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):
- The Corporation of the City of Brantford
- 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;
A 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