Author Archives: Benjamin

Archives 2012 -

NOTICE: Declaration of Unincorporation, and, Revocation of consent to be governed

Originally Posted on October 16, 2010

NOTICE: Declaration of Unincorporation by Deregistration, Non-registration, and, Revocation of consent to be governed

Respondent[s]: THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BRANTFORD, et al., All Principals and Agents, and, general public et al., Hereinafter collectively referred to as “RESPONDENT”, “you”, “your”, in all your capacities, Notice to principal is notice to agent, notice to agent is notice to principal

GREETINGS, to all whom it may concern, do by these Presents send greeting:

Take notice that the undersigned, Hereinafter Individually referred to as “We”, “our”, are considered to be [un]incorporated by deregistration, non-registration and revocation of consent to be governed. We hereby serve notice that your services or lack thereof are no longer desired or required

Take heed, It is our understanding that registered voters are volunteering their consent and assent to be represented, and that the silent majority have become represented through assumption of tacit compliance, this notice serves as, Reservation of Rights of the un-incorporated silent majority, including Multiple John Doe, unincorporated. This revocation serves as record of non-compliance and rejection of tact assent to be represented by the RESPONDENT[s]

W]e Demand, that you deregister any and all name[s] provided below, and, that you cease and desist from any further use of the names provided below for gain and/or control, and, that you release any assumptive, and colorable title[s] over the name[s] and properties of the named, and, that you provide a rebuttal with proof of claims that you have the authority to refuse our claims, positions and demands, and, that you provide your response under full commercial liability, under penalty of perjury within 72 hours from receipt of this notice, an additional 24 hours grace will be granted, should your response not be met within the [ID]entified 72 hour period, failure to respond to this notice within the 96 hours will be deemed to be your tacit assent, and, that you have been given due process to refute and rebut the set forth claims and demands, and, that your failure to provide proof of your claims to administrate, regulate, contravent our private contract[s] will be deemed, interlopers and seen as a transgression and misrepresentation of our whole and complete inalienable rights

Take heart, this declaration functions in spirit as a living document.

Take hold, We do not consent to, and waive, any and all benefit[s] of the RESPONDENT[s] et al., in absents of full disclosure and our expressed consent to the contrary.

We the undersigned,



Joseph Brant and the Invention of a Canadian Tradition by James Paxton,

Queen’s University Presented at the Iroquois Research Conference on October 6, 2002.

The American Revolution smashed the Iroquois Confederacy and dispersed the remnant over several communities in Upper Canada and New York. While historians have profitably studied different aspects of the New York Iroquois in the postwar era, the Six Nations of Ontario have attracted relatively little attention. Canadian scholars usually interpret them as loyalists rather than Iroquois.

By casting the Six Nations of Upper Canada as loyalists, scholars assume the Iroquois acted out of the same sense of duty that compelled Euroamerican loyalists to reject the revolution. Although durable, this interpretation masks the cultural roots of their motivations and behaviour and subsumes native independence under a rubric of loyalty that the Iroquois themselves resolutely rejected.

The myth of Iroquois loyalty is intimately tied to the person of Joseph Brant, the enigmatic Mohawk chief who left an ambiguous legacy. Brant’s adoption of many European practices and his ability to navigate English and Mohawk societies fluently has puzzled historians and caused his major biographers to question his “Indianness.”

Like Brant’s Euroamerican contemporaries, many historians have accepted the image that he projected in his public dealings with Crown officials as an accurate representation of Mohawk beliefs. Brant, however, acted in accordance with Mohawk customs and consistently strove to attain chiefly authority. Among the Iroquois, chiefs’ claims to power derived from the nature and extent of their alliances, which they built and maintained through kinship, marriage, their abilities as warriors and diplomats, and by redistributing goods to followers.

Brant employed these indigenous methods to gain power but extended his alliances to include members of the colonial and imperial communities. Brant was no loyalist. He accommodated colonization by attempting to create a coherent world from the diversity of the Mohawk Valley that fitted Europeans and their practices into a worldview rooted in Mohawk culture and values.

Brant’s rapid rise to prominence during the revolution rested, to a great extent, on a foundation laid during his youth. On the eve of the war, almost everyone in the Mohawk Valley would have agreed that Brant was a promising and ambitious young man, possessed of ability and good connections. In both colonial and Iroquois society status derived in no small measure from the quality of one’s relations.

Brant obtained considerable influence from his relationship to his sister Molly Brant, a matron of the wolf clan, and her husband Sir William Johnson the superintendent of northern Indian affairs. The union transformed the longstanding alliance that had existed between the Mohawks who resided at Canajoharie and Sir William into one based on actual kin relations. Few benefited from this new relationship more than Joseph Brant.

William Johnson took an active interest in his brother-in-law’s career. During the Seven Year’s War and Pontiac’s Rebellion the young Brant gained invaluable experience as a warrior by participating in war parties either led or sponsored by Johnson.6 Johnson also enrolled Brant in Eleazar Wheelock’s school for Indians where he learned to read and write and then hired him as an interpreter in the Indian Department.

Brant’s education provided him the ability to interact with colonial society in a manner that most Mohawks could not. Through Johnson, Brant came into contact with individuals from all classes, from imperial officials and large landowners to tenant farmers. He learned firsthand the customs, beliefs, and prejudices of settler society and how best to interact with his Euroamerican neighbours. The ease with which Brant moved in colonial society is born out by the long lasting friendships he developed with some of the region’s leading figures. John Johnson, Guy Johnson and Daniel Claus, the son and sons-in– law of Sir William, counted Brant among their friends. He also developed friendships with the Anglican minister Reverend John Stuart and with members of prominent local families, such as the Herkimers and Freys.

Most importantly, Brant learned a great deal about the exercise of power. Johnson dominated the social, economic and political life of the Mohawk Valley through his control of resources and patronage. Besides the Indian department, he operated successfully in the Indian trade, and he was the largest landlord in the county. Johnson extended and solidified his power by making strategic marriages for himself and his children and developing alliances with prominent Euroamerican and Mohawk families.

Brant came to understand that European patronage systems resembled nothing so much as Iroquois kin and alliance networks. As Johnson ably demonstrated, the two could be combined to create powerful cross-cultural alliances.

Among the Mohawks, Brant’s relationship to Molly Brant and Johnson ensured that he was a man of some substance. Always active in village politics, Brant often accompanied chiefs and sachems when they met with Johnson. The consistency with which Brant supported the principal Mohawk sachem Tekarihoka in such tasks suggests that they had formed an alliance.

Nevertheless, Brant was not a leader in his own right. He did not have access to presents in sufficient quantity to build extensive alliances of his own; he lacked the experience to be considered a great warrior; and he was not a hereditary chief. Compared with other principal men, Brant’s youth and inexperience prevented him from taking a leading role in village deliberations.

The death of William Johnson in July 1774 and the Mohawk Valley’s slow descent into revolution eroded the alliances that had maintained stability, but provided opportunities for ambitious men to assume positions of leadership. After Johnson was buried, Molly Brant returned to Canajoharie, where she began to establish herself as an Iroquois leader in her own right;

Guy Johnson assumed control of the Indian Department; John Johnson remained quietly on his estate; and John Butler, a senior Indian officer, had a falling out with the heirs. The Mohawks divided along generational lines. Sachems desired peace and promoted neutrality, while the young warriors hoped to win reputations for themselves on the battlefield. For the next year, the Mohawk Valley remained in a state of constant tension. Then, in June 1775, Guy Johnson precipitated a crisis when he fled the county to escape the Patriot-dominated militia. Many young warriors from Canajoharie, including Brant, ignored their sachems’ pleas for neutrality and followed Johnson to Canada. That September, several warriors fought in the battle of St. John’s, twenty miles southeast of Montréal. The Mohawks, in particular, sustained heavy losses. Many accused the British regulars of not supporting them and returned to their homes.

Guy Johnson was also unhappy with the situation in Canada. The military undermined his control of the Indian Department, and Johnson promptly sailed for England to rectify the intolerable situation. Brant accompanied him in order to lay Mohawk grievances before the government in London. There, Brant met Lord George Germain, the colonial secretary. After reiterating the Six Nations’ losses in the battle of St. Johns, Brant told Germain that “The Mohocks … have on all occasions shewn their zeal and loyalty to the Great King; yet they have been badly treated by his people.” By which he meant the settlers that encroached on Mohawk land and the officers who failed to stop them. If the King did not attend to Mohawk complaints, he warned, the Six Nations would react unfavourably.

Although Brant’s speech to Germain deviated from the Mohawks’ normal form of address, it characterized his subsequent dealings with British officials. In discussions with imperial representatives Mohawk leaders expressed their requests forthrightly as an equal and independent people seeking fair dealings from an ally, and when they felt they were being cheated, chiefs almost never failed to expose English hypocrisy or insincerity.

Before the colonial secretary, however, Brant phrased his arguments in terms of the reciprocal obligations that defined European-style patron-client relations. Clientage bound parties of unequal power with ties of interest that were expressed as duties.

In contrasting Mohawk fidelity with the government’s failure to protect their lands, Brant chastised the Crown for not protecting its loyal clients. Although Brant never conceded Iroquois independence, he found it useful and necessary during a war to suppress American independence to speak of loyalty. Brant left Britain with what he wanted, a promise to address Mohawk grievances.

Brant returned to New York in the winter of 1776. Despite his efforts to raise support for the war, most of the Six Nations clung to neutrality.

Undeterred, the following spring Brant managed to raise a party of 70 or 80 loyalist settlers and a handful of his relatives and set out for the Susquehanna River. These men, described by one observer as Brant’s “intimate friends,” dubbed themselves Brant’s Volunteers and elected to follow a Mohawk Captain without pay or provisions rather than join a loyalist unit.

The relatively few Mohawks that joined Brant even after the Six Nations accepted the British hatchet in the summer of 1777, suggests that Brant lacked the stature and resources to lead many warriors.17 Nevertheless, Brant campaigned hard with his Volunteers throughout the 1777–1778 seasons, winning high praise from Daniel Claus and Colonel Mason Bolton, the commanding officer at Niagara. Both men reported favourably on Brant’s actions and demeanour, so that General Frederick Haldimand, the Commander-in-Chief of Canada, came to have a high opinion of Brant’s abilities.

Events in the fall of 1778 threatened to ruin this reputation. In November, Brant had joined forces with a party of loyalist Rangers to attack Cherry Valley. During the battle warriors killed over thirty civilians, eliciting condemnations of Iroquois savagery from America and Britain alike. Claus and Bolton both attempted to distance Brant from the affair, assuring Haldimand that he had treated all prisoners “with great humanity.”

On his return to Niagara, Brant determined to tell his story directly to Haldimand. Armed with a letter of introduction from Bolton, he made the trip to Quebec that winter. The meeting was a great success. Brant not only escaped censure for Cherry Valley, but he left Quebec with a captain’s salary for himself, assistance for Molly Brant, and the promise of land for the Mohawks should they be prevented from returning home after the war.

Afterwards, Haldimand came to see Brant as the most capable of Iroquois leaders and actively supported him with goods and favours.

Brant’s ability to act in accordance with Haldimand’s values and assumptions greatly influenced the general’s opinion. Like many imperial officers, Haldimand willingly believed that Britain’s native allies were undependable, fickle and irrational.

The Cherry Valley massacre seemed to provide ample evidence of native savagery. Compared to his fellow chiefs, Brant was educated, well-spoken, and sociable. Claus described Brant as “the most sober, quiet and good natured Indian I ever was acquainted with.”

Haldimand embraced Brant precisely because he seemed to transcend the perceived limitations of his people. Brant had done everything in his power to prevent the massacre, and Haldimand hoped that with his support the Mohawk chief could exert just such an influence over the rest of the Iroquois.

The first material sign of that support came in the spring when orders arrived at Niagara to supply Brant with clothes and blankets to be distributed to his supporters as he saw fit.

Brant was not merely a passive recipient of favours, however; he drew heavily on the good will and resources of his friends and allies in order to behave more like a chief. As Haldimand used Brant to influence the Six Nations, Brant drew Haldimand into his alliance network in order to replace William Johnson as a dependable source of goods and prestige. Continued success as a war leader and a greater ability to reward followers enhanced Brant’s reputation with the Mohawks and the upper nations.

As a result, Brant began to extend his alliances with other Mohawks. At the end of 1779 Brant married Catharine Croghan, a matron of the turtle clan and the niece of the Mohawk sachem Tekarihoka.

The marriage allied Molly and Joseph Brant’s wolf clan with the turtle clan and gave Brant the support of two clan matrons who exercised considerable influence with the warriors. Additionally, Brant redistributed the presents he received from Haldimand to cultivate alliances with warriors and chiefs outside of Canajoharie. In particular, the large and influential Hill family, consisting of chiefs David, Isaac and Aaron, became his staunch allies. Brant’s growing status was evident in the size of the war parties he was able to equip and lead. In 1778 Brant mustered fewer than 30 warriors, but in the two– year period between 1780 and 1782 he led parties ranging between 100 and 360 warriors.

Brant’s rapid rise was not without consequence. The frequent demands he made for provisions kept his followers satisfied but irritated Indian Department officers. As the number of Brant’s followers increased, so did his requests. When an officer complained that Brant made greater demands on the store and was “more difficult to please than any of the other Chiefs,” Haldimand responded that he “had no doubt of [Brant] being difficult to please and of contributing to the general expense, but he has certainly merited much attention.” He commanded his officers to keep “Joseph and his followers in Temper.”

Tensions within the department erupted in the spring of 1781 when Brant and Guy Johnson quarrelled. Although the cause of the dispute is unknown, word of the disagreement soon reached Haldimand. Concerned about the effects of a serious breach in the Indian Department, Haldimand insisted that the dispute be resolved in Brant’s favour.

I n addition, Brant’s relationship with John Butler also deteriorated towards the end of the war. Brant accused Butler of not outfitting his war parties properly. Both men appealed to Haldimand, but the general refused to do anything to antagonize either his most trusted chief or his most capable Indian agent.

Brant’s constant striving to extend his influence with the Mohawks began to alienate the very friends that had assisted his rise to power. That summer Brant became even more isolated from the military establishment at Niagara when his old ally Colonel Bolton died in a shipwreck.

By the summer of 1782 the Six Nations had become aware that the war was winding down to an unsuccessful conclusion.

When the terms of the peace became known in May 1783, the Six Nations felt utterly betrayed. Not only had Britain excluded them from the Treaty of Paris, but their lands had also been ceded to the United States. At Niagara, a delegation of chiefs approached British General Maclean to insist that they “were free allies — not subjects to the King of England — that he had no right to grant their land nor would they submit to it.”

When Sir John Johnson, Guy Johnson’s replacement, tried to reassure the chiefs that the King would continue to protect them, the leading Seneca chief Sayengaraghta confronted the superintendent with a litany of Britain’s broken promises and deceptions. He demanded that the King provide a material demonstration of his concern by supporting the Six Nations should it become necessary to resume the conflict with the United States, a sentiment that met with the approval of the other chiefs and sachems.

Brant, no less than the other chiefs, was incensed at Britain’s betrayal, but he adopted a more subtle approach. It had become obvious that Britain would no longer support its native allies in war, but Brant believed that the government might assist the Iroquois in the transition to peace. After all, loyalists had already begun to submit claims, and four years earlier Haldimand had promised assistance to the Mohawks. Therefore, Brant avoided recriminations and demands for justice that would never be met and focused on wringing concessions from the government.

In deliberating with Haldimand, Brant sought to convince the general that the Mohawks were at least as deserving of reward as other kinds of loyalists. Brant reminded Haldimand how the Mohawks had “in confidence and expectation of a reciprocity … determined … to adhere to our alliance at the risk of our lives, families and property.”

Unlike Sayengaraghta, Brant avoided issues of sovereignty or questions about the King’s authority to cede Mohawk lands that would only embarrass and irritate Haldimand. Rather, he argued that Britain was duty bound to compensate Mohawk loyalty and sacrifice in defence of the King’s cause. Haldimand responded readily to Brant’s appeals because he had always believed that the British-Iroquois alliance was, at heart, an elaborate patron-client relationship. The rapidity with which the two men reached an arrangement contrasted sharply with way Haldimand and Johnson had earlier brushed aside the Six Nations’ demands for justice.

As with all loyalist claims, the government compensated individuals on the basis of loyalty rather than their losses. Consequently, Brant and the Mohawks received the promise of new lands, support for the construction of a mill, a church and a school and £15,000 in claims money. The five upper nations received only £12,000, divided equally between cash and presents. In addition, the Six Nations could if they wished join the Mohawks wherever they might resettle.

The final agreement demonstrates the limits of Brant’s power and vision. As a chief, Brant’s interest did not extend much beyond his Mohawk-centred alliance network. It is not surprising then that the Mohawks benefited the most from the peace.

Isabel Kelsay has argued that the experience of the revolution transformed Brant from a loyalist into a chief, who identified more closely with his people.

The war, however, did not pose such a challenge to his identity. Brant had never sought to ape his English friends or assist Britain in its imperial ambitions. Rather, Brant consistently and relentlessly struggled throughout the war to establish his authority as a chief. In order to achieve his goals, Brant crafted a public image that was calculated to win concessions from colonial and imperial officials. But we should view this as a tactic to further his objectives and preserve Mohawk independence at a time when the Mohawks were weakened and without a home. Loyalty was, after all, the only real claim the Mohawks had on Britain. We cannot possibly hope to understand Joseph Brant if we pull him apart and examine his constituent parts — a war chief here, a loyalist there, a Mohawk at one time, an Englishman at another. Brant was a whole man who creatively adapted Iroquois customs in order to take advantage of whatever few opportunities colonialism presented. To view Brant and the Mohawks, and by extension the Six Nations, as loyalists overlooks the fundamental continuity that connected the postwar Iroquois with their past and informed their present.

[1] See, for example, Gerald Craig, Upper Canada, 1784–1841: The Formative Years (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1963); 4, Robert S. Allen, His Majesty’s Indian Allies: British Indian Policy in the Defence of Canada, 1774–1815 (Toronto and Oxford: Dundurn Press, 1992), 196; Jeffrey L. McNairn, The Capacity to Judge: Public Opinion and Deliberative Democracy in Upper Canada, 1791–1854 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000), 219–20. Even historians of Canada’s native peoples carelessly employ the term Loyalist Iroquois. For example, J.R. Miller, Skyscrapers Hide the Heavens: A History of Indian-White Relations in Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), 85, and Olive Patricia Dickason

[2] Charles M. Johnston, The Valley of the Six Nations (Toronto: Champlain Society, 1964), 52.

[3] William L. Stone, The Life of Joseph Brant — Thayendanegea (4th edition, New York: H & E Phinney, 1846); Isabel Kelsay, Joseph Brant, 1742–1807: A Man of Two Worlds (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1984); Charles M. Johnston, “Joseph Brant, the Grand River Lands and the Northwest Crisis,” Ontario History 55 (Dec. 1963), 271–72; James O’Donnell, “Joseph Brant,” in American Indian Leaders: Studies in Diversity ed. R. Davis Edmunds (Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1980).

[4] Mary A. Druke, “Linking Arms: The Structure of Iroquois Intertribal Diplomacy,” Beyond the Covenant Chain ed. James H. Merrell and Daniel Richter (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1987), 30–31.

[5] Ibid., 30–32.

[6] Stone, Life of Joseph Brant, 19.

[7] Kelsay, Joseph Brant, 115–16.

[8] John Christopher Guzzardo, “Sir William Johnson’s Official Family: Patron and Clients in an Anglo-American Empire” Ph.D dissertation Syracuse University, 1975; Robert William Venables, “Tryon County, 1775−1783” Ph.D dissertation Vanderbilt University, 1967, 176–178.

[9] Journal of Indian Affairs, Jan. 17–31, 1765, The Papers of Sir William Johnson (14 v. Albany: University of the State of New York) 11: 555–56; Journal of Indian Affairs, Dec. 24–25, 1765, Ibid., 11: 984–85.

[10] James Taylor Carson, “Molly Brant: From Clan Mother to Loyalist Chief,” in Sifters: Native American Women’s Lives ed. Theda Perdue (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 53.

[11] Reply of the Canajoharie Mohawks to the Tryon Committee of Safety, in Stone, Life of Joseph Brant, 113.

[12] Speech of Captain Brant to Lord George Germain, March 14, 1776, Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York, ed. E.B. O’Callaghan (15 v. Albany: Weed, Parsons, and Company, 1854–1887), 8: 670–71. Hereafter cited DRCHSNY. Answer of Captain Brant to Lord Germain, May 7, 1776, DRCHSNY, 8: 678.

[13] Journal of Indian Affairs, Sept. 20–22, 1764, Johnson Papers 11: 359–60; Journal of Indian Affairs, Dec. 24–25, 1765, Ibid., 11: 984–85; Meeting of an Albany Committee with the Mohawks, Dec. 21–22, 1773, Ibid., 8: 966–67.

[14] S.J.R. Noël, Patrons, Clients, Brokers: Ontario Society and Politics, 1791–1896 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990), 13–14.

[15] Kelsay, Joseph Brant, 185–88.

[16] Taylor and Duffin to D. Claus, Oct. 26, 1778, Frederick Haldimand Papers (London: World Microfilm Publications, 1978) 21774, 9–10, Queen’s Archives, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario. Hereafter cited HP. D. Claus to F. Haldimand, Nov. 30, 1778, HP 21774, 19–20.

[17] D. Claus to F. Haldimand, Sept. 15, 1778, HP 21774, 13; D. Claus to F. Haldimand, Mar. 17, 1779, HP 21774, 29–30.

[18] D. Claus to Secretary Knox, Nov. 6, 1777, DRCHSNY, 8: 723–24; M. Bolton to F. Haldimand, Dec. 16, 1777, HP 21760, 13; M. Bolton to F. Haldimand, Feb 2, 1778, HP 21765, 13–14; D. Claus to F. Haldimand, Sept. 15, 1778, HP 21774, 3; D. Claus to F. Haldimand, Oct. 13, 1778, HP 21774, 6.

[19] M. Bolton to F. Haldimand, Feb. 12, 1779, HP 21760, 92–93.

[20] Kelsay, Joseph Brant, 240. [21] For example, F. Haldimand to M. Bolton, Aug 10, 1780, HP 21764, 130–31; F. Haldimand to Powell, Nov. 16, 1781, HP 21764, 264.

[22] D. Claus to F. Haldimand, April 19, 1781, HP 21774, 182–83.

[23] F. Haldimand to M. Bolton, May 23, 1779, HP 21764, 16–17.

[24] Barbara Graymont, “Thayendanegea,” Dictionary of Canadian Biography , (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1983), 5: 804.

[25] J. Butler to F. Haldimand, Jan. 28, 1778, HP, 21765, 13; M. Bolton to F. Haldimand, July 16, Aug. 8, 14, 1780, HP 21765, 334, 344, 348; Abstract Return of Indian Parties, July 24, 1780, HP , 21767, 97; Return of Indian War Parties, Feb. 19, 1781, HP , 21767, 163; Report of George Singleton, June 27, 1782, HP 21785, 38–39.

[26] Powell to F. Haldimand, June 27, 1782, HP 21762, 95; F. Haldimand to Powell, July 11, 1782, HP 21764, 312–13.

[27] F. Haldimand to D. Claus, Dec. 1780, HP 21772, 111–12. [28] Powell to F. Haldimand, June 27, 1782, HP , 21762, 95, 98. [29] R. Mathews to J. Ross, July 1, 1782, HP 21785, 40.

[30] A. Maclean to F. Haldimand, May, 1783, RG-10-A-6-h, vols. 1834–1835, 84–85, Public Archives of Canada.

[31] Proceedings with the Six Nations, July 22–31, 1783. HP , 21779, 123–26.

[32] Brant to Haldimand, May 21, 1783, quoted in Johnston, Valley of the Six Nations , 40; Substance of Brant’s wishes respecting forming a settlement on the Grand River, March 1783, Ibid ., 44.

[33] Haldimand’s Proclamation, Oct. 25, 1784, RG-10-A-6-h, vols. 1834–1835, 132–33, PAC. [34] Kelsay, Joseph Brant, 379–94.


James Paxton was born and raised in the Niagara peninsula of Ontario. He received his BA from the University of Toronto and an MA from Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia. At Blacksburg, he administered “Smithfield Plantation” an eighteenth-century museum house dedicated to the interpretation of the land developer William Preston and European expansion westward. Currently, he is a doctoral candidate at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, where he is working on a thesis, tentatively entitled “Borderland Communities: Six Nations and Settlers from the Mohawk Valley to the Niagara Region of Upper Canada and New York, 1774–1830.” Text © 2002 by James Paxton.

Archives 2012 -

The Constitution of the Five Nation

Source: The Constitution of the Five Nations or The Iroquois Book of the Great Law, by A. C. Parker, reprinted by Iroqrafts.

Skennon:kowa “Great Peace” The Iroquois Constitution ( Kaianarakowa), Its speacial interest lies in the fact that it is an attempt of the Iroquois themesleves to explain their own civic and social system.

This formed a definitive law, a rule of law, the law of the land!

Archives 2012 -

Risk Management and Damage Control

I have been making corrections to any administrative omissions or errors, while dealing with the corporation of Brantford, they have routinely failed in honoring my request for proof of delegation of authority, below is a letter I received from Brantfords adjusters, and my reply, also below is a link to the referenced notice/affidavit and communications with the city.

I have asked the city to proof that they have been delegated authority from my nation to represent me or any non-client or non-member, this includes any non-voting, non-registered people.

They have faulted on responding to my affidavit, and now the city is frantically trying to minimize the damage done from its neglect, the city wants six nations to grant them the right to not hear my voice or process, I have my opinions on who claims to speak for me, but I will always demand proof I granted my power to anyone.

The link below is proof that the city players are attempting to re-position the city to deflect any damage they have caused me and their shareholders.

If I am right the city was wrong in seeking any sort of injunctions on our people it was constitutional vandalism, tyrannical in nature, and treason.

The city and local jurisdiction would be proven to have been invalid and all judgments reversed with some sort of compensation for wrong doing, eg misapplication of Canada’s constitution, at the least all unjust enrichment from application of any judgement would be reversed, This is so huge this should make any persons head spin.

This doesn’t even get into the crown/bank/city mortgage fraud on Indian lands.

Archives 2012 -


To Elizabeth Mountbatten-Battenberg hereinafter “you”, “your”; the Private Woman acting as, Principal (PSEUDO –SOVEREIGN) for the British Commonwealth; d.b.a. ELIZABETH WNDSOR; the vassal, for the United Nations Assembly; as well as your successors, permitted assigns, heirs and estates, in your non-represented capacity, and,

To David Johnston hereinafter “you”, “your”; the Private Man acting as, Principal (GOVERNOR GENERAL-COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF) for the [National] government of Canada; d.b.a. DAVID JOHNSTON; the vassal, for the British Monarchy; as well as your successors, permitted assigns, heirs and estates, in your non-represented capacity, and,

To Stephen Harper hereinafter “you”, “your”; the Private Man acting as, Principal (PRIME MINISTER-CEO) for THE [Federal] CORPORATION OF THE CORPORATE CANADA; d.b.a. STEPHEN HARPER; the vassal, for the British Monarchy; as well as your successors, permitted assigns, heirs and estates, in your non-represented capacity, and,

To William Elliot hereinafter “you”. “your”; the Private Man acting as, Principal (COMMISSIONER) for THE ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE; THE [Federal] NATIONAL POLICE SERVICES AND ASSOCIATION hereinafter “business”; d.b.a. WILLIAM ELLIOT; the vassal, for the British Monarchy; as well as your successors, permitted assigns, heirs and estates, in your non-represented capacity, and,

To David Onley hereinafter “you”. “your”; the Private Man acting as, Principal (LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR) for the [Provincial] government of the Province of Ontario hereinafter “business”; d.b.a. DAVID ONLEY; the vassal, for the British Monarchy; as well as your successors, permitted assigns, heirs and estates, in your non-represented capacity, and,

To Dalton Mcguinty hereinafter “you”. “your”; the Private Man acting as, Principal (PREMIER-CEO) for THE CORPORATION OF THE [Provincial] GOVERNMENT OF THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO hereinafter “business”; d.b.a. DALTON MCGUINTY; the vassal, for the British Monarchy; as well as your successors, permitted assigns, heirs and estates, in your non-represented capacity, and,

To Chris Friel hereinafter “you”, “your”; the Private Man acting as, Principal (MAYOR-CEO) for THE CORPORATION OF THE [Municipal] CITY OF BRANTFORD hereinafter “business”; d.b.a. CHRIS FRIEL; the vassal, for the British Monarchy; as well as your successors, permitted assigns, heirs and estates, in your non-represented capacity, and,

To Ted Salisbury hereinafter “you”, “your”; the Private Man acting as, Principal (GENERAL MANAGER-CAO) for THE CORPORATION OF THE [Municipal] CITY OF BRANTFORD hereinafter “business”; d.b.a. TED SALISBURY; the vassal, for the British Monarchy; as well as your successors, permitted assigns, heirs and estates, in your non-represented capacity, and,

To William Montour hereinafter “you”, “your”; the Private Man acting as, Principal (CHIEF COUNCILLOR-CEO) for THE CORPORATION OF THE [Municipal] SIX NATIONS OF THE GRAND RIVER; [quasi-elected band council] hereinafter “business”; d.b.a. WILLIAM MONTOUR; the vassal, for the British Monarchy; as well as your successors, permitted assigns, heirs and estates, in your non-represented capacity, and,

To Jeff Kellner hereinafter “you”, “your”; the Private Man acting as, Principal (CHIEF OF POLICE-CEO) for THE [Municipal] BRANTFORD POLICE SERVICES AND ASSOCIATION AND BRANTFORD POLICE SERVICES Board hereinafter “business”; d.b.a. JEFF KELLNER; the vassal, for the British Monarchy; as well as your successors, permitted assigns, heirs and estates, in your non-represented capacity, and,

To Glen Lickers hereinafter “you”, “your”; the Private Man acting as, Principal (CHIEF OF POLICE-CEO) for THE [Municipal] SIX NATIONS POLICE SERVICES AND ASSOCIATION hereinafter “business”; d.b.a. GLEN LICKERS; the vassal, for the British Monarchy; as well as your successors, permitted assigns, heirs and estates, in your non-represented capacity, and,

To John Q. Citizen 1–100 unknown at this point in time, as well as your successors, permitted assigns, heirs and estates hereinafter “you”, “your”; and,

To John Q. Private 1–100 unknown at this point in time, as well as your successors, permitted assigns, heirs and estates hereinafter “you”, “your”; and,

To John Q. Officer 1–100 unknown at this point in time, as well as your successors, permitted assigns, heirs and estates hereinafter “you”, “your”; and,

To John Q. Person 1–100 unknown at this point in time, as well as your successors, permitted assigns, heirs and estates hereinafter “you”, “your”;

To John Q. Agent 1–100 unknown at this point in time, as well as your successors, permitted assigns, heirs and estates hereinafter “you”, “your”, et al.

To You and/or business and/or shareholders thereof, you and business and all qualified and non qualified guest-friends of peace are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the debts and liabilities.

From the Sovereign:-Benjamin-Douglas-Allan: of the Doolittles; hereinafter “I”, “me”, “my”, for the Kanienke’haka “Nation and Country”, greatly known as the Great Turtle Island hereinafter “A’nowara’kowa”, of the Onkwehonwe “Original Being”; and prescribed to the Onkwehonwe:neha “Original Way of the Being”, and any and all in a similar situation.




To all whom it may concern, do by these presents send greeting:

NOTICE: For and on the record and for simple due diligence.

I, the honorable “Sovereign”:-Benjamin-Douglas-Allan: of the Doolittles’

[Earthly Sovereign, Heir-Apparent with provable bloodline, pedigree and lineage to A’nowara’kowa “Real-Land North America”, Tribal, Noble, of Flesh and Blood, of the Kanienke’haka “People of the Shards of Light”, “Keepers of the Eastern Door“, of the Ratiniáhton “Turtle clan”, of the Onkwehonwe “Original being on a cosmic journey through Creation, created by Creation and having permanent residence in the Onheón:we Tionhontsiá:te “Cosmos of Creation” and therefore being of direct descendant of Shonkwaia’tison, presented to Creation by assent of Wa‘tewatsitsiané:kare “Sky Mother”, from and of the Arch of Creation, co-creator of the seed, Onhontsiáte; born of the A’nowara’ko:wa”, Objectively known as, genuine member of the Real People of the Six Nations of Indians of the A‘nowara‘kowa from Time out of Memory]

Know all men by these presents that Intelligence herein-below hereby put to attention for warning to caution *** extreme poverty, extreme tyranny and extreme plunder and abuse of the guest-friendship and breach of the peace.

Whereas, You and/or business operate and/or perform and/or act and/or participate in distribution and/or usage of lands and/or sub-sequential properties located within the (Real-Land North America) hereinafter referred to as “Real-Assets” known from Time out of Memory held in Diverse Real Interest by the Haudenosaunee and/or Onkwehonwe .

[Haudenosaunee: “Extended Family” Real People of the Six Nations of Indians as the Real Party of Interest and Protectors of A’nowara’kowa “Great Turtle Island”, as Originally Instructed by Shonkwaia’tison “He who fills us with life”; of the Onkwehonwe:neha “Original Way Of Being for Life”]

Wherefore, the pretend “canadian government” and/or the pretend “provincial government” and/or the pretend “municipal government” and/or “Crown of London” and/or “Vatican” and/or “Crown Land Worldwide Limited” and/or “company in vicinity” and/or “you” by [OCCULTATIO] “wrongful act of omission” usurped and pseudo-imposed non-delegation of authority in at-tempt to terminate the way of life and inherent rights of the Real-People of the Six Nations of Indians as the Real Party of Interest of the Real-Assets without proof of claim and/or evidence to support the presumption of the fact as presented for the record hereafter,

Whereas, the pretend “canadian government” and/or the pretend “provincial government” and/or the pretend “municipal government” and/or “Crown of London” and/or “Vatican” and/or “Crown Land Worldwide Limited” and “company in vicinity” and/or “you” have a genuine right and/or lawful position in any capacity to make lawful determination on or about the Real Lands “Real-Assets” and sub-sequential properties within the geographic land mass: A’nowara’kowa “Real-Land North America”.

Thereto, with this Statement for the Record in Fact;

I have no record or evidence you and/or business possess and/or own the genuine right at any capacity to make lawful determination on and/or about the “Real-Assets” Real-Lands and sub-sequential properties within the geographic land mass: A’nowara’kowa “Real-Land North America”, and I believe no such evidence exists.

I have no record or evidence you and/or business possess and/or own the genuine right at any capacity to make lawful determination about and/or for the Onkwehonwe and/or Haudenasuanee, and I believe no such evidence exists.

Therefore, If you believe the above fact is in err you must provide the Sovereign:-Benjamin-Douglas-Allan: of the Doolittles’ with proper inspection of the Real-Evidence that “you and/or business may rely upon to operate and/or perform and/or act and/or participate in distribution and/or usage of lands and/or sub-sequential properties located within the Real-Land North America as proof of claim as Real-Evidence for correction of the record that you and/or business possess and/or own the genuine right at any capacity to make lawful determination on or about the Real-Lands and sub-sequential properties within the geographic location A’nowara’kowa “Real-Land North America”

Thereupon, Failure to provide your Real-Evidence for correction of the record, you will be instructed as written hereinafter.

Therewith, you and/or business must vacate your position and/or post and cease and desist from any unlawful activity that harm the ACTIVE Real-Interest of the “Real-Assets” and/or diminish the quality of life of the Real People of the Six Nation of Indians, Including but not limited to, “lawful determination”, “taxation”, regulation”, “termination of Real-Land North American resources and Liberties thereof”, “capture”, “piracy”, “seizure”, “malice“, “mayhem“, “larceny“, assault“, extortion“, “non-constitutional searches“, “interrogation”, “questioning”, “administrative detention“, “carnal knowledge“, “genocide”, “mixed-War” hereinafter collectively referred to as “trespass“.

Thereupon, In the event you and/or business are found to have broken the close and/or trespass you will be “billed”, and/or “fined”, and/or “charged”, and/or “Evicted”, and/or “Dispossessed of the Real-Assets real-lands and sub-sequential real-property” for any and all offenders under your employ and/or members of the “business” at the rate set forth in the “Qualified Fee Schedule” hereinafter, per offence as establish by but not limited to my claim of right hereto below.

Therefore, formal demand is made of you to provide Real-Evidence for proof of claim for correction of the record that you are in a lawful position to make any lawful determination on or about A’nowara’kowa “Real-Lands” the geographic location known as Real-Land North America.

Whereas, It is my belief that “you” and/or “business” and/or “company in vicinity” may have affixed a thing “REAL THING” [immovable structure] “unit” and/or “structure” and/or “property/land” [e.g. pipelines, buildings, resource infrastructure, landscaping etc:.] to the “Real-Assets” and/or Real-Lands A’nowara’kowa “Real-Land North America”.

Whereas, it is my belief that once “you” and/or “business” and/or “company in vicinity” place a thing and/or affix a thing “REAL THING” [immovable structure] to the “Real-Assets” real-property/land and sub-sequential properties “you” and/or “business” and/or “company in vicinity” have no right to make any lawful determination on or about, the affixed “REAL THING” [immovable structure] “unit” and/or “structure” and/or “property/land” thereby “you” and/or “business” and/or “company in vicinity”, are observed and recorded to have forfeit/waive any and all right to claim the “unit” and/or “structure” and/or “property/land” where “you” and/or “business” and/or “company in vicinity” have affixed a thing “REAL THING” [immovable structure] to “Real-Assets” Real-land/Real Property.

Whereas, If you believe the “unit” and/or “structure” and/or “property/land” belongs to “you” and/or “business” and/or “company in vicinity” and “you” and/or “business” and/or “company in vicinity” in fact claim ownership of the “unit” and/or “structure” and/or “property/land” as affixed to the ”Real-Assets” and/or real-land, you will be fined/billed/charged for the land use and/or trespass [breaking the close] at the rate as defined in the notice below.

Whereas, It is my belief that if in fact you claim ownership of the affixed unit, you will have in fact admitted to prior trespass and/or land use and will be billed accordingly and respectively.

Therewith, I claim the right “RECTATIO” to “fine” and/or “bill” and/or “charge” and/or “evict” and/or “Dispossession of the Real-Assets real-lands and sub-sequential real-property“ any and all person[s], officer[s], agent[s], citizens[s] with the “Qualified FEE SCHEDULE” for nonqualified use of land and sub-sequential property for every “person”, “officer”, “agent”, “citizen” herein referred to as “nonqualified transient” for any and all trespass on the real-land/real Property and/or rights of the Real People of the Six Nations of Indians as the Real Party of Interest, In the event you are found to have broken the close and/or trespass you will be charged for any and all trespass at the rate [AS SO BELOW] per offender as establish by but not limited to my claim of right, I claim and reserve the right to private administrative process for remedy from any breach of the record and/or any and all who breach the peace during the performance of duty to defend the record, I waive any and all benefit of invitation to attend Court under the de facto canadian constitution and/or canadian [corporate] jurisdiction.

This notice of QUALIFIED FEE SCHEDULE will be posted [AS SO ABOVE] for your convenience.






Further, upon your receipt of this “Notice for the record and simple due diligence” by way of email/fax/registered mail/hand, I will have sent this same notice to many local Realtors and real property associations, and many municipal, provincial and federal organizations to provide the same information and request as stated in fact hereinabove for the record.

Therewith, you shall meaningfully respond and/or rebut with Real-Evidence for correction of the record within (10) ten days of receipt of this “MEMORANDUM AND ASSEVERATION: Notice for and on the record and for simple due diligence” by registered mail or delivered by hand with proof of service to the Sovereign:-Benjamin-Douglas-Allan: of the Doolittles’ C/o ******** Real-Land North America, your response must be returned signed under you and/or business full “commercial liability” and/or “ecclesiastical liability” under penalty of perjury without exception, failure to meaningfully respond and/or rebut with the Real-Evidence for correction of the record, you and/or business will be observed to have WAIVED the right of redress and affirm the record as set forth herein, thereby estopped by acquiescence by tacit accent, Forevermore.

Therewith, the record stands.

With explicit reservation of all my unalienable and inherent rights,
without prejudice to any of my unalienable and inherent rights.

without ill will, vexation or frivolity,
with peace, strength and righteousness.

Sovereign:-Benjamin-Douglas-Allan: of the Doolittles’
Kanienka’haka Embassador-at-Large;
of the Onkwehonwe “Original Being”;
for the Onkwehonwe:neha “Original Way of Being for Life“

Archives 2012 -

FLASHPOINT: Controversial case about remedies, not rights

— Not long ago, a state’s Supreme Court wrote that a “rule forbidding resistance to an arrest when police officers act in good faith and under color of their authority … recognize[s] that in a society governed by laws our courts are the proper forum for challenges to the misuse of official power and for the vindication of rights.” But it wasn’t the Supreme Court of Indiana in Barnes v. Indiana, the case that’s gotten so much press these last two weeks. It was the Supreme Court of New Jersey, and it was five years ago.

You wouldn’t know it to judge from the media coverage, but Barnes was neither unprecedented nor particularly remarkable. To the contrary, many courts and commentators refer to the “submit and litigate later” model as the “modern” view, because between 1962 and 2007, all but 12 states followed the model penal code in doing away with the right to resist. So far, as arrests outside the home are concerned, Indiana joined them in 1978, when Fields v. Indiana observed that the right “is outmoded in our modern society. A citizen, today, can seek his remedy for a policeman’s unwarranted and illegal intrusion into the citizen’s private affairs by bringing a civil action in the courts against the police officer and the governmental unit which the officer represents.”

To understand the exodus from the common law rule, it helps to understand why courts developed a right to resist illegal arrest in the first place.

In 1710, when Queen v. Tooley established the right, there were good reasons to fear mistaken or illegal arrest. Arrests were often made by regular citizens rather than well-trained and regulated police, and prisoners were held for long periods (no court-appointed counsel in those days, and courts weren’t permanently open for business as they are today) in physically wretched conditions (stuffed into overfull, poorly lit, filthy rooms, often in irons, with little food and no medical care).

Inevitably, these prisons — dungeons, really — were routinely devastated by virulent outbreaks of typhus, to the point that it was estimated in 1759 that a quarter of the prisoners died each year. Thus, Prof. Sam Bass Warner notes: “Under such conditions, imprisonment until the next term of court was often equivalent to a death sentence.” These days, a night in the cell is doubtless an unpleasant experience, but the costs of mistaken arrest are lower, the speed with which the situation can be resolved is inordinately greater, and the legal remedies available are immensely better. As a result, by statute or common law development (Barnes is merely the most recent example of the latter), most states have now recognized that the privations against which the right to resist stood sentry don’t exist any more.

In significant part, the negative reaction to Barnes is fed by misunderstanding of what the case says. It doesn’t affect Fourth Amendment rights; it changes nothing about the legality of police entry into homes as some have suggested. Barnes is about remedies: If a man is busy beating his wife or cooking meth, and he believes the police are illegally entering his property, can he start shooting or throwing punches? Or is the legality of the entry, as the Alaska Supreme Court put it in 1969, “a question more properly determined by courts than by the participants in what may be a highly emotional situation”? Barnes says the latter, and there are two very good reasons why that’s correct.

First, because that’s how every other right is vindicated. If you’re pulled over and you don’t think the cop had probable cause, you don’t get to rabbit, still less pull a .45 from the glove box. Illegal searches, seizures, and entries are remedied by suppression of evidence if charges result and a civil lawsuit if not. I said above that the case was unremarkable, and here’s why: Barnes says that your remedy for that kind of police malpractice is the same as your remedy for every other kind of police malpractice. Rarely has so much been made by so many over so little.

And second, because the common law rule is as unworkable as it is obsolete. We talk abstractly about illegal entry, but Fourth Amendment doctrine is exceptionally factbound and complex, and it can take courts years to decide whether a given search, seizure, or entry was illegal. (For instance, in Kentucky v. King, the U.S. Supreme Court decided this month that an entry was legal, reversing the state Supreme Court’s 2010 holding that it was illegal, which had in turn reversed the Court of Appeals’ 2008 holding that the 2005 search was legal.)

So, if it’s lawful to resist illegal arrest, but not to resist legal arrest, who gets to decide whether the entry is legal — and when? Barnes’ critics must answer that the occupant does, in the heat of the moment. That must be their answer because if you have a right to resist, you must decide to use it, or not, at the moment the police enter your house. Not only is it implausible that the average resident can know the relevant facts (were there exigent circumstances? Do they have a no-knock warrant?) and navigate the maze of Fourth Amendment law in the instant available for decision, but think of the effect on law enforcement of such a rule!

If defendants are encouraged to judge the legality of police conduct, they are likely to resolve it in their own favor, turning even perfectly legal arrests and entries into brawls. “Force begets force,” the New Jersey Court of Appeals wrote in 1965, abolishing the right to resist in that state, and police officers performing their duties — even if mistaken about their authority to do so — should not be subjected to “the threat of physical harm at the hands of the arrestee.”

In Fields, the court of appeals felt that, absent excessive force, it “is not too much to ask that one believing himself unlawfully arrested should submit to the officer and thereafter seek his legal remedies in court.” That was correct in 1978, and it’s still right today.

— by Simon Dodd

Archives 2012 -

Request for Proof of Delegation of Authority

Originally Posted on August 14, 2011box-societies-ways-of-life

Chris Friel “principal” for the Corporation of the City of Brantford,
Jeffery Kellner “principal” for the Corporate Brantford Police Services,
William Montour “principal” for the Corporate Six Nations Elected Band Council,
Glen Lickers “principal” for the Corporate Six Nations Police Service,
collectively referred to as “you”, “your”

She:kon // Greetings,

I, the Honorable; Sovereign:-Benjamin-Douglas-Allan: of the Doolitlles’, as Embassador-at-Large for the Kanienkehaka Nation,

Do Hereby, make REQUEST for Inspection of PROOF of DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY from the Kanienkehaka Nation.

If obligation/command/order is made of our people by your people, companies and/or organizations, the burden of proof is on he who makes that assertion/claim.

Do you hold Real-Proof of delegation of authority from the Kanienkehaka Nation?

[[Hypothetically: You can delegate authority to a plumber to fix your pipes because you own the pipes and thus have the ultimate right to do with them as you please. A plumber who works on your pipes without your approval is called a Good Samaritan…or a vandal. A plumber who works on your pipes after you have authorized him to do so is called an agent]]

If you continue to make the determination that you have the authority to make determination on behalf of the Kanienkehaka members without proof of delegation of authority, It can only be seen as VANDALISM and Trespass against the Kanienkehaka Constitution its members and/or way of life and quality of the life of its members.

I pray that, you take the time to address and consider this matter as a serious flaw in your authority as applied to the Kanienkehaka Nation, or to correct this matter with real-evidence for proof of delegation of authority from the Kanienkehaka Nation to make determination on behalf of its members, so that the Kaninkehaka Members may properly inspect then ascertain their obligation if any.

Since time is of the essence we require a prompt response to our concerns and full disclosure of any obligatory contracts.

Within two weeks from receipt of this demand should be sufficient time for you to retrieve any instrument of indebtedness through delegation of authority from the Kanienkehaka Nation, if you require more time; you must request an extension within reason.

Silence can only equate with guilt where there is a legal and moral duty to respond.

With peace, strength and righteousness

Kanienkehaka Embassador-at-Large
Benjamin-Douglas-Allan: of the Doolittles’

Archives 2012 -

The Other Side of the Ledger: An Indian View of the Hudson’s Bay Company

The Hudson’s Bay Company’s 300th anniversary celebration was no occasion for joy among the people whose lives were tied to the trading stores. This film, narrated by George Manuel, president of the National Indian Brotherhood, presents the view of spokesmen for Canadian Indian and Métis groups. There is a sharp contrast between the official celebrations, with Queen Elizabeth II among the guests, and what Indians have to say about their lot in the Company’s operations.

Archives 2012 -

Outrageous Governmental and Judicial Misconduct

In recent weeks a few members of the six nations failed in an appeals process to have an injunction overturned.

To paint a vague background, the city of Brantford sold some land within lands under six nation interests, and when the builder started his project the people from six nations asserted their interests, preventing the builder from moving forward the builder launched a lawsuit against the city for not disclosing prior interest on the land, the city provided limited information that may have been overlooked or insufficient.

Leading to this statement and injunction by Harrison Arrells’

“I find it as a fact …For more than 150 years, the Six Nations did nothing to indicate to innocent third-party purchasers that there was any problem with title to their lands”, “the economy of this small city is at risk; the employment of members of the community are likewise at risk; the reputation of the city as a place to live, work and invest is at risk; all as a result of the city being unable to regulate development, provide a conflict-free environment for investment, employment and the raising of families, and the inability of the city to ensure to local a residents and the investment community that the rule of law prevails.”

Now here is where I make my case that the collective governments use the courts to not only redirect the actual cause of the risk but to uphold its duty to rescue as a tool to protect itself from nothing less than total collapse of the real estate and Canadian land claims industry.

Hereabout in Arrells statement he points out that six nations did nothing to indicate to innocent third-party purchasers that there was any problem with title to their lands.

Lets look at the list of so-called third-party purchaser  (this list may not be complete but it does not need be to prove my point):

  1. The Corporation of the City of Brantford
  2. Everyone else, with some exceptions

Now that I have you wondering how is Brantford a third party, The corporation of the City of Brantford is not a crown corporation, why is this significant? because only the real parties of interest (British Crown vs. American Indians) have a stake in the outcome of any final resolution. Until a resolution only first parties must presume to have 50% controlling and or active interests, unless a superior claim comes to the table.

Contrary to Arrells statement that “six nations so-called claim is weak” the six nations have at least 50% position in the outcome, so that is a false statement and misleading at best.

Arrell stated that no indication to the third-party was ever made about the land,  herein lies the confusion, Brantford is a non-crown company and third-party.

The kicker here is that they also represent the other third parties, which over the last 150 years has failed to inform its citizens of this defect, creating the need to rescue itself and those they put at risk in the process.

The Corporation of the City of Brantford has a duty to save people it has put at risk , called Duty to Rescue;

duty to rescue arises where a person (City of Brantford, other)  creates a hazardous situation (nondisclosure of Foreign National interest). If another person (purchaser)  then falls into peril because of this hazardous situation (demonstrations, activism) , the creator of the hazard (City of Brantford, other)  – who may not necessarily have been a negligent tortfeasor – has a duty to rescue the individual in peril

The rescue happens by having the Canadian rule of law enforced onto conflicting nations, now we need to look at what rule of law means. In nations that profess civility rule of law must mean the fundamental principals or nations constitution, however in the confusion and narrow view breeds convenience by the courts protected  tyrannical concept of a multinational singular rule of law, we must not forget to study the diversity of rules of law in multi-national environments.

When we see the Canadian courts pseudo-impose their rule of law (constitution) onto another nation, it may be unwittingly assumed that Canada’s’ constitution is universally applicable to the Indian because of the addition of constitutional rights under section 35, the conversion trick here is to have the Indian agree he is an Indian in the meaning of the Indian Act or the Constitution Act 1982, however if we can believe that rule of law is created by the individual nation through its own constitution, we must conclude that we have independent rules of law.

The section 35 of Canada’s constitution, being a mere tool designed to convert the rights and immunity of the Indian from his nation constitution (rule of law) to Canada’s  constitution (rule of law), granting the Canadian court jurisdiction. The use of the section 35 (Canada’s constitution)  shows the court the Indian now choose Canadian constitutional representation, in the courts eyes The Indian claim to his own nations constitution (rule of law) was just a mere presumption, the use of section 35 tells the court you may have been Canadian all along.

The Canadian collective government has a duty to rescue that by nature overrides the hopes of due process for any Indian or Indian interests when using the Canadian courts.

Ill end by pointing out these questions: Who are the peers in a Canadian trial? How do they relate peer-wise to the foreign national? Can the court proceed without evidence that the accused is a Canadian citizen? If not Why? If not, by what rule of law?

“[W]e may some day be presented with a situation in which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial process to obtain a conviction …” United States v. Russell;read=110071