THE ATTEMPTED PROCEDURAL SWAMP!
Please post & circulate.
KAHNISTENSERA MOHAWK WOMEN’S NOMINATION BELT
MNN. Jan. 14, 2022. [Thahoketoteh of MNN on FCC Court case.] 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.
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
SOCIÉTÉ QUÉBÉCOISE DES INFRASTRUCTURES,
MCGILL UNIVERSITY; OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPLE & VICE CHANCELLOR;
CITY OF MONTRÉAL
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:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Out of court litigation
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- The resolution to this issue is based on the Constitution Act of Canada, 1982, [Sections 35  and 52 which provides “the existing pre-colonial aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal people [of turtle island] are hereby recognized and affirmed”. Section 52 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Me Alexandre Rouanet-Bazinet, BERGERON, DENILLE & ASSOCIATES, Counsel for the defendant Société québécoise des infrastructures E-mail: email@example.com : 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.firstname.lastname@example.org
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
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
email@example.com, P O Box 991, kahnawake [Quebec, Canada] J0L 1B0