OUR HOME : CAVEAT - IDLE NO MORE ULALI - CAVEAT : OUR NATION
SETTLED LAW
Understanding Crown Canada Law Through Native Eyes
It Is Not Uncommon Today That When A Native (Indigenous) Person Attends The Crown Canada Court; And, Pronouncing Sovereignty From Crown Jurisdiction, That The Judge Will Dismiss This Assertion As Not Relevant Due To The Supreme Court Instructions That All Questions Of Sovereignty Have Been Considered; And, That There Are Now No Longer Any Legal Arguments Surviving – Or, Yet To Be Discovered – Wherein Indigenous Sovereignty Is An Issue. Therefore, The Security – Paramountcy – Of Crown Canada Is Entrenched – Solid Like Stone – And, Therefore SETTLED LAW.
HOWEVER
How Did Crown Canada Achieve Dominance Over Sovereign Native Peoples ?
What Acceptable Law (To Both Parties – The Alien English & The Native Population) Secured English Crown Law In This Foreign Turtle Island North Land ?
Was It By Successful Alien / Foreign Nation Declared War?
Or
Was It By Civil Contract?
And
What Role Did The Catholic Church Papal Bulls (1095, 1455, 1493) Play?
At The Root Of This Issue Of Jurisdiction – The Right Of One Party To Achieve The Rightful Declaration That Their Law Is Most Applicable To A Specific Situation – Is The Foundation Of Contract Law : The Conscious Agreement Of The Two Parties That An Agreement Can Be Signed Through A Common Set Of Described Terms And Conditions – And, That There Is A Seller And A Buyer; And, That Some Form Of Legal Tender Is Exchanged. All Of The Aforementioned Conditions Shall Be Completed In Absence Of Fear; Without Duress By The Buyer Upon The Seller.
TURTLE ISLAND NORTH – NORTH AMERICA – INCLUDING CANADA
In The Beginning, There Were None – And, Then – Through The Creator There Were Many. For The Purposes Of This Publication The Following Are Asserted As Historical Facts :
1. Indigenous Peoples Populated Turtle Island North In This Most Current Epoch 16,500 Years Ago
2. In 1095, The Catholic Church Began Issuing Papal Bulls (Church Law) That Pronounced The Supremacy Of The Catholic Church Upon All Monarchs Of Europe. And, That (Including Further Papal Bulls Of 1455 & 1493) That All Explorations By European Monarchs Shall Include The Catholic Church. Failure To Include The Catholic Church Would Cause The Catholic Church To Declare War Upon Any Offending Monarch. The Role Of The Catholic Church Was To Uphold The Catholic Supremacy : I.E., Any Territory Populated By Non-Christians Is A Land Not Inhabited By Humans.
3. In 1492, When Christopher Columbus Declared The Discovery Of Turtle Island North (The New World) The Turtle Island North Population Was Circa 100,000,000 Indigenous Peoples
4. In England, The Crown Deposed The Catholic Church In 1534 By The Act Of Supremacy, Establishing The Supreme Head On Earth Of The Church Of England ( In 1559, Elizabeth I Was Pronounced As The Supreme Governor Of The Church Of England
5. In 1670, English King Charles II, Gave Half Of “Canada” To His German Cousin Prince Rupert (Rupert’s Land – East Coast) & Issued The HBC Charter
6. In 1788, The European Utrecht Court Decided (In The England vs Spain Land Dispute Of West Coast “North America – Turtle Island North) That Existing Indigenous Paramount / First Title To Lands Was Entrenched / SETTLED LAW. Indigenous Peoples Were Entitled To Be Recognized As Rightful Land And Waterways Title Holders; And, Therein, Possessing The Right To Protect & / Or Sell Their Lands. Indigenous North America Sovereignty Was Settled European Law
7. In 1867, English Queen Victoria Issued The Royal Proclamation In The British North America Act; Establishing The Confederated Canada
SETTLED LAW IN CANADA – 2021 - INDIGENOUS PEOPLES INCLUDED
CITIZENSHIP – BY BIRTH AND BY IMMIGRATION
In 1763, The European Royal Proclamation Was Settled As A Peace Declaration To Finalize The End Of The European Seven Years War. English King George III Endorsed The Proclamation Terms. This Settlement Declared Agreement On Lands Of North America. And, Further, Recognized Aboriginal Title – Preceding The Utrecht Court Decision By 25 Years.
In 1788, English King George III Succeeded At The Utrecht Court In His Complaint Against Spain For The Seizure Of His (George III) 100 Acres Of Lands At Friendly Cove, West Coast Of North America ( Today, Territory Is Claimed By Crown Canada As The British Columbia Province (99% Not Treatied With Crown Canada).
In 1923, Chief Deskaheh (Levi General) Of The Haudenosaunee Peoples (Iroquois Confederacy) Travelled To Switzerland On His Sovereign Indigenous Passport To Attend The League Of Nations General Assembly; And, To Speak In Protest Of The Failed Relationships Between “Canadian Government” And The Indigenous Population. The League Of Nation’s Majority Membership Agreed To Accept Chief Deskaheh As A Speaker. But, England And Canada (Not A Sovereign Nation Yet) Protested; And, Therefore, Deskaheh Was Denied Speaker Attendance. Deskaheh, Therefore, Hired A Large Auditorium; And, 10,000 People Attended To Hear His Notable Protest.
In 1945, Canada Was One Of The Founding Members Of The United Nations. And, Has Accepted The UN Charter.
In 1948, The UN Issued The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights – Assented To By Canada
Today, The UN Declarations And Conventions On The Rights Of Indigenous Peoples And The Rights Of The Child Are Likewise (Somewhat Begrudgingly) Assented To By Canada.
And, Today, The Valid Jurisdiction Of Canada / Indigenous Peoples Treaties Are In Question : Established By Acceptable Contract Law In Absence Of War Peace???
CANADA JURISDICTION OF LAW - INDIGENOUS DISPUTE LAND ISSUES
English Common Law Is Prescribed To By Canada Law Regimes (Federal / Provincial / Territorial. And, Canada Criminal Law Is Established Through Federal Parliamentary Jurisdiction – As Provided Through The British North America Act (1867) And The Canada Constitution Act (1982).
The Canada Indian Act Establishes First Nations Reserves. And, Canada Recognizes Three Indigenous Peoples : Inuit, Metis And First Nations In Law And In The Charter Of Rights And Freedoms.
Indigenous Peoples Can Voluntarily Forsake Indigenous Entitlements, As Has Been The Case Of War Veterans Who Were Entitled Land Titles In Exchange For Giving Up Indigenous Entitlements
Indigenous Peoples Have Been Prohibited From Retaining Legal Counsel In Canada Until 1960.
Today, In Matters Of Family Law, There Are Uniform Laws In Each Province And Territory That Endorse A Common Standard Of Regulation In These Family Law Matters Regarding Marriage And Divorce. Adoption And Matrimonial Property Disputes Are Provincial / Territorial Jurisdiction. Spousal And Child Support Following A Divorce Is Federal Jurisdiction. The Federal Uniform Divorce Act Applies To The Support Issues – There Are Some Matters That Fall Within Provincial / Territorial Jurisdiction.
Within These Matters Are The Incumbent Canadian Responsibilities To International Laws & UN Declarations / Conventions.
“Canada has implemented legislation that establishes universal jurisdiction for the prosecution of certain international crimes.2 According to Section 6(1) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (CAHWCA), genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes are criminalized in Canada when committed abroad.3 In addition, Section 8 of the CAHWCA sets out the conditions for Canada to exercise (universal) jurisdiction for such crimes (see below on Universal Jurisdiction Requirements).” – Source : Open Society Justice Initiative & TRIAL International 2020 April.
MISTAKE & / OR IGNORANCE OF LAW @ COMMON & CRIMINAL LAW
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES CUSTOMARY AND TRADITIONAL LAW
IN CANADA
RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES : THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE STATE
· ADULTS
· CHILDREN
· NEW CITIZENS : THE OATH UNDERTAKING
· THE COMMON PRESUMPTIONS UPON PERSONS BORN WITHIN THE CANADA JURISDICTION
· LAWFUL DUTIES ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC GOOD AND THE CONTINUED ADMINISTRATION OF LAW
· JUDICIARY AND LEGAL COUNSEL OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE
MENS REA : WITHIN THE MIND OF THE PERSON : INTENT
IGNORANCE OF LAW
MISTAKE OF LAW
APPLICATION VARIANCE : CIVIL DISPUTES AND CRIMINAL LAW
THE POINT AT WHICH THE INDIVIDUAL IS VOLUTARILY & / OR COMPELLED TO COMPLY WITH ACCEPTED LAW JURISDICTION
THE CANADA JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INSTRUCTIONS TO CROWN COUNSEL – OBLIGATIONS TO EQUALLY PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF ALL PARTIES TO A CONFLICT UNDER CONSIDERATION AT COURT – ABSENCE OF PREDJUDICE
ENTITLEMENT TO ADEQUATE STATE FUNDED COMPETENT LEGAL COUNSEL OF CHOICE : NOTABLE EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS COURT SETTLEMENT @ AIREY versus IRELAND (32 Eur Ct HR Ser A (1979): [1979] 2 E.H.R.R. 305) “Mrs Airey sought judicial separation from her physically abusive husband. As she was unable to conclude a separation agreement with her husband, she sought a judicially ordered separation. She was unable to obtain such an order since she lacked the financial means, in the absence of legal aid, to retain a solicitor. The European Court of Human Rights held this was a violation of her right to access a court for determination of her civil rights and obligations (Article 6). Citing international law and the Convention's intention they said that remedies must be effective not illusory. They noted that many civil and political rights had social and economic implications involving positive obligations. Accordingly, there was a right to legal assistance if it was indispensable for effective access to the courts. In this case, self-representation was ineffective given the complex procedure of the Irish High Court, the relevant Irish law, the emotional dimension of marital disputes and the possibility that her husband may be represented. The Court further determined that Article 8 -respect of family life- was violated. The right to respect for family life could entail positive obligations for the effective access to protective mechanisms concerning family life, in this instance, the ability to effectively petition for judicial separation. The Court did not address the claim of discrimination which raised the question as to whether denial of civil rights due to poverty amounts to discrimination.” : Source – ESCR : INTERNATIONAL NETWORK FOR ECONOMIC, SOCIAL & CULTURAL RIGHTS (2021).
IMPERATIVE MATTER OF FIRST ORDER : TO SECURE STATE FUNDED COMPETENT LEGAL COUNSEL OF CHOICE – Per – RECOGNIZED INTERNATIONAL LAW PROVISIONS
1. In Family Law Matters And The Rights Of Indigenous Peoples In Canada These Matters Have Been Submitted To Queen Elizabeth II – Queen Of Canada – Head Of State In Year 2005 – COPIES Of Submission And Response Are Included Herein
2. The Consequence Of The Submission Was That Elizabeth II Submitted The Goodwin Application (On Behalf Of Indigenous Peoples In Canada) To The Governor General Of Canada; Who, Consequently, Submitted It To The Federal Cabinet For Investigation. The Minister Of Health (Former Premier Of British Columbia) And A Lawyer, Attended To The Cowichan Tribes First Nations Territory To Investigate The Fundamental Complaint Of Canada Forcing Native Children To Live In Moldy Homes
3. Therefore, The Airey vs Ireland Settlement Of The State Funded Legal Counsel Was Recognized By Elizabeth II
Canada now to recognize the UN Indigenous Peoples Fundamental Rights Doctrine
OBJECTOR POSITION REMOVED
(CBC News) (google) (UN NEWS CENTRE / unWEBtv / Website) (CBC NEWS ARCHIVES) (DETAILS) (VIDEO) (JWR)
