Category Archives: 2012

Archives 2012 -

The Corporation Nation

To watch all 20 videos, uninterrupted, click here.


CANADA is a DEFACTO GOVERNMENT or CORPORATION and is registered with the US Securities Exchange Commission under the requirements of the securities Act of 1934 as a subsidiary of the UNITED STATES as a business trading on the stock markets of the world as such.

This is Canada’s Corporate registered number:

0000230098 CANADA DC SIC: 8880 American Depositary Receipt.

… and Business Address:

Canadian Embassy
1746 Massachusetts Ave., NW,
Washington, DC 20036.

CANADA goes by CROWN LAW which is the LAW of the CROWN OF ENGLAND.

GOVERNMENTS are– owned by corporations, run by psychopaths, lying about an imaginary economy based on debt, fueled by illegal wars, destroying ecosystems, poisoning food & water, decreasing education, increasing prisons, manipulating the media, foreclosing homes, starving, humiliating, and killing the world; yet you still stay silent, pay taxes, vote, and trust the government? — Humberto Braga

Let’s start with how the government works, or more specifically, how it is set up. Each town, city, county, state and province has an individual government with individual budgets and finance books.

City councils who sit in fancy pillared or droll state buildings usually govern those many individual governments. Also, there are local government bodies, such as school districts and municipalities like gas, electric, water and sewage, bridges and roadways, and so on who are individually governed bodies as well. And then there are other forms of special government wealth, like pension funds.

On a larger scale, there is the federal government, the judicial and congressional [united states] or municipal [canada]  governments and so on down the line.

Together, these many individual governments are going to be referred to herein as “collective government”.

Just as ethnic groups in this country are individually considered minority [also minority governments] populations with insignificant political and decision making power when compared to the Caucasian or “white” ethnic group, these individual governments are, when compared to the collective power of all of these governments joined together, insignificant.

The power of these individual ethnic groups can only be realized if they ban together to become the majority. Likewise, the thousands of individual governments in the United States and Canada are extremely powerful and wealthy when manifested as one “collective” governmental body – collective government.

Bearing this in mind, I will now reveal the man behind the curtain, so to speak…

Through collective government investments from all individual governments across the United States and Canada, the government owns most of the major corporations in North America, and beyond.

I’ll say it again, in a different way. Collectively, through investment, the United States and Canadian government owns most major corporations and just about everything else in America.

Of the Fortune 500 companies we hear about, and even invest in ourselves with our cute little peanuts we think of as personal wealth, the government has over the last 70 years or so taken financial controlling interest in all of these corporations. This is no exaggeration. This is no joke. This is the reality of the corporate and financial state of our country and it’s government.

The 10 Planks of the Corporate Manifesto

1.) Abolition of private property. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2.) The income tax. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3.) Abolition of estate. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4.) Confiscation of property. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5.) A central bank. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6.) Government control of communications and transportation. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.

7.) Government ownership of factories, land, and agriculture. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8.) Government control of labor — creation of government labor armies. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9.) Corporate farms and regional planning. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.

10.) Government control of education. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

Canada, Ontario, Brant County, Brantford, Six Nations — Recent Reports

Archives 2012 -

On the Arts of Stealing Human Rights

Extracts from a speech given by Gerry Gambill at a conference on Human Rights at Tobique Reserve in New Brunswick, in August, 1958. In this speech he warned native people about how society goes about taking away the Human Rights of native people.

It is ironic that Indians, whose ideas about human rights through the centuries have been so advanced; should be the group in Canada whose human rights have been so consistently denied.

Any group which had as much practice as the white society in denying Indian human rights must be pretty good at it by now. The art of denying Indians their human rights has been refined to a science, and a whole society has become so skilled at it that it happens unconsciously and easily, like tying your shoes.

The following list of commonly used techniques will be helpful in “burglar-proofing”  your reserves, and your rights.This list is only partial. complete it with your own information. GAIN THE INDIANS CO-OPERATION. It is easier to steal someone’s human rights  if you can do it with his OWN co-operation.

1. Make him a non-person. Human rights are for people. Convince Indians their ancestors were savages, that they were pagan, that Indians were drunkards. Make them wards of the government. Make a legal distinction, as in the Indian Act, between Indians and persons. Write history books that tell half the story.

2. Convince the Indian that he should be patient, that these things take time. Tell him that we are making progress, and that progress takes time

3. Make him believe that things are being done for his own good. Tell him you’re sure that after he has experienced your laws and actions that he will realize how good they have been. Tell the Indian he has to take a little of the bad in order to enjoy the benefits you are conferring on him.

4. Get some people to do the dirty work. There are always those who will act for you to the disadvantage of their own people. Just give them a little honor and praise. This is generally the function of band council, chiefs, and advisory councils: they have little legal power, but can handle the tough decisions such as welfare, allocation of housing etc.

5. Consult the Indian, but do not act on the basis of what you hear. Tell the Indian he has a voice and go through the motions of listening. Then interpret what you have heard to suit your own needs

6. Insist that the Indian “GOES THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS.” make the channels and the procedures so difficult that he won’t bother to do anything. When he discovers what the proper channels are and becomes proficient at the procedures, change them.

7. Make the Indian believe you are working for him, putting in much overtime and at a great sacrifice, and imply that he should be appreciative. This is the ultimate in skills in stealing human rights; when you obtain the thanks of the victim.

8. Allow a few individuals to “MAKE THE GRADE” and point to them as examples. Say that the ‘HARDWORKERS” AND THE “GOOD” Indians have made it, and that therefore it is a person’s own fault if he doesn’t succeed.

9. Appeal to the Indian’s sense of fairness, and tell him that even though things are pretty bad it is not right for him to make strong protests. Keep the argument going on his form of protest and avoid talking about the real issue. Refuse to deal with him while he is protesting. Take all the fire out of his efforts

10. Encourage the Indian to take his case to court. This is very expensive, takes lots of time and energy and is very safe because laws are stacked up against him. The courts ruling will defeat the Indians cause, but makes him think he has obtained justice.

11. Make the Indian believe that things could be worse, and that instead of complaining about the loss of human rights, to be grateful for the rights we do have. In fact, convince him that to attempt to regain a right he has lost is likely to jeopardize the rights that he still has.

12. Set yourself up as the protector of the Indian’s human rights, and then you could choose to act only on those violations you wish to act upon. By getting successful on a few minor violations of human rights, you can point to these as examples of your devotion to his cause. The burglar who is also the doorman is the perfect combination.

13. Pretend that the reason for the loss of human rights is for some other reason, other than the person is Indian. Tell him some of your best friends are Indians, and that his loss of rights is because of his housekeeping, his drinking, his clothing.

14. Make the situation more complicated than is necessary. Tell the Indian you will have to take a survey to find out how many other Indians are being discriminated against. Hire a group of professors to make a year-long research project.

15. Insist on unanimity. Let the Indian know that when all the Indians in Canada can make up there minds about just what they want as a group, then you will act. Play one group’s special situation against another group’s wishes.

16. Select very limited alternatives, neither of which has much merit, and then tell the Indian that indeed he has a choice. Ask, for instance, if he could or would rather have council elections in June or December, instead of asking if he wants them at all.

17. Convince the Indian that the leaders who are the most beneficial and powerful are dangerous and not to be trusted. Or simply lock them up on some charge like driving with no lights. Or refuse to listen to the real leaders and spent much time with the weak ones. Keep the people split from their leaders by sowing rumor. Attempt to get the best leaders into high paying jobs where they have to keep quiet to keep their pay check coming in.

18. Speak of the common good. Tell the Indian that you can’t consider yourselves when there is a whole nation to think of. Tell him he can’t think only of himself. For instance, in regard to hunting rights, tell him we have to think of all the hunters, or the sporting good industry.

19. Remove rights so gradually that the people don’t realize what has happened until it is too late. Again in regards to hunting rights, first restrict the geographical area where hunting is permitted, then cut the season to certain times of the year, then cut the limits down gradually, then insist on licensing, and then Indians will be on the same grounds as the white sportsmen.

20. Rely on some reason and logic (your reason and logic) instead of rightness and morality. Give thousands of reasons for things, but to not get trapped into arguments about what is right.

21. Hold a conference on Human Rights, have everyone blow of steam and tension, and go home feeling things are well at hand.

*You could easily apply most of these to many situations since these are common strategies of the wealthy/powerful against the poor/weak, especially the legalities, stalling, and projection


The Myth of Canada!

Canada is created on lies, deceit, theft and the fact alleged Canadian’s DO believe in the impossible.  This is an essay detailing “The Truth about Non-Canada!” or, if you prefer  you could say it reveals,The Myth of Canada!“, Or it could be the story of “Canada: the Non-Country!”

When we refer to our cur­rent alleged Cana­dian gov­ern­ment as de jure, we no doubt mean de facto, since de facto means “in fact”, but not “by law”, which is what de jure means. In other words, a law­ful gov­ern­ment is a de jure government.

A gov­ern­ment that exists by decep­tion and fraud, and not by law­ful author­ity, is a de facto government.

It’s highly unlikely that the Cana­dian estab­lish­ment, with polit­i­cal mil­lion­aire shys­ters as its van­guard, is igno­rant of the actual his­tory of Canada and its fake gov­ern­ment. The fake ver­sion taught in our schools has noth­ing in com­mon with 135 years of real­ity; of gov­ern­ment by mil­lion­aires, of mil­lion­aires, for millionaires.

Canada is nei­ther a fed­er­a­tion nor does its gov­ern­ment oper­ate with legit­i­mate author­ity. Know­ing this and keep­ing mum about it makes politi­cians and the entire Bar Asso­ci­a­tion crim­i­nal offend­ers by default, if not by design…all of them, past and present. Which doesn’t mat­ter much these days because it’s obvi­ously cool (and very prof­itable) to be law­less, as far as those at the trough are concerned.

Judg­ing by politi­cians, and the legal community’s vis­i­ble con­duct, their strat­egy seems to be one of per­pet­u­ally rein­forc­ing the nix­ing of the UNAUTHORIZED AND ILLEGITIMATE EXISTENCE OF CANADIAN GOVERNMENTS by teaching and cel­e­brat­ing a Cana­di­ana, pick­led in bald-faced lies, with much ado and hoopla.

It takes a lot of time and effort to sep­a­rate the facts from the myths about Canada’s “cre­ation.” For­tu­nately, there have been many ded­i­cated Cana­di­ans doing the ardu­ous research. By learn­ing how con­sti­tu­tions and nations are prop­erly cre­ated and then com­par­ing this with Canada’s (and Britain’s) records of the time (and since then), these researchers have accu­rately re-created a chronol­ogy of what actu­ally hap­pened since 1864 and what Canada’s sta­tus is today…which isn’t news, it’s just infor­ma­tion that is rig­or­ously suppressed.

Few peo­ple would sus­pect that edu­ca­tional fac­ul­ties, politi­cians, judges, media and the entire mem­ber­ship of the Cana­dian Bar Asso­ci­a­tion would inten­tion­ally deny the exis­tence of such a fun­da­men­tally impor­tant mat­ter. With few notable excep­tions, the pub­lic has unques­tion­ingly accepted the offi­cial fairy­tale as gospel. Pro­fes­sion­als, privy to the truth, are sim­ply too busy chas­ing the buck and drop the truth from their conscience.

Politi­cians have banked on such devel­op­ments with aston­ish­ing suc­cess since “con­fed­er­a­tion.” Today, nobody in his right mind (while igno­rant of the facts) will believe that Canada has actu­ally been under the con­trol of impos­tors for 135 years; which con­tin­ues to be so, as long as most Cana­di­ans are con­tent to trudge through the dark, think­ing they are soar­ing in the light.

Nowhere are the con­se­quences of this mas­sive decep­tion more embod­ied than in the dili­gence with which Cana­dian judges help the Cana­dian Cus­toms and Rev­enue Agency ( CCRA ) to ruth­lessly admin­is­ter a tax extrac­tion racket as fraud­u­lent and crim­i­nal as Canada’s C-36 pro­tec­tion racket. Faced with hav­ing to rule inescapably in favour of the aggrieved (tax vic­tims) Cana­dian judges, spine­less with­out excep­tion, have turned into legal eels, sym­bi­ot­i­cally cor­rupted by their addic­tion to pres­tige, spe­cial priv­i­leges and highly salaried appoint­ments for life.

Cit­i­zens, pay for judi­cial priv­i­leges with the ero­sion of their “con­sti­tu­tional” rights and speedy redress, while judges hide their bot­tom­less cow­ardice to uphold the prin­ci­ples of the BNA Act behind over­bear­ing pom­pos­ity, intim­i­da­tion and self-serving and crim­i­nal bias, in an effort to pro­tect the hand that feeds them.

There is no such thing as arms length free­dom of judges from gov­ern­ment inter­fer­ence. When it comes to the con­sti­tu­tion and taxes, judges are deathly afraid to reveal their knowl­edge of the BNA Act’s ille­git­i­macy. Instead they impro­vise slick Catch 22 pro­ce­dures and set obstruc­tive prece­dents based on legal sophistry; osten­si­bly, to “avoid the chaos” that would ensue if they were inclined to respect the (non-) con­sti­tu­tional rights of the peo­ple. They main­tain that, by enlight­en­ing the pub­lic about Canada’s con­sti­tu­tional real­ity and by rul­ing fairly and with integrity, they would “unleash” real nation build­ing reforms by a lib­er­ated pub­lic, while cur­tail­ing for them­selves Ottawa’s munif­i­cence, which they view as anarchy.

Com­pound­ing their crimes, judges find noth­ing wrong with the mas­sive coun­ter­feit­ing of credit and the col­lec­tion of inter­est from it by pri­vate banks. Nor does it bother them that this occurs with­out the bless­ings of the BNA Act and under the aus­pices of impos­tors with pre­ten­sions of gov­ern­men­tal authority…all of which has become “real” under the umbrella of fake legitimacy.

Canada is joined in this con­sti­tu­tional dilemma by Aus­tralia and New Zealand. But, unlike Canada’s, their legal com­mu­ni­ties have acknowl­edged that a con­sti­tu­tional prob­lem exists and they deal with it, view­ing it as a grand oppor­tu­nity of change for the better.

To under­stand why the BNA Act and the Cana­dian Fed­er­a­tion are fake, here is a quick, nut­shell expla­na­tion of how and by whom con­sti­tu­tions and sov­er­eign demo­c­ra­tic coun­tries are prop­erly created.

The “infa­mous social­ist agenda” The cre­ation of a demo­c­ra­tic nation is for sane peo­ple sim­ply a mat­ter of com­mon sense and decency; for the estab­lished elites it’s a lead­ing cause of apoplexy and a mat­ter of sub­ver­sion, ter­ror­ism and communism…if not down­right anarchy.

But assum­ing that a sov­er­eign demo­c­ra­tic fed­er­a­tion is socially desir­able – in other words, lib­eral rhetoric trans­formed into actual real­ity – no super­nat­ural abil­i­ties or spe­cial law degrees are nec­es­sary to cre­ate it.

It requires merely a pub­lic con­sen­sus about the pur­pose of the nation and how to best achieve it.

a) First, there has to be a ter­ri­tory (like a Cana­dian province) who’s peo­ple desire to be a sov­er­eign and demo­c­ra­tic nation.
b) From among them­selves the peo­ple select, by vote or appoint­ment, a tem­po­rary assem­bly and charge it with the for­mu­la­tion of a con­sti­tu­tion.
c) A first draft of the con­sti­tu­tion is sub­mit­ted by the assem­bly to the peo­ple for review and pub­lic debate, to pro­vide an oppor­tu­nity for changes.
d) After a first pub­lic debate the assem­bly retires to work out the changes, after which it is sub­mit­ted again to the peo­ple for review and fur­ther changes, if nec­es­sary.
e) This process is repeated until the con­sti­tu­tion has become a for­mula accept­able to a sub­stan­tial major­ity of the peo­ple.
f) Now the peo­ple vote in a ref­er­en­dum to accept (or reject) the con­sti­tu­tion with a pre-determined major­ity (75% for exam­ple).
g) If the required major­ity can­not be achieved, fur­ther changes must be made until the for­mula becomes accept­able to the required num­ber of peo­ple.
h) The entire process is recorded and doc­u­mented as proof of the constitution’s author­ity.
i) On the basis of the con­sti­tu­tion a gov­ern­ment is then formed, which is con­trac­tu­ally bound (social con­tract) to respect it and con­duct itself in accord with it.
j) Now this sov­er­eign nation can form a fed­er­a­tion with other nations, if it wishes to do so.

Note, that no con­sid­er­a­tion has been given to the manip­u­la­tive inter­fer­ence from pri­vately owned media monopolies.

Note, that the con­sti­tu­tion is cre­ated first, then the gov­ern­ment. To cre­ate a demo­c­ra­tic nation for the peo­ple, by the peo­ple, of the peo­ple, it can­not be any other way.

Note, no for­eign gov­ern­ment can for­mu­late (or cre­ate) the con­sti­tu­tion of another coun­try. It has to be cre­ated by the peo­ple them­selves and becomes thus, for all intents and pur­poses, their pro­tec­tive prop­erty. It’s not only the law but is a con­tract which sub­ju­gates the gov­ern­ment to the peo­ple. The gov­ern­ment derives a lim­ited author­ity to gov­ern from it, always sub­ject to the people’s authority.

Note, ONLY SOVEREIGN NATIONS CAN FORM A FEDERATION. For exam­ple, a domin­ion is the sub­ject of an empire, un-free, and can­not deter­mine any­thing, much less fed­er­ate, with­out the empire’s approval. A SOVEREIGN NATION IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANYONE . In other words, it is free to design its socio-economic orga­ni­za­tion or enter into fed­er­a­tions in any way it wants.

A sov­er­eign, demo­c­ra­tic domin­ion?! But that’s not what hap­pened in 1867. When we ask, did Canada become then a sov­er­eign, demo­c­ra­tic domin­ion, we must also ask, of whom or of what? The Crown? Roth­schild? The IMF ? Thus the incon­gruity becomes unmis­tak­ably self-evident.

In 1867 we-the-people didn’t exist, as far as polit­i­cal “par­tic­i­pa­tion” was con­cerned. In the exalted view of our bet­ters, the colo­nial mil­lion­aire paragons of civ­i­liza­tion, we were prac­ti­cally indis­tin­guish­able from the stink­ing squalor sur­round­ing us. They habit­u­ally referred to us as “scum.” They were the landed gen­try, lord­ing it over us, the rab­ble, with style, opulence…and vastly refined superiority.

In 1864 an assem­bly of such unelected “colo­nial rep­re­sen­ta­tives of the Crown” (appointees and careerists) con­vened in Que­bec and began to draft the Que­bec Res­o­lu­tions under the wise guid­ance of the Hon. John A. Mac­don­ald, all of them men of sub­stance, inspired by self-interest. The gen­eral “scum” of the day didn’t even know that this was going on, not being wealthy enough to vote and all.…

Note, that the orig­i­nal draft was cre­ated by an unelected assem­bly of colo­nial appointees with­out the knowl­edge of the gen­eral pub­lic. In 1867 the “Que­bec scheme of 1864″ was sub­mit­ted to the Colo­nial Office in Lon­don for Royal assent, to be enacted by the British leg­is­la­ture. In between read­ings in the House of Lords and the House of Com­mons the word­ing of the pre­am­ble (the most impor­tant page of a con­sti­tu­tion) was changed (a fraud­u­lent slight of hand), with­out the knowl­edge of the del­e­ga­tion from Canada or any­body in both houses, into the oxy­moron it has remained to this day. At this point there existed no printed copy of the original.

Remem­ber, no for­eign gov­ern­ment can cre­ate a legally valid con­sti­tu­tion for another coun­try. What even­tu­ally emerged from the British leg­is­la­ture was a statute as phoney as a three dol­lar bill, with the first page miss­ing entirely. The list of experts who attested to this fact in 1935 is impres­sive, indeed:

Dr. O. D. Skel­ton, Under-Secretary of State for Exter­nal Affairs; Dr. Ollivier, K.C., Joint-Law Clerk, House of Com­mons; Dr. W. P. Kennedy, Pro­fes­sor of Law, Uni­ver­sity of Toronto; Dr. N. McL. Rogers, Pro­fes­sor of Polit­i­cal Sci­ence, Queens Uni­ver­sity; Dr. Arthur Beauch­esne, K.C., C.M.G., L.L.D., Clerk of the House of Commons.

And it doesn’t end there. Note, that there exists no doc­u­mented record of a man­dated assem­bly or debates by nei­ther the elites nor the “scum,” nor a bind­ing ref­er­en­dum in 1867 or since.

On Novem­ber 8, 1945, the MP for Jasper-Edson, Wal­ter F. Kuhl, widely respected as the pre-eminent author­ity on con­sti­tu­tional mat­ters at the time, tried to revive the issue of Canada’s non-constitution/non-federation in the House. He stressed that UNTIL 1931 CANADA WAS NOT , AND COULDN ‘T HAVE BEEN , A FEDERATION since, until then, it was still a domin­ion of the crown.

Only in 1931 did the British Crown abro­gate its author­ity over the Cana­dian Domin­ions (provinces) with the enact­ment of the Statute of West­min­ster. This pro­vided a most aus­pi­cious oppor­tu­nity for Canada to become a truly sov­er­eign, demo­c­ra­tic fed­er­a­tion. Instead Ottawa cre­ated the Bank of Canada, a cen­tral bank.

Once again the élite stu­diously “ignored” the oppor­tu­nity Mr. Kuhl’s argu­ment offered to cre­ate a bona fide fed­er­a­tion based on a bona fide con­sti­tu­tion. It cre­ated the Maple Leaf Flag instead; more focussed on image than on sub­stance in order to main­tain the delib­er­ate decep­tion. There exists no record of any con­sti­tu­tional assem­bly, any pub­lic debates or any con­sti­tu­tional ref­er­en­dum nor any con­fed­er­a­tion efforts since 1931, other than Ottawa’s denial of Quebec’s sov­er­eignty, which is a fact.

Since 1931 the rest of Canada has been akin to a wreck, loaded to the hilt with gold, adrift at sea, under the con­trol of pirates who gut and plun­der it to their hearts’ con­tent. There are even rumours, that the Roth­schild Clan secretly claimed Canada as an object of sal­vage and is man­ag­ing it and extract­ing its wealth from behind com­plex fronts within fronts, like a Russ­ian Egg, with the outer, vis­i­ble shell being the “fed­eral government.”

But, peo­ple ask, didn’t Trudeau “patri­ate” the con­sti­tu­tion and the Char­ter of Rights and Free­doms in 1982? Well, he actu­ally did patri­ate, in a fashion…and a uni­fied cho­rus of the pub­lic, the media, the judi­ciary and edu­ca­tional insti­tu­tions all went “Aahh” and “Oohh” and “isn’t that nice of him?” It seem­ingly never dawned on any­body to ask who gave him the author­ity to draft the Char­ter of Rights and Freedoms.

Let’s give it the ben­e­fit of the doubt and assume that it is a seman­tic mis­take, and what was meant was that Trudeau repa­tri­ated the con­sti­tu­tion. That would mean he brought it home in 1982. We must ask then, from where?! Where was it until 1982 if not in this “sov­er­eign, demo­c­ra­tic and fed­er­ated domin­ion?” In Britain? The prob­lem here, is the word “patri­ate.” It didn’t exist in the Eng­lish lan­guage until 1981, nor does it exist in any other lan­guage, ancient or con­tem­po­rary, to this day. It is mean­ing­less gib­ber­ish invented by Trudeau and his cab­i­net. The ques­tion “What does it mean?” is unan­swer­able. Per­haps it was intended to be rooted in the Latin word patris. Which could mean, by a wild stretch of the imag­i­na­tion, that Father Pierre fathered the Bill of Rights and Free­doms and gen­er­ously bestowed it upon Cana­di­ans as an (uncon­sti­tu­tional) gift. More likely, the word sim­ply exists to invoke a sense of con­sti­tu­tional incom­pre­hen­sion in order to dis­cour­age deeper prob­ings by a mys­ti­fied public.

Why? In com­par­i­son with the proper process explained above, it’s prac­ti­cally impos­si­ble to believe that Canada is a legit­i­mately sov­er­eign and demo­c­ra­tic fed­er­a­tion, unless one is deranged or in the grasp of opi­ate dreams. Since most Cana­di­ans DO believe the impos­si­ble, what does this say about their men­tal and moral disposition?

No mat­ter how we slice it the Cana­dian Fed­er­a­tion remains a fic­tion. The fed­eral gov­ern­ment is a cabal of impos­tors; its author­ity to gov­ern being non-existent until such time as Cana­di­ans wake up to the fact that EVERY TREATY ENTERED INTO ( NATO , GATS , NAFTA , FTA , FTAA etc.) AND ALL LAWS AND REGULATIONS ( ITA , GST , C36 , PRIVATIZATION , DOWNSIZING , etc.) PASSED SINCE 1867 ARE NULL AND VOID …just as null and void as the non-constitutional author­ity of Canada’s com­mu­nity of bot­tom feeders…the judi­ciary and the Cana­dian Bar Asso­ci­a­tion, includ­ing their bloated and sub­ver­sive court procedures.

And let’s not for­get the law enforce­ment agen­cies such as the RCMP , the police and CSIS , which have no non-constitutional author­ity to enforce (or pro­tect) any­thing, much less the dic­tates (legal­ized crime) of impostors.

GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE BOSS , YOU ARE! SO ACT LIKE ONE! Know­ing all this, per­haps it becomes a bit more attrac­tive for Cana­di­ans to get a taste of real nation­hood and real sov­er­eignty (i.e. free­dom), instead of oppres­sive despo­tism and wage slav­ery, by adopt­ing the purely Cana­dian con­cept of PARTICIPATION .

To sum it up, CANADA IS A GIGANTIC FAKE , an embar­rass­ment of giant pro­por­tions. All cen­tral­ized gov­ern­ments are imposed by non-legal force and their con­sti­tu­tions are not worth the paper they are writ­ten on, nor are their laws, as we can clearly see now. It will stay that way until such a time when nation build­ing is again con­sid­ered a project wor­thy of the cre­ative and lib­er­at­ing efforts of free people…inclusive, con­sen­sual, uni­ver­sal and truly democratic.

As it stands now, Canada is a fake in every respect, in the hands of despotic indi­vid­u­als bent on pulling off the biggest crime in the universe… THE GLOBALIZATION OF FAKENESS …and again the establishment’s cheer­lead­ers go “Oohh” and “Aahh,” duly recorded and end­lessly re-cycled in the closed loop of the media monop­o­lies until all alter­na­tives have moved beyond the van­ish­ing point…out of sight.

Oh, and what was that you were say­ing about fight­ing your tax assess­ment (or this or that alleged law) on grounds that it is uncon­sti­tu­tional? Per­haps you should con­sider mov­ing to a real Coun­try, or at least one that has a real constitution!

We, as alleged Cana­di­ans are liv­ing in an un-country with no law because we have no basis from which to frame any law, hence we have absolutely no fun­da­men­tal rights, real or feigned! Every­thing is merely an “act” (no pun intended) designed to keep us un-informed, un-protected, and un-able to object.

  • Related Arti­cles
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