Pursuant to 52, the supreme law of Canada establishes all laws of Canada are inconsistent with the kaianerekowa and therefore of no force or effect. The kahnistensera are strictly following the protocols provided by the kaianerekowa at all steps of this legal process.
  2. The Prothonotary, and the four lawyers for the Respondents suggest that the kahnistensera get a lawyer to represent them so the case can move faster and easier for them. According to the kaianerekowa this will not be possible, as each kahnistensera is sovereign, has the right to be heard, and must represent herself through the established way. The kahnistensera are not a “group” and do not have any “spokesperson”. kaianerekowa provides they have an obligation to each put our own words into the issue through our protocol.
  3. Our decisions are based on going back to the people for their words. In our way everyone’s voice must be heard through our clans. Our consensus-based culture does not allow a single “spokesperson” to make a decision without consulting the people. Each must voice their opinion according to tentewatate’nikokonhri:sakta, “to search in each other’s minds for the truth”. The kaianerekowa values decorum where one speaks, and all listen until the speaker completes their thoughts. We listen to our opponents and do not immediately answer. We take it back to our people for their minds. We then bring back their words. We each represent our people and their words. This has been our way since time immemorial.
  4. Advising us to have a lawyer is imposing a protocol on us which is inconsistent with the kaianerekowa. A lawyer or spokesperson with no cultural background on the language, culture and substance of the kaianerekowa would be inconsistent with our law and damage our cause. They don’t know who we are. A lawyer has a sworn allegiance to uphold the laws of Canada, which Section 52 declares are of no force or effect.  Also, they would expect to be paid for having us teach them our culture and how to try to litigate our case. By contrast with the Respondents, we are not a corporation having the kind of money necessary for such a process.

Sequencing

  1. As to sequencing, we are adamant that our original demand to order an injunction is an urgent matter that cannot be delayed by court technicalities. We were prepared to address this timely issue during our hearing on January 14th, 2022. We were mislead. Instead of treating the issue, the 2-hour hearing only dealt with court technicalities which have no grounding in our culture and our law. We are ready to state our case.
  2. We wish to deal with the substance for relief as soon as possible. The motion to strike out our cause will not be necessary if the Federal Court abides by Sections 35 and 52 of the Constitution Act of Canada, 1982, which show that the motion to strike out our case concerns mostly procedural rules which are of no force or effect given their inconsistency with our sovereign Aboriginal law, the kaianerekowa.
  3. The kaianerekowa, great peace, does not suggest any difference between local, regional, provincial, federal, commonwealth, private or public courts. It is concerned with the self-preservation of indigenous lives and cultures that face genocide at the hands of colonists trespassing on our land. We want Sections 35 and 52 of the Constitution to be enforced over the people that are using the laws of Canada to violate the kaianerekowa, our land, our people, and our culture.
  4. The only relevant subject of discussion is the action that must be taken immediately to make sure the Respondents do not allow the concealing of the unmarked graves of our people on the site of the Royal Victoria Hospital and the Allan Memorial Institute.

    TRUDEAU: “YES, I CONFESSED THAT IT WAS GENOCIDE”.

 

Out of court litigation

  1. As for bringing this case before a dispute resolution table for discussion in another jurisdiction, we had raised this possibility with McGill University before filing our first motion at the Federal Court and was never responded to. The Société québécoise des infrastructures contacted the Band Councils, which were invented by the Canadian Parliament as part of the racist Indian Act which was forcibly imposed on our people as a means for genocide. Prime Minister Trudeau acknowledged this. The way the Respondents disregarded the role of the kahnistensera by contacting the Canadian government’s agents, the Band Councils, indicates that they have no interest in resolving this matter by kaianerekowa methods. This tactic will lead to unnecessary further delay.
  2. This is a serious case involving potential unmarked graves of children, whose recovery is provided by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People UNDRIP. The case cannot waste time in out of court litigation which would postpone the relief sought. According to the kahnistensera, the kaianerekowa does not respect mediation or other alternative methods invented by the court for resolving these issues. 
  3. In case the Federal Court does not abide by its obligations in Sections 35 and 52, the only alternative for dispute resolution is in the International Court of Justice in the Hague, established in 1903. This was the first world court signed by all countries in the world as the non-Admiralty dispute resolution court for all nations.

Conclusion

  1. The resolution to this issue is based on the Constitution Act of Canada, 1982, [Sections 35 [1] and 52[1] which 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”. The notwithstanding clause Section 33 of the Constitution does not touch Sections 35 and 52. It only applies to Section 2, and Sections 7 to 15 of the Charter of Rights found in the Constitution Act 1982. Therefore, the kaianerekowa is the existing law of the land since time immemorial and cannot be revoked or changed as it is based on the natural world. Therefore, all laws not recognized by the kaianerekowa are of no force or effect on any of our land. Although the Constitution of Canada acknowledges and affirms the kaianerekowa, the kaianerekowa does not recognize Canadian courts, laws and procedures, which are not based on nature. 
  2. We cannot have a lawyer appointed for us to say our words. This violates our law and culture. Everyone has a right to represent themselves according to the kaianerekowa. As the Federal Court of Canada is a foreign court that our law does not recognize, we are addressing it for the sole purpose of asking the Federal Court to ensure its citizens follow their own laws and stop trespassing, stealing, and killing us. This is the substance we wish to deal with. There should be no further delay in the judge entering the proper judgment.
  3. We want acknowledgement of the genocide that occurred and the current trauma of the victims by dealing with issues of unmarked graves more promptly without delay by judicial technicalities that are of no force and effect according to the Constitution of Canada.

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 

Telephone 514-585.2625

 

kahentinetha

kawenaa

karennatha

karakwine

ADRESSED TO

Me Alexandre Rouanet-Bazinet, BERGERON, DENILLE & ASSOCIATES, Counsel for 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, 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, 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, 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

niawen’kowa.

Shania Twain knows about first impressions: She’s not impressed: [that don’t impress me much].

Video: SOLIDARITY WITH MOHAWK MOTHERS https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AEq%2DuwIvIyAHsbs&cid=5E14731331D6F8F0&id=5E14731331D6F8F0%215858&parId=root&o=OneUp

Mohawkntionnews.com

kahentinetha2@protonmail.com, P O Box 991, kahnawake [Quebec, Canada] J0L 1B0

kahnistensera@riseup.net

 

KAHNISTENSERA TO STRIKE OUT MCGILL, ROYAL VIC, MONTREAL & STANTEC Audio

 

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

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. 
  1. 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. 
  1. 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.
  1. 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  
  1. 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. 
  1. 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. 
  1. 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. 
  1. 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. 
  1. 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”. 
  1. 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.
  1. 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:
  1. 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.
  1. 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.
  1. 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. 

  1. 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. 
  1. 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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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).
  7. 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.
  1. 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. 
  1. 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. 
  1. 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.
  1. 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. 
  1. 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. 
  1. 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.  
  1. 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. 
  1. 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. 
  1. 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.
  2. 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; kahentinetha2@protonmail.com  kahnistensera@riseup.net

MORE MOTHERS MOVEMENT

 

Please post & circulate.

CREE COMPANIES IN UNLAWFUL MEGA BUSINESSES ON MOHAWK LAND

 

Audio

REMEMBER WHEN WE VISITED THE MOHAWKS AND THEY TREATED US SO GOOD.

MNN. Dec. 14, 2021. kahnistensera Mohawk mothers have alerted Cree Corporations about their illegal business developments on kanienkehaka mohawk land without permission.  

REGISTERED MAIL

TO: Abel Bosum, Grand Council of the Crees [Eeyou Istchee] and Cree Nation Government, 2 Lakeshore Road, Nemaska, QC J0Y 3B0 – 418-691-1111, 819-673-2600; 

Seko sewakwekoh.

“Land claims” is an English term invented by Britain, US and Canada to make land theft seem valid. This mind game does not put them in the drivers seat. It’s our land. The only way to give up land is to take money, to sell it, flip the title constantly, but the underlying ownership always remains with the original natives. The current ‘land claims’ system is meant to force us to submit land claims on lands we naturally own. No one can ever prove that we sold any of our land to anyone legally. We are each sovereign and as caretakers we can never convey, transfer or sell any of turtle island, as the titleholders are our unborn children. Our duty is to maintain this land for them.

We are the caretakers of tianni tiotiaken, known as ‘Montreal’. kaianerekowa, the great peace, and all aboriginal law is based on the natural world. Corporate contracts and treaties for land transferred between foreigners and the original people are illegitimate. No one nation has the authority to deal with a land issue on their own. It has to go through the Iroquois Confederacy Grand Council. All nations have to agree, skanikonras. In the case of Crees and Mohawks, this has not happened.

Montreal is selling stolen Mohawk land to the Crees. The Crees are buying stolen property. The Crees should approach their relatives, the kanienhaka Mohawks, to legalize their activities on our land. This is a national issue that bypasses all imposed foreign authorities on turtle island.

The kanistensera, Mohawk mothers, are the progenitors of the soil of our people and caretakers of the land, water and air since time immemorial. We are to survive and coexist as siblings with nature on our mother earth. kaianerekowa is the will of the people according to the natural world, which is embodied in the original 49 families of the tekentiakwenhoxta. The Crees have made contracts with foreigners for our land, which is another form of theft, genocide and assimilation. The Cree think they have to go through the white illegal authorities to use and annex Mohawk land.

CANADA STEALS OUR LAND & MONEY, THEN SELLS US OUR OWN LAND & WE PAY FOR IT FROM OUR STOLEN INDIAN TRUST FUNDS!!! THEN THE BUSINESS GOES BUT AND WE LOSE EVERYTHING.

The kanistensera object to the Cree corporation building infrastructures on our land without our permission. Historically we permitted the refugees the depth of a plow only to support their families. The Grand Council of the Crees and Cree Nation Government are privately owned corporations like the Hudson’s Bay Company who killed the animals and made our life difficult. Today corporations are filthy rich while our people are living on the streets of the cities. In the past everybody had food and shelter. Corporations are only concerned about money and the power it brings them. The kaianerekowa does not allow anyone to continue this carnage to all life on onowarekeh.

Proper protocol was not followed as the Crees used an assimilated mind. The proposed tower is being put in the middle of tiani tiotiakon [Montreal]. The land belongs to us kanienkehaka Mohawk, not Montreal, Quebec or Canada. You failed to come to your own people to make an agreement with us on your illegal project. kariwakwenionston. Respect.

Corporate Crees are the illegal band councils established by the corporation of Canada in 1924 and thus are not indigenous. They gave up their political standing to become canadiens [squatters] therefore leaving behind their indigenous political liberties. We are the keepers of this portion of turtle island for the coming generations. All land on geniengeh is the responsibility of the kanienhaka of the iroquois Confederacy. Whenever we hear of an encroaching danger, we are to bring it to our family, then to our clan which will bring it up to the councils, which will come to one mind. Their decision is taken to the Grand Council, katiohonwanenkeh, the big fire. One individual spark is added to the clan spark, then to the nation spark and then to the big fire. At every level that spark turns into a fire. Rotistenhaien. Iera’kwa [Iroquois] is when we put the issue on the floor of the Iroquois Confederacy council that is in session.

KAIANEREKOWA THE GREAT PEACE IS THE SOLUTION. 

WE SUGGEST TO OUR RELATIVES, THE CREE, TO FOLLOW DUE PROTOCOL IN OUR HOMELAND WITH OUR PEOPLE, TO COME TO THOSE WHO HAVE AUTHORITY OVER THE SAID LAND ACCORDING TO OUR TRUE RELATIONSHIP:

1.The Grand Council of the Crees, Cree Nation Government and all their corporate subsidiaries involved in this illegal project should meet with our people so that we can remind them and resolve this matter in tewatatekeh, to council properly as relatives. All agreements are based on the kaianerekowa, the nice path that has been laid out for us all. tewaianosere.

2.Our ancestors made a protocol on how we will co-exist on turtle island which we all agreed to respect, called the kaianerekowa.

3.The teiohateh, two row, is the basis of our relationship to the earth and with each other which is based on the natural world.

4.Under sections 35 and 52 of the Constitution Act of Canada, 1982, the natural laws of the original peoples are recognized as the only laws of turtle island. The Crees are following the foreign contract law of Canada which have no force or effect. They have no land rights on Mohawk land.  

According to the original instructions between us and nature, kanistensera speak for the soil and all life. Our message is to remind you that the protocols of our ancestors are more important than the strength of the white man’s crown law.

No sovereign onkwehonwe sanctioned your actions. We were never notified of your plans on tioni tiotiakon with the city of Montreal government which has no authority on land issues.

Hank Williams sang about sadness when all is gone: “I’m gonna find me a river, one that’s cold as ice. And when I find me that river, Lord I’m gonna pay the price, Oh Lord! I’m goin’ down in it three times, but Lord I’m only comin up twice. She’s long gone, and now I’m lonesome blue”.

On behalf of the past, present and future ancestors and descendants of the kanienkehaka, the great peace and two row will prevail. 

kahentinetha2protonmail.com Box 991, kahnawake [Quebec. Canada] J0L 1B0

FROM: Kanistensera, mohawk mothers, and the men’s fire, box 801, kahnawake [quebec] J0L 1B0. kanistensera@riseup.net.

SEE CREE HOTEL ON MOHAWK LAND https://www.costar.com/article/2090574385/cree-nation-of-quebec-to-build-100-million-25-storey-tower-in-old-montreal

CREE DREAMS: BILLIONAIRES ALLEY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wehsz38P74g

Illegal Quebec Cree band council to build skyscraper on Mohawk land without permission.https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/cree-real-estate-odea-montreal-creeco-robert-bourassa-1.6270279

Canada has no property rights: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/docproject/did-i-buy-a-condo-on-stolen-land-how-purchasing-my-first-home-made-me-question-property-rights-1.6007196

CC. MAYOR, City Hall, 275 Notre Dame St., E., Montreal QC H2Y 1C8, 514-872-3101; Hon. Justin Trudeau, Parliament, Ottawa ON K1A 0A9; Hon. Marc Miller, Minister, Aboriginal Affairs & Northern Development, 10 Wellington, Ottawa, ON K1A 0H4, Governor General Mary Simon, Rideau Hall, 1 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, ON K1A 0A1; Queen Elizabeth, Buckingham Palace. AFN., 55 Men’s Fire, Rotinoshonni; Quebec Premier Francois Legault; news@mcgilldaily.com; media@itk.ca;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOHAWK MOTHERS AMBUSHED BY COPS IN QUEBEC OFFICE

 

Please post and distribute.

 

 

AUDIO:

MNN. Dec. 9, 2021. Arrangements were made with SQI lawyer, Alexandre Rouan Bazinet, last week to discuss transfer of all keys for the Royal Victoria Hospital to the kanistensera, to house the indigenous homeless. Notice of the meeting was sent to the SQI, City of Montreal, McGill University, Stantic Construction Company, the Montreal Police and McGill Security. Official kenienkehaka Mohawk Nation protocols were followed throughout.

A report is being carried to the men’s fires of Iroquoia. McGill and Quebec both deny ownership of Mount Royal as it was the Mohawk village of tekanontak. Bazinet is the lawyer for SQI in a Federal Court of Canada motion T-1696-21, filed by the kanistensera. At the Public Consultation Commission hearing on the Royal Vic Project, the SQI was declared to be “owners” of the property under Canadian corporate law. Both SQI and McGill are now denying being the owners of Mount Royal as they would be guilty of dealing with stolen kanienkehaka property under the kaianerekowa, great peace, and Canadian corporate law. Moreover they prepared their own militia to brutalize the elders and supporters. A full criminal investigation should be done with regard to this outrageous armed assault, abuse, threats and bullying so the public is aware. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fL0Easmd-4

And a text written by the Milton park allies below!

Yesterday, at 11.35, DEC. 8, 2021, the Milton Parc Citizens’ Committee organized a peaceful protest to stand with the Kanien’kehá:ka Kahnistensera [Mohawk Mothers]. 25 to 30 people of all ages were present to retrieve the keys to the Royal Vic, a subsidiary of McGill University. After speeches, elders and mothers of the Nation entered the SQI, Province of Quebec Department of Infrastructures, office building. A police officer standing outside, speaking to a liaison, threatened to declare the protest illegal, and to begin arrests of those who remained. Police alleged protest members were blocking the doors to the offices. This could not have been further from the truth: the protest was very remote from the door to the offices. The police then threatened, again, to declare the protest illegal this time unless the name of the event organizer was disclosed to them. There is no legal obligation to disclose such information to police officers. It is bizarre they made such an insistence, and it is certainly not grounds to declare a protest illegal.The right to silence protects privacy.

Inside the building, mothers and elders asked to speak to a member from the SQI who they had made an appointment with and who the mothers and elders informed that they would be coming. The mothers and elders were not aggressive or confrontational. However, the police, visibly permitted by the SQI, quickly escalated the situation. The police did not allow the mothers to wait in the waiting room until they could make contact with a representative. One officer clearly attempted to intimate and provoke an elder, just as 20-25 police officers rushed into the building, scaring the protesters outside who were unaware of the events taking place in the offices. All these events unrolled in a time period of roughly 20 minutes. One of the people assigned to accompany the elders was forced by police to turn off their camera, and a journalist from Le Metro had their camera punched by an officer, as assault. The journalist later said to an organizer that they had ‘never experienced such direct aggression from police, despite years of covering protests.’ The elders and mothers were then violently shoved out of the SQI offices.

As this scene became visible, the crowd outside was completely shocked and disgusted; turned on their cameras and quickly began admonishing the officers. It is a great shame that the police and the SQI allowed the situation to escalate, and for violence and threats to be delivered to citizens; as well as elders and mothers whose nations are traditional caretakers of this land. The SQI is directly responsible for this police response. The Royal Vic has turned into the subject of a serious land dispute. As such, this heavy, disproptionate response from the SQI and the police only perpetuates a harsh colonial legacy, shutting down attempts at dialogue and respect between members of different nations with the threat of armed force. No matter the resistance: we remain true to our struggle for human rights and justice.

Frank Smith dances to the double talk we constantly get: “To get on the double dutch bus you know you want to jump. So get on the double dutch bus. So take a ride, we’re waiting in the clutch. There’s a double dutch bus coming down the street. Moving pretty fast, so kind shuffle your feet. Get on the bus, and pay your fare. Tell the driver you’re going to a double dutch affair. Follow me. fe fi fo fum, fe fi fo fum”. [Double Dutch Bus]

Societe quebecoise des infrastructures, 445 Saint Gabriel Street, Montreal [Quebec] H2Y 3A2. 514-873-5485   /http://smayes@sqi.gouv.qc.ca/. ; 

Milton Parc Citizen’s Committee samuel.helguero.hotmail.com

cc. McGill, Premier Province of Quebec, Stantec Construction, City of Montreal, Prime Minister Trudeau, Federal Court of Canada, International Criminal Court, United Nations, Canadian Civil Liberties Union, Wetsuweten Nation