AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEKIS & QUEEN VICTORIA, THE YEAR 1665 ON THE BARGAIN 1835
and Free Indian Navigation It’s free traveling all over Canada, anyplace you go. If you want a house in Canada, you go to the Superintendent, put in your order and he will see that it is built. It will cost you nothing, they will pay for it. I will put a Warden in to mind your game. Wherever your animal will make its track in Canada you can follow it until you get it.
International Status as separate and Sovereign States : The Protections: “That the Several Nations or tribes of Indians with whom we are connected and who live under Our Protection should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such parts of our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by us, are reserved to them, or any of them as their hunting grounds.”
The Sovereign Indian Nations:
“And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure for the present as aforesaid to reserve under our Sovereignty Protection and Dominion for the use of the said Indians all the Lands and Territories not included within the limits or Our said Three new Governments or within the limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson’s Bay Company.”
The Territory that was granted to the Hudson’s Bay Company already had a structure to govern the British Subjects in the Territory. This was granted by King Charles II per the Royal Charter of 1670. King Charles II granted his beloved Cousin Prince Rupert the following:
- The Sole Authority for the Trade and Commerce with the Indian Nations of the said Territory.
- The Governing Structure over the British Subjects in the said Territory.
- The Authority to grant Licenses for the privilege of Trade and Commerce with the Indians of the said Territory, to British Subjects and Others who Inhabited the Area.
All that was surrendered by the Hudson’s Bay Company to the Queen of Great Britain in 1870 was the Governing Structure of the British Subjects in the Territory and the Authority to grant Licenses for trading with the Indians. The Hudson’s Bay Company were allowed to continue their Trade and Commerce with the Indian Nations of the said Territory and elsewhere.
King George III could not grant what was already granted. But he could protect it as He did with the Royal Proclamation, October 7th.,. 1763. And as quoted;
After the passage of s. s. 25 and 35 of the 1982 Constitution and in light of the word of the Law, Provincial Legislation affecting Indians in the Possession of the Aboriginal Lands or Provincial Legislation, which purports to extinguish Aboriginal Title, were ultra vires the Province before 1982 as it applied to the Indian Nations and Continue to be ultra vires. Furthermore, that an offence, alleged to be committed by and Indian, under Municipal Law is a Direct infringement on s. s. 25 and 35 of the 1982 Constitution Act which by law activates s. 52.
In the preamble of the 1982 Constitution Act, if states “Whereas Canada is founded up principles that recognize the Supremacy of God in accordance with the Rule of Law.”
The Rule of Law, first, what was Common British Constitutional Practice was also laid out by the Marquis of Ripon in his Letter to the Governor-General of Canada. He said in the Parliamentary papers, June 28th., 1895;
“In some Colonies they were allowed to make Acts. Conventions or Treaties. But, before any Convention or Treaty can be ratified, that any Legislation for giving effect to it, makes full provision for enabling Her Majesty to fulfill Her Obligations both to the Power Immediately concerned, and to any other Powers whose rights under Treaty may be affected. To give Colonies the Power of Negotiating Treaties with out reference to Her majesty’s Government would we give them on International Status as separate and Sovereign States and would be equivalent to breaking up the Empire in a number of Independent States, a result which Her Majesty’s Government are satisfied would be injurious equally to the Colonies and to the Mother County and would be desired by neither.”
The aforementioned provision is also echoed in the 1982 Constitution Act, s. s. 25 and 35(1). S. 35(1) states;
“The existing Aboriginal and Treaty Rights of the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.”
The phrase “Existing Aboriginal Rights” is addressed in Sparrow, S. C. C. 1990 @ page 11;
“Far from being defined according to the regulatory scheme in place in 1982, the phrase, ‘Existing Aboriginal Rights’ must be interpreted flexibly so a s to permit their evolution over time.”
As noted by Blair J. A. at page 10;
“Existing” means “unextinguished”.
The “Unextinguished Aboriginal Rights” are identified by s. 25 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This sections states;
“The guarantee in this Carter of Certain Rights and Freedoms shall not be construed so as to Abrogate or derogate from any Aboriginal Treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada including, (a)-any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7th., 1763”
The unextinguished Aboriginal Treaty or Other Rights or Freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763 are;
The Treaty:
“Whereas we have taken into Our Royal Consideration the Extensive and Valuable Acquisitions in America, secured to Our Crown by the Late definitive Treaty of Peace concluded at Paris the 10th., day for February Last”
The First Cession:
“With the Advice of Our said Privy Council grated Our Letters Patent under Our Great Seal of Great Britain, to erect within the Countries and Islands ceded and confirmed to Us by the said Treaty.”
The Protections:
“That the Several Nations or tribes of Indians with whom we are connected and who live under Our Protection should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such parts of our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by us, are reserved to them, or any of them as their hunting grounds.”
The Sovereign Indian Nations:
“And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure for the present as aforesaid to reserve under our Sovereignty Protection and Dominion for the use of the said Indians all the Lands and Territories not included within the limits or Our said Three new Governments or within the limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson’s Bay Company.”
The Territory that was granted to the Hudson’s Bay Company already had a structure to govern the British Subjects in the Territory. This was granted by King Charles II per the Royal Charter of 1670. King Charles II granted his beloved Cousin Prince Rupert the following:
- The Sole Authority for the Trade and Commerce with the Indian Nations of the said Territory.
- The Governing Structure over the British Subjects in the said Territory.
- The Authority to grant Licenses for the privilege of Trade and Commerce with the Indians of the said Territory, to British Subjects and Others who Inhabited the Area.
All that was surrendered by the Hudson’s Bay Company to the Queen of Great Britain in 1870 was the Governing Structure of the British Subjects in the Territory and the Authority to grant Licenses for trading with the Indians. The Hudson’s Bay Company were allowed to continue their Trade and Commerce with the Indian Nations of the said Territory and elsewhere.
King George III could not grant what was already granted. But he could protect it as He did with the Royal Proclamation, October 7th.,. 1763. And as quoted;
“And We do further strictly enjoin and require all Persons Whatever who have wither wilfully or inadvertently settled themselves up any lands within the countries above described, or upon any other lands which not having been ceded to or Purchase by Us are still reserved to the said Indians as aforesaid.”
In 1670 King Charles II granted Prince Rupert sole authority for Trade and Commerce with the Indian Nations there was no surrender of any kind made by the Indian Nations of the Territory, In 1763 King George III stated; “any Lands that have not been ceded to or purchased by Us are reserved to Them, any of Them.”
In 1870 an absolute surrender by the Hudson’s Bay Company to the Queen of Great Britain of all their Rights and Privileges etc. Again, the Hudson’s Bay Company could only surrender what it had…licensing and trading authority with and for the Indians, exclusive of property or Territorial ownership, Affirming the Sovereignty of the Indian Nations and the fact that the Hudson’s Bay Company only had the privilege of trading with Indians, which was granted by the Crown of Great Britain. An Agreement in the form of a letter was sent by Dekis & Queen Victoria to the New King Chief of Canada. The contents of that letter is as follows;
AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEKIS &QUEEN VICTORIA, THE YEAR 1665 ON THE BARGAIN 1835
AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEKIS &QUEEN VICTORIA, THE YEAR 1665 ON THE BARGAIN 1835
Stuart Myiow explains the New King Chief of Canada
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAzeyp8Gsfc
New King Chief of Canada, I am writing you. We have to change the rules of the whites. We will put Head offices in Canada on the Indian Act, and superintend on provincial rules. Lawyer for you Business, Doctor, Indian Affairs, and this is on the Indian Act, and rules of Canada. In the year of 1820 we sent Simpson to control the company, in the year 1821 we sued Hudson for selling your goods, so, I am renewing the treaty and money. On hundred and twenty dollars ($120.00) a year and tax free. The rules of the Indian Act of Canada, when the year is due, the Superintendent will give you your money tax-free.
Now you will have to make township. The whites will have to pay you for everything you have, you make head townships in Canada, have reservations to keep the whites off the RESERVE, and Free Indian Navigation. Free grass for settlers and timer of 100 Acres. We leave it as you gave it to the settlers, only the pine for the lumbermen, and sixty-feet on shore Navigation Rights, if you are on the boat.
It’s free traveling all over Canada, anyplace you go. If you want a house in Canada, you go to the Superintendent, put in your order and he will see that it is built. It will cost you nothing, they will pay for it. I will put a Warden in to mind your game. Wherever your animal will make its track in Canada you can follow it until you get it. If the whites want your animal they will have to pay for it with a license.
If you work for a white man, they cannot garnishee your wages. The whites have to pay taxes, you are entitled to THREE percent on the taxes, and THREE percent on the timber and $3.00 stumpage besides, and FIVE percent on the Mines, and if you have money in the Bank it is FIVE percent; also game money is yours. If the whites crowd you, you are to go to the Superintendent and put in your complaint, he will take it up to the lawyer, and he will be prosecuted.
The Bargain is made and I am sending you a scroll as good as gold, as long as there is an Indian in the country from generation to generation, King Chief Brother, I am telling you, a nephew is born. My son, I am your sister Queen Victoria, forever this Bargain, we made between you and I, will stand; as long as there is water in the Lakes and run in the Rivers and Creeks, and the green grass grows. This bargain, the year 1665 comes the year 1835, is good as long as the sun and moon shines, it cannot change. This Bargain is for the KING CHIEF of CANADA, from QUEEN VICTORIA.
The surrender of the Hudson’s Bay Company was accepted by the Crown on June 22nd, 1870 just two centuries after ht e Crown had Granted it their charter. The Transfer to Canada followed on July 15th, 1870.
Ruperts Land was admitted in to Dominion of Canada under the Terms of the 1867 British North America Act that affirmed the protection that was set out in the Royal Proclamation of 1763. Section 92 of the B.N.A. Act states;
“…except as regards the Office of Lieutenant Governor.”
And section 109 states;
“Subject to any trust existing thereof and any interest.”
All that the Hudson’s Bay Company could surrender in 1870 was what it was granted by King Charles II in 1670. That was as follows;
- i. Sole authority for the trade and commerce with the Indians of said Territory.
- ii. The Governing Structure of British Subject in the Territory.
- iii. The authority to grant licenses to British Subjects and Others who Inhabited the Territory.
The Hudson Bay Company was allowed to continue its trade and commerce in the Territory, nor was there and Land purchased by the Crown of Great Britain.
Whereby all the Lands that were not ceded to or Purchased by the Crown of Great Britain were reserved to the Indians, Any of Them as Their Hunting Grounds as noted in the Royal Proclamation of 1763.
The Hudson’s Bay Company surrender was only for the Governing structure of the Territory and that the Indian Nations still retained Their Sovereign Status after the surrender and transfer of Ruperts Land to Canada. In point of fact in 1870 and at times thereafter the government of Canada made Treaties with the Indian Nations within Rupert’s Land. Treaties such as the Qu’ Appelle Treaty or Treaty Number 4.
It must be remembered that at this Time some of the Colonies were allowed to make Laws, Conventions or Treaties as long as provision is make whereby the queen can uphold Her Obligations as set out by Treaty and as concurred by the Marquis of Ripon in 1895.
Treaty Number 4 reflects this and was put there by the then Lieutenant Governor-General Morris who was given the authority by the Canadian Government to make a Treaty with the Indian Tribes for the area as well the Lieutenant Governor-General Morris was also ex officio Governor of the Territories. Page 117-118 of Treaty 4 states;
“The Treaties of Canada with the Indians of Manitoba and the
North-West Territories including the Negotiations on which
they were based. “(By Lieutenant Governor Morris in 1880)
Kamooses;
“Is it true You are bring the Queen’s kindness:
Is it true you are bringing the Queen’s Messenger’s kindness?
Is it true you are going to give my child what he may use?
Is it true you are going to give the Different Bands the Queen’s Kindness?
Is it true you bring the Queen’s hand?
Is it true that you are bringing the Queen’s Power”
Lieutenant Governor “Yes to those who are here and those who are absent, such
Morris as She has given Us.”
Kamooses; “Is it true My child will not be troubled for what you are bringing him?”
Lieutenant Governor “The Queen’s Power will be around Him.”
Morris
The Queen’s Power is such that the Canadian government cannot legally bind the Queen in any way. They cannot make Legislation that can affect Her Majesty in ay way and the Queen is still the Head of State in Canada.
The Queen’s Power is around every Man, Woman and Child and those that come after.
This statement is affirmed by the Royal Assent of October 30th, 1860 31 Vic. Ch. 151 wherein the control of the Indians was reserved to the Queen.
In the matter of Edinburgh and Dalkeith Railway Co. v. Wauchope (1942) 8 C. L. and F. 710 @ page 725;
“All that a court of justice can do is to look at the Parliamentary roll: If from that it should appear that a bill has passed both houses and received the royal Assent, no court of justice can inquire into the mode in which it was introduced into parliament.”
Once the Royal Assent is given it becomes final. It cannot be changed by a subordinate legislation. The control of the Indians was reserved to the Queen. How do you control a Nation? By legislation. This was reserved to the Queen. As affirmed by s. 92 of the B. N. A. Act and s.35 (1) of the Constitution Act 1982.
The fact that when Saskatchewan was admitted into the Dominion of Canada it was not given the lands. Instead the government of Saskatchewan was given payments twice a year in lieu of not having the lands as a resource (Saskatchewan Act 1905). This is common British Constitutional practice and can be verified through the historical records between the Crown of Great Britain and Canada.
In 1670 all the Hudson’s Bay Company was granted by King Charles II was the Governing Structure of the Territory. The same as Saskatchewan in 1905.
As laid out by commissioner Horfmandan, writing for the Majority of the court of Commissioners in the case of Mohegan Tribe v. Connecticut 1700-1743;
“The Indians though living amongst the King’s Subjects in these countries are a separate and distinct People. They are treated with as such and it is plain, in my conception that the Crown looks upon the Indians as having the property of the soil of these countries. For no Act has been shown whereby they become Subjects.”
This remains the same today. There is no legally valid act or whatsoever in the words of the law that shows that the Indians ceded or relinquished the protection that has been there, since the very least, the Royal Proclamation of October 7th, 1763.
When the Royal Proclamation of 1763 Constitutionally organized the courts for what is now Canada it expressly placed those courts jurisdiction under such regulations and restrictions as are used in other Colonies, as in their power to dispose of the Royal Charter of 1670. Thus, applying to Canada the same jurisdictional Law as previously held to be applicable in the older British Colonies.
Similarly, when the Proclamation constitutionally organized Canada original land granting power then;
“That no Governor or Commander in Chief, in any of Our
Colonies of Quebec, East Florida or West Florida,
do presume, upon any pretense whatever to grant warrants of
survey or pass any patents for lands beyond the bounds of their
respective governments as described in their commissions…”
It placed that jurisdiction on the same footing as in the older Colonies being extended to such lands, tenement and hereditaments, as are now or hereafter shall be in Our Power to dispose of. The lands not yet within the newcomer governments constitutional power of disposition were, the yet to be purchased Indian Territories.
Section 92 (1) and s. 109 of the British North America Act, 1867 confirmed that pending the Indian purchase the Crowns title to Territory is held “subject to” the “Indian Interest”.
Section 129 confirmed that this constitutional balance was not subject to change in the absence of a duly enacted constitutional amendment.
In light of this constitutional law it is apparent that such events such as the 1930 Transfer by Canada to the Prairie Provinces of Canada Interest in the Natural Resources of that meaning of section 109 of the 1867 Act is to speak of Indian Sovereignty.
They could say you get these lands subject to the Indian Interest, they could not say you get these lands free. In that regard it comes down to nemo dat quod non habit. Ergo,
Canada could not have transferred to the Provinces, natural resources, that which it did not possess.
The surrender in 1870 by the Hudson’s Bay Company of all their Rights, Privileges etc., was made to the Queen of Great Britain. Then and in 1905 the Canadian government transferred over to the Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta governments the governing structure of the British Subjects that had been set up by the Hudson’s Bay Company. They did not ten nor’do they now have the right to Legislate over the Indians of their lands. This was and still is reserved to the Crown of Great Britain.
Section 91.24
In 1867 when the dominion government was assigned to jurisdiction to “Indians and Lands reserved for the Indians.” The intent was for the dominion government to over see the care of the Treaties and the Aboriginals, on behalf of Her Majesty, and not to treat them as slaves. Their sole obligation, as stated in the Indian Claims, Robinson Treaties, 1897, was to distribute the money. This makes sense because the parliament has exclusive jurisdiction over “Banking, Incorporation of Banks, and the Issue of Paper Money” It stands t’reason that the issuance of dividends and subsidies under the terms of the treaties the dominion government would be entrusted, since the closest one could actually get to the Queen is through the Governor-General and that position is part of the parliament. Otherwise, they were under the protection of the Lieutenant Governor-Generals. In effect, s. 91.24 turned the parliament into Trustees for the Indians. These lands are held in trust by the Crown of Great Britain.
By its existence, Treaty 4 establishes how the Canadian government thought about the Sovereignty of the Indian Nations or Tribes after the surrender of the Hudson’s Bay Charter in 1870…they made treaties with Distinct, Sovereign Indian Nations or Tribes.
By its existence, Treaty 4 establishes the identity of those with whom a proper and legally valid modern Treaty must be made before Canada’s assumption of jurisdiction is legally defensible. The Treaty of 1930 does not constitute a valid basis for making that assumption legal. The Treaty was coerced, but in order to be enforceable against the Indians it must be proven to be; knowingly, willingly and intentionally entered into with informed consent (Statute of Frauds). This treaty was induced upon the basis of a fraudulent misrepresentation by Canada when a fiduciary relationship the Indian Consent was not given.
The Canadian employed the North-West Mounted Police as an expeditionary force into the Indian Territories before making the Treaties and then using the guise of “occupation” to coerce the Treaties under the implied threat that otherwise the Indians would be murdered of staved in Canada.
After invading the up-purchased Indian Territories without Indian consent, including the 1874 treaty region the government of Canada gave the Indians a “choice”, between death and signing an agreement. On that point this is alleged to esstop the Indians to object to the invasion. The Agreement reads, in part; “do cede, release, surrender and yield up to the government of Canada all their Rights, Titles and Privileges whatsoever to the lands.” The only way in which any Tribe would agree to something as powerful as that could only com about by coercion. By invading the Treaty 4 Territory prior to purchasing it, Canada fraudulently pretended that its federal law legally could override Indian Sovereignty under International and constitutional Law as if Canada’s request for Indian consent were a diplomatic gesture rather that a legal precondition.
Due to the breaches of the Treaties, the Constitution and the Statute of Fraud, the 1930 Treaty is voidable. The correct phrase in this instant is nulla pactione effici potest ut dolus praestetur.
The Crown’s original claim of Sovereignty was exercised to enact constitutionally a law that limited the jurisdiction of the Crowns Government. The Indians could sell the land as it was originally suggested, but when they did, it could only by purchased by the Crown of Great Britain and until such an event happens the Indian Nations previously established sovereignty by the strict word of the law was to continue as a constitutional law jurisdiction.
Even if a case had looked at the settled law and purported to repeal it the attempt would be invalid since it is beyond the judicial Power to repeal such a Law once it has been constituted. A court can declare constitutional Common Law when an issue is raised for the First Time. But once an issue has been declared whether by statute or a previous court judgment the issue as settled can only thereafter be changed legislatively by a properly enacted constitutional amendment. As the Pre-eminent jurist E. V. Dicey said;
“Judge made Law is subject to certain limitations. It can
not openly declare a new principle of Law. It must always
take the form of a deduction from some legal principle
whereof the validity is admitted or the application
or interpretation of some statutory enactment. It can not
override statutory Law the courts may by a process of
interpretation indirectly limit or possibly extend the operation
of a statute but they can not set a statute aside.”
No comments:
Post a Comment