THE MYTH OF THE LOYALIST IROQUOIS:

Posted on January 26, 2012 by avatar

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.1 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.”3 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.4 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.5 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.7

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.8 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.9 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;10 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.11

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.12 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.13 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.14 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.15 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.16 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.18

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.”19 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.20 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.21 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.”22 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.23 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.24 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.25

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.”26 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.27 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.28 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.29 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.”30 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.31

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.”32 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.33 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.34 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.

Posted in Articles, Recovery Projects | Leave a comment

The Myth of Canada

Posted on January 19, 2012 by avatar

Canada is cre­ated on lies, deceit, theft and the fact alledged 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 (DE JURE) 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.

click to enlarge

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.

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?

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.

Posted in Articles, Pentortoise | National Asset Recovery Projects, Recovery Projects | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

Think (think) think (think)

Posted on January 16, 2012 by avatar

Have you ever thought to stop and think what tax­a­tion really is?

Tax­a­tion is noth­ing but theft.  Why?  Because it is not vol­un­tary.  Tax­a­tion is extor­tion at gun­point!  If you do not hand over money, men in cos­tumes, with signs and guns will come and arrest you and throw you in a cage.  If you still refuse to pay and you own prop­erty, the gov­ern­ment will more than likely cease that prop­erty and sell it.


Blues Broth­ers — Think

Work­ing for the ben­e­fit of oth­ers against your will is noth­ing but slav­ery. When money is stolen from you in the name of tax­a­tion, the gov­ern­ment is forc­ing you to work against your will for them. When let the gov­ern­ment steal from you, you are their slave. The injus­tice of seiz­ing by force the fruits of a person’s labor is never con­sid­ered by those who push tax­a­tion and redis­tri­b­u­tion, that is because slav­ery can­not be justified.

Gov­ern­ment is noth­ing but force. It holds a legal monop­oly to use vio­lence on you. Gov­ern­ment makes peo­ple do things that they don’t want to do, stops peo­ple from doing things that they do want to do, and those demands are always backed up by police with guns.

Posted in Articles | Tagged | Leave a comment

NOTICE OF COMMERCIAL AFFIDAVIT AND ASSEVERATION AND COMMERCIAL CLAIM OF LIEN

Posted on January 10, 2012 by avatar


BDAD-020900-SUPRA


Exhibit “A”

Vis­i­tor Sta­tis­tics: City of Brant­ford and Brant­ford Power inc.

COMMERCIAL AFFIDAVIT AND ASSEVERATION (SUPRA) Exhibit “A” Sent reg­is­tered mail and Email to the City of Brant­ford and their ten­dered Police Ser­vices, and Ken’s Towing.

Posted in Pentortoise | National Asset Recovery Projects, Recovery Projects | Leave a comment

PRIVATE NATIONAL LAW AND CONFLICT OF LAW

Posted on January 9, 2012 by avatar

INTRODUCTION

This arti­cle is intended to give the reader a fun­da­men­tal under­stand­ing and basic guide to study the Con­flicts of Law when assert­ing National Sov­er­eignty through Pri­vate National Law, or using Domes­tic or For­eign Law to seek rem­edy when a Con­flict of Law has occurred.

FORWARD

In this review we have listed many dis­cussed terms and processes that are used to show the mis­ap­pli­ca­tion of law and firm line of sep­a­ra­tion of author­ity in the domestic/private/foreign rule of law, and fun­da­men­tals of each native con­sti­tu­tion e.g. Cana­dian con­sti­tu­tion vs Kanianke’haka “pri­vate Indian” con­sti­tu­tion, our find­ings have shown that many para­doxes exist within the greater com­mu­nity at large when assert­ing diverse rule of law.

How­ever, since the spirit of the ever present Indian nations have never been extin­guished or right­fully replaced, the pri­vate Indian con­tinue to sur­vive and har­vest the abun­dance of the col­lec­tive spirit and nature, assert­ing the found­ing and fun­da­men­tal prin­ci­pals and way of the one dish, and the two row wampum; “per­pet­ual reser­va­tion of rights, bal­ance of all things”.The Indian nations are pre­sumed under Canada’s con­sti­tu­tion and cor­po­rate umbrella that dom­i­nates the local and domes­tic sys­tems of finance and gov­er­nance thus encroach­ing the pri­vate Indian right and pirat­ing the nature of the host Indian nations breach­ing the peace and guest-friend rela­tion­ship, for exam­ple the use of the 1969 “Trudeau/Chrétien” White Papers to coer­cively extend the Cana­dian cit­i­zen­ship onto the pri­vate Indian nations with­out del­e­ga­tion of author­ity from the pri­vate nations.

In sys­tem­atic efforts to silence and ter­mi­nate the Indian born rights, Canada has devel­oped spe­cific courts, ter­ri­to­r­ial injunc­tions, inclu­sive leg­is­la­tion and pas­sages in the BNA act in effort to gain juris­dic­tion by mutual use of these exploitive ele­ments built as a tool for con­ver­sion, though Indian nations have sur­vived insur­rec­tions and trea­son, 1969 White Paper on Indi­ans, 1924 raids of pri­vate coun­cil cham­bers, usurpa­tion of the authen­tic coun­cils of the Indian nations with­out del­e­ga­tion of author­ity or qual­i­fied rep­re­sen­ta­tion.
Non-Delegation of Authority

It is this writ­ers analy­sis that given the infor­ma­tion ref­er­enced in this paper the Para­mount ques­tion is:

Where is the real evi­dence, a law­ful del­e­ga­tion of author­ity order grant­ing the “company/agent” author­ity to make any legal or law­ful deter­mi­na­tion on behalf of “the peo­ple of the ___”/non-company-members?

Was author­ity includ­ing lands assigned, granted, con­veyed with proper records of this event, when a ques­tion is stated in the pos­i­tive tense the pri­vate nation mak­ing the claim has the bur­den to prove that they did not grant such power or sur­ren­der inter­ests in the lands or more impor­tantly our blood rela­tion, the Indian nations would have to dis­cover evi­dence to bring proof of this claim.

How­ever with the early record keep­ing prac­tices and the years of theft of the many records from raids of the Indian coun­cil cham­bers and record cus­to­di­ans, this real­iza­tion and above ques­tion must be brought to atten­tion by bring­ing this state­ment as formed in the neg­a­tive tense to assert the pos­i­tive as rephrased below:

It is fact that we have no record or evi­dence that any law­ful del­e­ga­tion of author­ity includ­ing the lands grant­ing the “com­pany” an order of author­ity to make spe­cific legal or law­ful deter­mi­na­tion on behalf of “the peo­ple of the ___”, and we believe no such evi­dence exists. If you have real evi­dence that the state­ment herein is in err, pro­vide cor­rec­tions for the record, oth­er­wise the record stands as stated herein.

The power of this state­ment not only comes from the usurper hav­ing to admit and cor­rect the record but to exclude and vacate the pre­sump­tions of good faith. he must prove that author­ity was either del­e­gated law­fully or the pri­vate Indian nations con­sti­tu­tions and lands have been usurped with­out del­e­ga­tion of author­ity; an act of con­sti­tu­tional van­dal­ism, trea­son, mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tion, con­ti­nen­tal and spir­i­tual war­fare, abduc­tion, hid­den enslave­ment and influ­ence of the mind:

If proof of del­e­ga­tion of author­ity exits and the “com­pany” pro­duces a doc­u­ment they admit to agent sta­tus, show­ing that we can upgrade or down­grade the del­e­gated mandate.

If they do not have proof of del­e­ga­tion of author­ity they have acted in con­flict of law, and act­ing out­side the scope of their offices, show­ing that the Indian nations have been wronged by; con­sti­tu­tional van­dal­ism, trea­son, mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tion, con­ti­nen­tal and spir­i­tual war­fare, abduc­tion, hid­den enslave­ment and influ­ence of the mind:.

Until the ques­tion of del­e­ga­tion of author­ity includ­ing land can be answered in favor of the “com­pany” the con­tent in this review should remain for­eign and sep­a­rate from the nature and fun­da­men­tal con­sti­tu­tion of the pri­vate Indian nations.

Fair trial and con­flict of law

This term “fair trial” is one of the most unre­al­is­tic path to rule of law for the pri­vate Indian, when a Cana­dian cit­i­zen attends court he may pose the questions:

Is the Cana­dian cit­i­zen enti­tled to a fair trial, Answer: YES, sec­ondly, can he have a fair trial if there is a con­flict of inter­est, Answer: NO, for exam­ple; judge and attor­ney both rep­re­sent the “com­pany” there is con­flict of inter­est, but then what is a con­flict of law?

Juris­dic­tion of Cana­dian and provin­cial courts extends only to the Cana­dian or provin­cial cit­i­zen and lastly by the for­eign national vol­un­teer­ing through his per­sonal will­ful choice of law or if a nation-tonation mutual agree­ment to extra­dite exists, When an Indian is brought before the for­eign court under the rep­re­sen­ta­tion of a Cana­dian attor­ney the Indian is then pre­sumed to have law­ful con­sti­tu­tional rep­re­sen­ta­tion under the Cana­dian rule of law grant­ing the court proper juris­dic­tion, con­vert­ing the orig­i­nal right to the pri­vate Indian con­sti­tu­tion or pri­vate law, by choice or fraud.

More­over, by will­fully hir­ing an Cana­dian attor­ney it is assumed that the pri­vate Indian has for­feited his right to his fun­da­men­tal con­sti­tu­tion and inherency to his cus­tom­ary rights and pri­vate rule of law.
How­ever this ulti­mately leads the next ques­tion can the pri­vate Indian [for exam­ple under the Kanianke’haka con­sti­tu­tion] have a fair trial by a Cana­dian jury?

This ques­tion has been answered in the above para­graphs and should be evi­dent by now to the reader that the court does not offer legit­i­mate con­sti­tu­tional rep­re­sen­ta­tion for the pri­vate Indian, and since the court is lim­ited to the juris­dic­tion of the Cana­dian cit­i­zens, the pri­vate Indian does not have due process of trial by his peers, due to the fact that the require­ments of jury duty; to be a cit­i­zen of Canada in good standing.

The source of con­flict is the tyran­ni­cal appli­ca­tion of the Cana­dian con­sti­tu­tion onto the pri­vate Indian cre­at­ing a con­sti­tu­tional para­dox, it is also evi­dent that the jury is also in con­flict of law as for­eign cit­i­zens or “non-peers”.

It is now clear that the courts can not offer legit­i­mate or law­ful forum to address indif­fer­ences of domes­tic and for­eign law for the pri­vate Indian, this is when con­vert­ing juris­dic­tion from pri­vate law to Cana­dian law becomes a crit­i­cal col­lec­tive gov­ern­men­tal and cor­po­rate pro­tec­tion Maneu­ver to res­cue Cana­dian soci­ety and the pub­lic and pri­vate invest­ments through its con­ver­sion­ary process and judi­cial man­age­ment of poten­tial risk of harm from loss of rep­u­ta­tion and invest­ment per­cep­tion from the influ­ence of any and all per­cep­tive or hid­den rights includ­ing lands of the pri­vate Indian.

Exam­ple: Brant­ford Injunc­tion 2011 Justice-Harrison Arrells’ stated that “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.”

By using Cana­dian courts, the objec­tive will always be focused on min­i­miza­tion of the poten­tial loss in con­trol of national, cor­po­rate and domes­tic assets, the Cana­dian gov­ern­ment holds the desire to pre­vent or delay a con­sti­tu­tional cri­sis, lim­it­ing the fall­out and loss of con­trol of every provin­cial, regional, munic­i­pal, and city strong­hold, in what may be observed as its national duty to rescue.

In the above exam­ple the court con­verted the source of the risk through faulty opin­ion and mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tion of fact to reas­sure the pub­lic and malign pub­lic per­cep­tion of the Indian right includ­ing the lands.

A duty to res­cue arises where a per­son [Canada] cre­ates a haz­ardous sit­u­a­tion [non-disclosure of prior inter­est of Indian rights includ­ing land]. If another per­son [third-party pur­chasers] then falls into peril because of this haz­ardous sit­u­a­tion, the cre­ator [Canada] of the haz­ard – who may not nec­es­sar­ily have been a neg­li­gent tort­fea­sor – has a duty to res­cue the indi­vid­ual [third-party pur­chasers] in peril We can now address the fal­lacy of Jus­tice Arrells state­ment, The city of Brant­ford, a non-crown cor­po­ra­tion is also “third-party pur­chaser”, how­ever in Brant­ford &Co’s. case they are also del­e­gated rep­re­sen­ta­tives for the cit­i­zens of Brant­ford iden­ti­fied as the inno­cent third-party pur­chasers. Since Brant­ford is agent for the Cit­i­zens as prin­ci­pals, the oblig­a­tion to inform the cit­i­zen is the duty of their agent, not the duty of the pri­vate Indian, Jus­tice Arrell state­ment is in this writ­ers opin­ion that was bla­tant exam­ple of con­ver­sion of risk and omis­sion of Agent “Brant­ford” duty and lia­bil­i­ties, due to the fact that the state­ment redi­rects the source of risk from the Agents “Brant­ford” to the pri­vate Indian, thus Brant­ford cre­ated the risk by not inform­ing the cit­i­zens of active and prior pri­vate Indian rights includ­ing the land.

In this con­text, con­ver­sion of con­sti­tu­tional or pri­vate rights hap­pens when juris­dic­tion of the pri­vate Indian is granted to the court, either, when a pri­vate Indian hires a for­eign lawyer or silenced, he may then be pre­sumed to have Cana­dian con­sti­tu­tional rep­re­sen­ta­tion and thus declared a Cana­dian cit­i­zen [aka killing the Indian and sav­ing the man], the court then has jurisdiction.

How­ever when the pri­vate Indian rebukes and cor­rects any bogus pre­sump­tion he then remains pri­vate and “off the records” and con­ver­sion of law has not manifested.

There­fore it is con­tended that no Cana­dian domes­tic court has the juris­dic­tion to deter­mine legit­i­macy of any cases brought before its bench con­cern­ing the pri­vate Indian, appli­ca­tion of canadas con­sti­tu­tion must be will­fully cho­sen by the indi­vid­ual pri­vate Indian [evi­den­tiary autho­rized by the pri­vate Indian], when appli­ca­tion is forced, by coer­cion, mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tion or duress, this can only equate with tyranny “ultra vires” and repres­sion of the Indian right to exist, also observed as con­sti­tu­tional van­dal­ism, trea­son, mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tion, con­ti­nen­tal and spir­i­tual war­fare, abduc­tion, hid­den enslave­ment and influ­ence of the mind.

Our right to exist—have you ever heard of such a thing? Would it enter the mind of any Briton or French­man, Bel­gian or Dutch­man, Hun­gar­ian or Bul­gar­ian, Russ­ian or Amer­i­can, to request for its peo­ple recog­ni­tion of its right to exist?, our very exis­tence per se is our right to exist.

1791 Thomas Paine, Rights of Man: “The fact there­fore must be that the indi­vid­u­als them­selves, each in his own per­sonal and sov­er­eign right, entered into a con­tract with each oth­erto pro­duce a gov­ern­ment: and this is the only mode in which gov­ern­ments have a right to arise, and the only prin­ci­ple on which they have a right to exist.

1882 Ernest Renan, “What is a nation?”: So long as this moral con­scious­ness gives proof of its strength by the sac­ri­fices which demand the abdi­ca­tion of the indi­vid­ual to the advan­tage of the com­mu­nity, it is legit­i­mate and has the right to exist [French: le droit d’exister].

1922 Cemal Pasa: “In a word, the [Young Turks] want to make the Turk­ish race respected in the eyes of the world and secure its right to exist side by side with the other nations in the twen­ti­eth century.”

2009 Barack Obama: “Israelis must acknowl­edge that just as Israel’s right to exist can­not be
denied, nei­ther can Palestine’s.

Tyranny, is usu­ally thought of as cruel and oppres­sive, and it often is, but the orig­i­nal def­i­n­i­tion of the term was rule by per­sons who lack legit­i­macy, whether they be malign or benev­o­lent. His­tor­i­cally, benign tyran­nies have tended to be inse­cure, and to try to main­tain their power by becom­ing increas­ingly oppressive.

There­fore, rule that ini­tially seems benign is inher­ently dan­ger­ous, and the only secu­rity is to main­tain legit­i­macy — an unbro­ken account­abil­ity to the peo­ple through the frame­work of a writ­ten con­sti­tu­tion that pro­vides for elec­tion of key offi­cials and the divi­sion of pow­ers among branches and offi­cials in a way that avoids con­cen­tra­tion of pow­ers in the hands of a few per­sons who might then abuse those powers.

Tyranny is an impor­tant phe­nom­e­non that oper­ates by prin­ci­ples by which it can be rec­og­nized in its early emerg­ing stages, and, if the peo­ple are vig­i­lant, pre­pared, and com­mit­ted to lib­erty, coun­tered before it becomes entrenched.
The ideal tyranny is that which is igno­rantly self-administered by its vic­tims. The most per­fect
slaves are, there­fore, those which bliss­fully and unawaredly enslave them­selves.
–Dres­den James

“Of all tyran­nies, a tyranny exer­cised for the good of its vic­tims may be the most oppres­sive. It
may be bet­ter to live under rob­ber barons than under omnipo­tent moral busy­bod­ies. The rob­ber
baron’s cru­elty may some­times sleep, his cupid­ity may at some point be sati­ated; but those who
tor­ment us for our own good will tor­ment us with­out end, for they do so with the approval of their
con­sciences.“
– C. S. Lewis

The psy­chol­ogy of tyranny

Per­haps one of the things that most dis­tin­guishes those with a fas­cist men­tal­ity from most other per­sons is how they react in sit­u­a­tions that engen­der feel­ings of inse­cu­rity and inad­e­quacy. Both kinds of peo­ple will tend to seek to increase their power, that is, their con­trol over the out­come of events, but those with a fas­cist mind­set tend to over­es­ti­mate the amount of influ­ence over out­comes that it is pos­si­ble to attain.

This leads to behav­ior that often brings them to posi­tions of lead­er­ship or author­ity, espe­cially if most other per­sons in their soci­ety tend to under­es­ti­mate the influ­ence over out­comes they can attain, and are inclined to yield to those who project con­fi­dence in what they can do and promise more than any­one can deliver

This process is aided by a com­mon sus­cep­ti­bil­ity which might be called the rooster syn­drome, from the old say­ing, “They give credit to the rooster crow­ing for the ris­ing of the sun.” It arises from the ten­dency of peo­ple guided more by hope or fear than intel­li­gence to over­es­ti­mate the power of their lead­ers and attribute to them out­comes, either good or bad, to which the lead­ers con­tributed lit­tle if any­thing, and per­haps even acted to pre­vent or reduce. This comes from the inabil­ity of most per­sons to under­stand com­plex dynamic sys­tems and their long-term behav­ior, which leads peo­ple to attribute effects to prox­i­mate pre­ced­ing events instead of actual long-term causes.

The emer­gence of tyranny there­fore begins with chal­lenges to a group, devel­ops into gen­eral feel­ings of inse­cu­rity and inad­e­quacy, and falls into a pat­tern in which some indi­vid­u­als assume the role of “father” to the oth­ers, who will­ingly sub­mit to becom­ing depen­dent “chil­dren” of such per­sons if only they are reas­sured that a more favor­able out­come will be realized.

This pat­tern of co-dependency is patho­log­i­cal, and gen­er­ally results in deci­sion mak­ing of poor qual­ity that makes the sit­u­a­tion even worse, but, because the pat­tern is patho­log­i­cal, instead of aban­don­ing it, the co-dependents repeat their inap­pro­pri­ate behav­ior to pro­duce a vicious spi­ral that, if not inter­rupted, can lead to total break­down of the group and the worst of the avail­able outcomes.

In psy­chi­a­try, this syn­drome is often dis­cussed as an “author­i­tar­ian per­son­al­ity dis­or­der”. In com­mon par­lance, as being a “con­trol freak”.

The logic of tyranny

In Orwell’s clas­sic fable, Nine­teen Eighty-Four, the pro­tag­o­nist Win­ston Smith makes a key state­ment:
Free­dom is the free­dom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.

Fol­low­ing the trial of the sur­viv­ing Branch David­i­ans in San Anto­nio, Texas, in March, 1994, in which a misin­structed jury acquit­ted all the defen­dants of the main crimes with which they were charged, but con­victed them of the enhance­ments of using firearms in the com­mis­sion of a crime, the fed­eral judge, Wal­ter F. Smith, first dis­missed the charges, cor­rectly, on the grounds that it is log­i­cally impos­si­ble to be guilty of an enhance­ment if one is inno­cent of the crime.

How­ever, under appar­ent polit­i­cal pres­sure, he sub­se­quently reversed his own rul­ing and sen­tenced the defen­dants to max­i­mum terms as though they had been con­victed of the main crimes, offer­ing the com­ment, “The law doesn’t have to be logical.”

No. The law does have to be log­i­cal. Oth­er­wise it is not law. It is arbi­trary rule by force.

Now by “log­i­cal” what is meant is two-valued logic, which is some­times also called Boolean, Aris­totelian or Euclid­ean logic. In other words, a sys­tem of propo­si­tions within which a state­ment and its nega­tion can­not both be true or valid. One of the two must befalse or invalid. The two pos­si­ble val­ues are true and false, and every mean­ing­ful propo­si­tion can be assigned one or the other value.

A sys­tem of law is a body of pre­scrip­tive, as opposed to descrip­tive, propo­si­tions, that sup­port the mak­ing of deci­sions, and there­fore its logic must be two-valued. It is a fun­da­men­tal prin­ci­ple of law that like cases must be decided alike, and this means accord­ing to propo­si­tions that exclude their con­tra­dic­tions. It is also a fun­da­men­tal prin­ci­ple of logic that any sys­tem of propo­si­tions that accepts both a state­ment and its nega­tion as valid, that is, which accepts a con­tra­dic­tion, accepts all con­tra­dic­tions, and pro­vides no basis for decid­ing among them.

If deci­sions are made, they are not made on the basis of the propo­si­tions, but are arbi­trary, and that is the def­i­n­i­tion of the rule of men, as opposed to the rule of law.

So what Win­ston Smith is say­ing is that free­dom means being able to dis­tin­guish between a true propo­si­tion and a false one, and what his neme­sis O’Brien there­fore does to crush him is make him accept that “2 + 2 = 5″, which can­not be true if the logic is Aris­totelian. O’Brien rep­re­sents the logic of arbi­trary power, a “logic” we might call Orwellian, although Orwell, whose real name was Eric Blair, was strongly opposed to it.

The method­ol­ogy of tyranny

The meth­ods used to over­throw a con­sti­tu­tional order and estab­lish a tyranny are well-known. How­ever, despite this aware­ness, it is sur­pris­ing how those who have no inten­tion of per­pe­trat­ing a tyranny can slip into these meth­ods and bring about a tyranny despite their best inten­tions. Tyranny does not have to be delib­er­ate. Tyrants can fool them­selves as thor­oughly as they fool every­one else.

Con­trol of pub­lic infor­ma­tion and opinion

It begins with with­hold­ing infor­ma­tion, and leads to putting out false or mis­lead­ing infor­ma­tion. A gov­ern­ment can develop min­istries of pro­pa­ganda under many guises. They typ­i­cally call it “pub­lic infor­ma­tion” or “marketing”.

Vote fraud used to pre­vent the elec­tion of reformers

It doesn’t mat­ter which of the two major party can­di­dates are elected if no real reformer can get nom­i­nated, and when news ser­vices start know­ing the out­comes of elec­tions before it is pos­si­ble for them to know, then the votes are not being hon­estly counted.

Undue offi­cial influ­ence on tri­als and juries

Non-random selec­tion of jury pan­els, exclu­sion of those opposed to the law, exclu­sion of the jury from hear­ing argu­ment on the law, exclu­sion of pri­vate pros­e­cu­tors from access to the grand jury, and pre­ven­tion of par­ties and their coun­sels from mak­ing effec­tive argu­ments or chal­leng­ing the government.

Usurpa­tion of undel­e­gated powers

This is usu­ally done with pop­u­lar sup­port for solv­ing some prob­lem, or to redis­trib­ute wealth to the advan­tage of the sup­port­ers of the dom­i­nant fac­tion, but it soon leads to the depri­va­tion of rights of minori­ties and individuals.

Seek­ing a gov­ern­ment monop­oly on the capa­bil­ity and use of armed force

The first signs are efforts to reg­is­ter or restrict the pos­ses­sion and use of firearms, ini­tially under the guise of “pro­tect­ing” the pub­lic, which, when it actu­ally results in increased crime, pro­vides a basis for fur­ther dis­ar­ma­ment efforts affect­ing more peo­ple and more weapons.

Mil­i­ta­riza­tion of law enforcement

Declar­ing a “war on crime” that becomes a war on civil lib­er­ties. Prepa­ra­tion of mil­i­tary forces for inter­nal polic­ing duties.

Infil­tra­tion and sub­ver­sion of cit­i­zen groups that could be forces for reform

Inter­nal spy­ing and sur­veil­lance is the begin­ning. A sign is false pros­e­cu­tions of their leaders.

Sup­pres­sion of inves­ti­ga­tors and whistleblowers

When peo­ple who try to uncover high level wrong­do­ing are threat­ened, that is a sign the sys­tem is not only rid­dled with cor­rup­tion, but that the cor­rup­tion has passed the thresh­old into active tyranny.

Use of the law for com­pe­ti­tion suppression

It begins with the dom­i­nant fac­tion win­ning sup­port by pay­ing off their sup­port­ers and sup­press­ing their sup­port­ers’ com­peti­tors, but leads to pub­lic offi­cials them­selves engag­ing in ille­gal activ­i­ties and using the law to sup­press inde­pen­dent com­peti­tors. A good exam­ple of this is nar­cotics trafficking.

Sub­ver­sion of inter­nal checks and balances

This involves the appoint­ment to key posi­tions of per­sons who can be con­trolled by their spon­sors, and who are then induced to do ille­gal things. The worst way in which this occurs is in the appoint­ment of judges that will go along with uncon­sti­tu­tional acts by the other branches.

Cre­ation of a class of offi­cials who are above the law

This is indi­cated by dis­missal of charges for wrong­do­ing against per­sons who are “fol­low­ing orders”.
Increas­ing depen­dency of the peo­ple on government

The clas­sic approach to dom­i­na­tion of the peo­ple is to first take every­thing they have away from them, then make them com­pli­ant with the demands of the rulers to get any­thing back again.

Increas­ing pub­lic igno­rance of their civic duties and reluc­tance to per­form them

When the peo­ple avoid doing things like vot­ing and serv­ing in mili­tias and juries, tyranny is not far behind.

Use of staged events to pro­duce pop­u­lar support

Acts of ter­ror­ism, blamed on polit­i­cal oppo­nents, fol­lowed imme­di­ately with well-prepared pro­pos­als for increased pow­ers and bud­gets for sup­pres­sive agen­cies. Some­times called a Reich­stag plot.

Con­ver­sion of rights into privileges

Requir­ing licenses and per­mits for doing things that the gov­ern­ment does not have the del­e­gated power to restrict, except by due process in which the bur­den of proof is on the petitioner.

Polit­i­cal correctness

Many if not most peo­ple are sus­cep­ti­ble to being recruited to engage in repres­sive actions against dis­fa­vored views or behav­iors, and led to pave the way for the dom­i­nance of tyran­ni­cal government.

Avoid­ing tyranny

The key is always to detect ten­den­cies toward tyranny and sup­press them before they go too far or become too firmly estab­lished. The peo­ple must never acqui­esce in any vio­la­tion of the pri­vate Con­sti­tu­tion. Fail­ure to take cor­rec­tive action early will only mean that more severe mea­sures will have to be taken later, per­haps with the loss of life and the dis­rup­tion of the soci­ety in ways from which recov­ery may take centuries.

Gov­ern­ment can­not force a free will pri­vate Indian to be a cor­po­rate mem­ber, even though they use decep­tion to entrap peo­ple into the sta­tus of “Cana­dian Sta­tus Indian”, “ Band Indian” the pri­vate Indian has a duty to defend against and dis­obey all forms of tyranny through right of self defence, the right of neces­sity and claim of right “with law­ful excuse” to guard against any breach of the peace and abuse of the Indian-Canadian guest-friend rela­tion­ship.
Dis­obey­ing a statute, In Cana­dian Law; solely observed by the pri­vate Indian; for intel­li­gence only. Sec. 126 (1) Every one who, with­out law­ful excuse, con­tra­venes an Act of Par­lia­ment by wil­fully doing any­thing that it for­bids or by wil­fully omit­ting to do any­thing that it requires to be done is, unless a pun­ish­ment is expressly pro­vided by law, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to impris­on­ment for a term not exceed­ing two years. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 126; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 185(F). Dis­obey­ing order of court

Sec. 127. (1) Every one who, with­out law­ful excuse, dis­obeys a law­ful order made by a court of jus­tice or by a per­son or body of per­sons autho­rized by any Act to make or give the order, other than an order for the pay­ment of money, is, unless a pun­ish­ment or other mode of pro­ceed­ing is expressly pro­vided by law, guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to impris­on­ment for a term not exceed­ing two years; or (b) an offence pun­ish­able on sum­mary conviction.

This then explains the use of Sec­tion 39 of the Crim­i­nal Code of Canada which says: “Defence with claim of right”

(1) Every one who is in peace­able pos­ses­sion of per­sonal prop­erty under a claim of right, and every one act­ing under his author­ity, is pro­tected from crim­i­nal respon­si­bil­ity for defend­ing that pos­ses­sion, even against a per­son enti­tled by law to pos­ses­sion of it, if he uses no more force than is nec­es­sary. Defence ‘with­out’ claim of right
(2) Every one who is in peace­able pos­ses­sion of per­sonal prop­erty, but does not claim it as of right or does not act under the author­ity of a per­son who claims it as of right, is not jus­ti­fied or pro­tected from crim­i­nal respon­si­bil­ity for defend­ing his pos­ses­sion against a per­son who is enti­tled by law to pos­ses­sion of it. R.S., c. C-34, s. 39.

This also sug­gests that there are no true ‘judi­cial’ courts for the ‘free will peo­ple’ of Canada not only the pri­vate Indian. All courts are “admin­is­tra­tive” for “law­ful slave admin­is­tra­tion and slave dis­ci­plin­ing’ in the admin­is­tra­tive courts of the cor­po­rate Crown, the admin­is­tra­tive body of the City of London.

This means that the sum­mons or arrest war­rant and trial are by the claimed prop­erty rights of the Crown. And, the accused dis­obe­di­ent slave can be, and usu­ally is stripped of all rights of due process by way of the doc­trine of ‘homo sacer’ (non-person or out-law) out of the Roman Law sys­tem, or in the instance of the pri­vate Indian through con­ver­sion of his pri­vate rights.

Inter­est­ingly, the Crim­i­nal Code of Canada, a Roman civil law doc­u­ment pre­tain­ing only to the com­mer­cial cor­po­ra­tion called the Crown in right of Canada or of a province, but reflect­ing much of the Anglo-Saxon Com­mon Law rel­a­tive to torts [wrongs against peo­ple or against their unalien­able rights]. Unfor­tu­nately, tort law is used against free will indi­vid­ual men by a claim within the claimed to exist prop­erty right by the cor­po­rate Crown — the claim of a slave owner to admin­is­ter and dis­ci­pline its slave property.

The ques­tion has to be asked is “How much force is nec­es­sary to defend prop­erty or one­self from unlaw­ful arrest or con­fis­ca­tion of pos­ses­sions by police offi­cers car­ry­ing loaded firearms and who are also trained in mar­tial arts, and will fre­quently, and with­out hes­i­ta­tion, use both?” Fur­ther, Sec­tion 41(1) of the CCC states:
In Defense of a House

Every one who is in peace­able pos­ses­sion of a dwelling-house or real prop­erty and every­one law­fully assist­ing him or act­ing under his author­ity is jus­ti­fied in using force to pre­vent any per­son from tres­pass­ing on the dwelling-house or real prop­erty, or to remove a tres­passer there­from, if he uses no more force than is necessary.

But, even more impor­tant in these days of fore­clo­sures on homes

42. (1) Every one is jus­ti­fied in peace­ably enter­ing a dwelling-house or real prop­erty by day to take pos­ses­sion of it if he, or a per­son under whose author­ity he acts, is law­fully enti­tled to pos­ses­sion of it.
Assault in case of law­ful entry
(2) Where a per­son
(a) not hav­ing peace­able pos­ses­sion of a dwelling-house or real prop­erty under a claim of right, or
(b) not act­ing under the author­ity of a per­son who has peace­able pos­ses­sion of a dwelling-house or real prop­erty under a claim of right,
assaults a per­son who is law­fully enti­tled to pos­ses­sion of it and who is enter­ing it peace­ably by day to take pos­ses­sion of it, for the pur­pose of pre­vent­ing him from enter­ing, the assault shall be deemed to be with­out jus­ti­fi­ca­tion or provo­ca­tion.
Note: But, with claim of right, it is jus­ti­fi­able.
Tres­passer pro­vok­ing assault
(3)Where a per­son
(a) hav­ing peace­able pos­ses­sion of a dwelling-house or real prop­erty under a claim of right, or
(b) act­ing under the author­ity of a per­son who has peace­able pos­ses­sion of a dwelling-house or real prop­erty under a claim of right, assaults any per­son who is law­fully enti­tled to pos­ses­sion of it and who is enter­ing it peace­ably by day to take pos­ses­sion of it, for the pur­pose of pre­vent­ing him from enter­ing, the assault shall be deemed to be pro­voked by the per­son who is entering.

Note: This takes care­ful read­ing, as the lan­guage is con­vo­luted to con­fuse the unwary. If one has a claim of right, which would pri­mar­ily be an ‘claim in equity’ — the one who has given it value, a ‘legal claimant’ has no right to enter or claim the prop­erty. They can be stopped by the force nec­es­sary, and if the legal claimant is accom­pa­nied by an armed offi­cer, then lethal force can be used, as the offi­cer will use the force of arms against you, or call for help to over­come you.

As is com­monly the occur­rence, police invade homes and real prop­erty with­out proper, or no war­rants when there is no emer­gency rea­son mutual agree­ment to do so.

Remem­ber these points of law when the police invade a home to seize guns, held peace­ably, or such things as com­put­ers, and papers:

An arrest or search made with a:-
defec­tive war­rant;
or, issued with­out affi­davit;
or, fails to allege a crime
or, is with­out juris­dic­tion
…is a crim­i­nal act by police, sub­ject to the right of self defense.

Any offi­cer of the gov­ern­ment, such as a judge, a jus­tice of the peace(JP), a clerk of the court, a Crown coun­cil, police, and other agents of the Crown, includ­ing Canada Cus­toms and Rev­enue agents, who unlaw­fully deprive you of your Orig­i­nal right as Pri­vate Indi­ans, are depriv­ing you of your LIFE.

They claim that right of admin­is­tra­tion over you by the false and fraud­u­lent claim upon you as a con­cocted legal fic­tion attached to your Cre­ated body — the name found on the copy of the birth cer­tifi­cate you may have in your pos­ses­sion where the fam­ily name has been con­verted into a pri­mary name or sur­name. This is an evil game of play-acting as make-believe offi­cers of a make-believe ship called a Roman style cor­po­ra­tion — the Crown, upon which you are assumed to be a lowly crewmember.

Their game is totally make-believe — a fan­tasy; how­ever, the results of their dispi­ca­ble games are very real to you in the depri­va­tion of your Orig­i­nal RIGHTS, espe­cially your LIFE. Remem­ber, LIFE is TIME. We have a lim­ited amount of time to spend on this planet, and gov­ern­ment thugs have no claim on any of it, be it any time out of your phys­i­cal pres­ence, or your time spent earn­ing a liv­ing wage.

And so, where there is no avail­able jus­tice sys­tem, or where the jus­tice sys­tem is actu­ally per­pe­trat­ing the crime against you, you have a right to use deadly force on the per­pe­tra­tor, or upon those who have usurped author­ity to direct deadly force against you, and have a his­tory of doing so, as is the case with judges, JP’s and CCRA agents act­ing unlaw­fully under the assump­tion that you are a “lim­ited lia­bil­ity per­son” — a servant/subject of the Crown and not the Peace­ful, Strong and Right­eous Pri­vate Indian.

There is absolutely no excuse for a judge or JP being igno­rant of the Magna Carta, espe­cially Sec­tion 39, and, there are many recent acknowl­edg­ments by Cana­dian courts that the Magna Carta is a viable part of the Cana­dian Con­sti­tu­tion (and, not in ref­er­ence to the Trudeau Con­sti­tu­tion Act 1982):

39. No free­man shall be taken, or impris­oned, or dis­seized, or out­lawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed–nor will we go upon or send upon him–save by the law­ful judg­ment of his peers or by the law of the land.

All judges and jp’s know that you as a pri­vate Indian are not sub­ject to income tax or any admin­is­tra­tive pro­ce­dures aris­ing out of the Cana­dian con­sti­tu­tion where the com­plaint is rel­a­tive to your not com­ply­ing with the “the rule of law“. They have absolutely no excuse for such unlaw­ful activity.

Con­sider a judge or jp who issues an arrest war­rant against you for your fail­ure to appear for a sum­mons on an income tax issue. They have unlaw­fully sent armed men (police or sher­iff) who will kill or severely injure you if you resist arrest. There­fore, they are just as guilty of tak­ing your life as would be the police­man or sher­iff who attempts to arrest you for such a falsely issued warrant.

Any CRA agent who comes to your door to serve notices and demands upon you KNOW that you are not sub­ject to their admin­is­tra­tive pro­ce­dures. They use such vis­i­ta­tions to “pro­duce evi­dence” that you some­how give assent to being a “per­son” sub­ject to the income tax act. This is fraud for the pur­poses of tak­ing that part of your life that makes up the wages they wish to deprive you of as income tax. Do you have a right to take their life? You bet! They have the gov­ern­ment jus­tice sys­tem sup­port­ing their fraud and extor­tion game — and the intent to take your life.

Lord Black­stone says that the fifth aux­il­iary right is the use of arms where no jus­tice sys­tem will defend your rights. The first four aux­il­iary rights are the forms of redress where some level of gov­ern­ment will inter­cede for you. Canada is com­pletely devoid of these first four rel­a­tive to income tax and the activ­i­ties of CRA

Sim­ply, what this means that if a judge con­victs you of income tax eva­sion, fail­ure to file, or other charge out of the income tax act or other, he/she is tak­ing your life. If the judge or JP does other than to ask you if you have made a con­tract with the Crown to be a cor­po­rate part of the Crown as a lim­ited lia­bil­ity entity, unless such a writ­ten and signed con­tract between you and an agent of the Crown is part of the affi­davit that issued with the sum­mons or war­rant, that judge or JP is com­mit­ting high trea­son against you, the sov­er­eign. And if your answer is “NO!”, the judge or JP has no other choice than to imme­di­ately quash the issue, and issue rep­ri­mand against the CRA agent(s) and Crown Coun­cil who caused the charge to be issued, thus rec­og­niz­ing the pri­vacy of the Indian nations and national members.

The RIGHT OF SELF DEFENCE, espe­cially against tyranny per­pe­trated by those who rep­re­sent offi­cers of the gov­ern­ment, is based upon the Anglo-Saxon Com­mon Law Prin­ci­ple called the “Rule of NECESSITY”. The ulti­mate “rule of Neces­sity” is the right to kill to pro­tect your own life.

This fact could eas­ily be mit­i­gated by the Cana­dian Judi­ciary mak­ing a pub­lic dec­la­ra­tion that they will uphold their oaths to the Queen, and to pro­tect the RIGHTS of Cana­dian “Cit­i­zens”, includ­ing the right to not sub­mit to the gov­ern­ment extor­tion racket called the Income Tax and GST.

The RULE of NECESSITY, when we hear the expres­sion ‘Rule of Neces­sity’, we usu­ally think ‘Self Defense’, where an action, includ­ing deadly force, is the only avail­able option to defend one’s, or another’s, phys­i­cal body from impend­ing harm by a belig­er­ant assault­ing party. But. it is also a claim to be dealt with in a hear­ing of juris­dic­tion by courts, before a court can pro­ceed to try a party who has used an action for self defense, and was charged with a crime for doing so.

In such a case, the onus is on the Crown or State to prove that the party com­mit­ted the act vol­un­tar­ily, and not under duress, that other options of defense or actions were avail­able, and that there was ‘mens rea’ — crim­i­nal intent by the accused party. Remem­ber, evi­dence ‘sug­gests’, proof ‘shows’.

How­ever, as a slave owned by the Crown or State, if you accept or acknowl­edge that you are ‘one and the same’ as the ‘legal iden­tity’ — as the name shown on a birth cer­tifi­cate, you have no right of defense against the ‘offi­cers’ of the slave owner, the Crown or State. The above Amer­i­can cases were decided when the State was con­ceal­ing the fact that cit­i­zens were con­sid­ered slaves, and now have States pros­e­cut­ing those who defend them­selves by using force against police com­mit­ting unlaw­ful actions against them.

It now seems that the veil of deceit has been removed by one’s observion of recent State’s (or Crown’s) orders to use what­ever force is desir­able or nec­es­sary to dis­ci­pline or even exter­mi­nate dis­obe­di­ent slaves, as all ‘per­sons’ were declared ‘dis­obe­di­ent slaves’ in the early 1930s. All statutes, includ­ing Police Acts, deal only with ‘per­sons’ — peo­ple in the role of ‘slave’, and police in the role of slave dis­ci­pline and the enforce­ment of slave owner’s rules. Police have no author­ity over ‘free will adult humans, except as ‘posse comi­ta­tus’ — men of the county, the same author­ity as any other moral adult human has oblig­a­tions to defend peo­ple and prop­erty from mali­cious theft, threat or damage.

Clar­i­fi­ca­tion: The State or Crown takes the given and fam­ily name, reg­is­tered by the par­ents of a new­born child, and con­verts the fam­ily name into a ‘sur­name’ [pri­mary name], and con­verts the given names to ‘ref­er­en­tial names’, this is oppo­site to real­ity, and is thus a fic­tion. How­ever, upon doing that, the State or Crown claims the name under copy­right as cre­ated intel­lec­tual prop­erty. When that child becomes an adult, the State or Crown assumes [by their use of false and fraud­u­lent edu­ca­tion to deceive peo­ple into believ­ing that the ‘legal iden­tity name’ is their name] that that human has enveloped him/herself in that name, the name as found on the birth cer­tifi­cate. How­ever, there are vague clauses in statutes deal­ing with names, name changes and/or vital sta­tis­tics which shows that is ‘offered’ as a con­tract, and thus need not be accepted by the adult human. To ‘offer’ in con­tract means that the ‘offerer’ owns that which is being offered. Of course, any con­tract is void if not ‘accepted’ know­ingly and voluntarily.

The accep­tance of that ‘legal iden­tity’ name car­ries with it the sta­tus of ‘slave’ owned by the State or Crown. The State/Crown applies the legal maxim: acces­sio cedit prin­ci­pali — an acces­sory [the human free will adult you] attached to a prin­ci­pal [the legal iden­tity name] becomes the prop­erty of the owner [State/Crown] of the principal.

Recent research shows that the actual accep­tance of the Crown or State owned ‘legal iden­tity’ name is vol­un­tary, and thus, you don’t have to acknowl­edge or accept that name. But, we do have to use that name in com­merce, bank­ing, obtain­ing a pass­port, and deal­ing with gov­ern­ment and other cor­po­rate bod­ies. And, the key term here is ‘have to’ — no choice, not a vol­un­tary issue. The “have to’s” is that which our lives depend — food, shel­ter, cloth­ing, eco­nom­ics, travel, and so forth. There­fore, the use of the legal iden­tity in col­lect­ing our wages, bank­ing, in gov­ern­ment pro­grams, driver’s license, etc. is not really a vol­un­tary issue.

IF it is not used in a vol­un­tary way, it is under ‘PRIVATE NECESSITY’, a ver­sion of the Rule of Neces­sity. Under that rule, no con­tract is implied or can be assumed by the Crown or State — unless we remain silent regard­ing our claim of Pri­vate Necessity.

What is sug­gested that any one that can see what is your rem­edy in a sys­tem of no such thing, you will have to decide what ship you want to be on, the colo­nial ves­sel or get build­ing the raft and make your way home.

The RIGHT OF REBELLION, In polit­i­cal phi­los­o­phy, the right of rev­o­lu­tion (or right of rebel­lion) is the right or duty, var­i­ously stated through­out his­tory, of the peo­ple of a nation to over­throw a gov­ern­ment that acts against their com­mon inter­ests. Belief in this right extends back to ancient China, and it has been used through­out his­tory to jus­tify var­i­ous rebel­lions, includ­ing the Amer­i­can Rev­o­lu­tion and the­French Rev­o­lu­tion.
The RIGHT OF REVOLUTION AS AN INDIVIDUAL OR COLLECTIVE RIGHT

Although some expla­na­tions of the right of rev­o­lu­tion leave open the pos­si­bil­ity of its exer­cise as an indi­vid­ual right, it was clearly under­stood to be col­lec­tive right under Eng­lish con­sti­tu­tional and polit­i­cal theory.

As Pauline Maier has noted in her study From Resis­tance to Rev­o­lu­tion, “[p]rivate indi­vid­u­als were for­bid­den to take force against their rulers either for mal­ice or because of pri­vate injuries.…” Instead, “not just a few indi­vid­u­als, but the ‘Body of the Peo­ple’ had to feel con­cerned” before the right of rev­o­lu­tion was jus­ti­fied and with most writ­ers speak­ing of a “ ‘whole peo­ple who are the Pub­lick,’ or the body of the peo­ple act­ing in their ‘pub­lic Author­ity,’ indi­cat­ing a broad con­sen­sus involv­ing all ranks of society.”

The con­cept of the right of rev­o­lu­tion was also taken up by John Locke in Two Trea­tises of Gov­ern­ment as part of his social con­tract the­ory. Locke declared that under nat­ural law, allpeo­ple have the right to life, lib­erty, and estate; under the social con­tract, the peo­ple could insti­gate a rev­o­lu­tion against the gov­ern­ment when it acted against the inter­ests of cit­i­zens, to replace the gov­ern­ment with one that served the inter­ests of citizens.

In some cases, Locke deemed rev­o­lu­tion an oblig­a­tion. The right of rev­o­lu­tion thus essen­tially acted as a safe­guard against tyranny.

Duty ver­sus right

Some philoso­phers argue that it is not only the right of a peo­ple to over­throw an oppres­sive gov­ern­ment but also their duty to do so. Howard Evans Kiefer opines, “It seems to me that the duty to rebel is much more under­stand­able than that right to rebel, because the right to rebel­lion ruins the order of power, whereas the duty to rebel goes beyond and breaks it.”

Mor­ton White writes of the Amer­i­can rev­o­lu­tion­ar­ies, “The notion that they had a duty to rebel is extremely impor­tant to stress, for it shows that they thought they were com­ply­ing with the com­mands of nat­ural law and of nature’s God when they threw off absolute despotism.”

The U.S. Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence states that “when a long train of abuses and usurpa­tions, pur­su­ing invari­ably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despo­tism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Gov­ern­ment” (empha­sis added). Mar­tin Luther King like­wise held that it is the duty of the peo­ple to resist unjust laws.

Some the­o­ries of the right of rev­o­lu­tion imposed sig­nif­i­cant pre­con­di­tions on its exer­cise, lim­it­ing its invo­ca­tion to the most dire cir­cum­stances. In the Amer­i­can Rev­o­lu­tion­ary con­text, one finds expres­sions of the right of rev­o­lu­tion both as sub­ject to pre­con­di­tion and as unre­strained by con­di­tions. On the eve of the Amer­i­can Rev­o­lu­tion, for exam­ple, Amer­i­cans con­sid­ered their plight to jus­tify exer­cise of the right of revolution.

Alexan­der Hamil­ton jus­ti­fied Amer­i­can resis­tance as an expres­sion of “the law of nature” redress­ing vio­la­tions of “the first prin­ci­ples of civil soci­ety” and inva­sions of “the rights of a whole peo­ple.” For Thomas Jef­fer­son the Dec­la­ra­tion was the last-ditch effort of an oppressed peo­ple— the posi­tion many Amer­i­cans saw them­selves in 1776. Jefferson’s litany of colo­nial griev­ances was an effort to estab­lish that Amer­i­cans met their bur­den to exer­cise the nat­ural law right of revolution.

Nat­ural law or pos­i­tive law

Descrip­tions of the Right of Rev­o­lu­tion also dif­fer in whether that right is con­sid­ered to be a nat­ural law (a law whose con­tent is set by nature and that there­fore has valid­ity every­where) or pos­i­tive law (law enacted or adopted by proper author­ity for gov­ern­ing of the state).

An exam­ple of the dual nature of the right of rev­o­lu­tion as both a nat­ural law and as pos­i­tive law is found in the Amer­i­can rev­o­lu­tion­ary con­text. Although the Amer­i­can Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence invoked the nat­ural law right of rev­o­lu­tion, nat­ural law was not the sole jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for Amer­i­can inde­pen­dence. Eng­lish con­sti­tu­tional doc­trine also sup­ported the colonists’ actions. By the 1760s, Eng­lish law rec­og­nized what William Blackstone’s Com­men­taries on the Laws of Eng­land called “the law of redress against pub­lic oppres­sion.” Like the nat­ural law’s right of rev­o­lu­tion, this con­sti­tu­tional law of redress jus­ti­fied the peo­ple resist­ing the sovereign.

This law of redress arose from a con­tract between the peo­ple and the king to pre­serve the pub­lic wel­fare. This orig­i­nal con­tract was “a cen­tral dogma in Eng­lish and British con­sti­tu­tional law” since “time immemo­r­ial.” The Declaration’s long list of griev­ances demon­strated that this bar­gain had been breached.

This well-accepted law of redress jus­ti­fied a peo­ple resist­ing uncon­sti­tu­tional acts of gov­ern­ment. Lib­erty depended upon the people’s “ulti­mate” right to resist. Uncon­sti­tu­tional com­mands breach­ing the “vol­un­tary com­pact between the rulers and the ruled” could be “ignored” and arbi­trary com­mands opposed with force. This right implied a duty on the part of the peo­ple to resist uncon­sti­tu­tional acts. As Alexan­der Hamil­ton noted in 1775, gov­ern­ment exer­cised pow­ers to pro­tect “the absolute rights” of the peo­ple and gov­ern­ment for­feited those pow­ers and the peo­ple could reclaim them if gov­ern­ment breached this con­sti­tu­tional contract.

The law of redress had lim­its like the right of rev­o­lu­tion under nat­ural law. The law of redress, like the right of rev­o­lu­tion, was not an indi­vid­ual right. It belonged to the com­mu­nity as a whole, as one of the par­ties to the orig­i­nal con­sti­tu­tional con­tract. It was not a means of first resort, or response to triv­ial or casual errors of gov­ern­ment. Blackstone’s Com­men­taries sug­gested that using the law of redress would be “extra­or­di­nary,” for exam­ple if the king broke the orig­i­nal con­tract, vio­lated “the fun­da­men­tal laws,” or aban­doned the kingdom.

Dur­ing the Stamp Act cri­sis of the 1760s the Mass­a­chu­setts Provin­cial Con­gress con­sid­ered resis­tance to the king jus­ti­fied if free­dom came under attack from “the hand of oppres­sion” and “the mer­ci­less feet of tyranny.” A decade later the “indict­ment” of George III in the Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence sought to end his sov­er­eign reign over the colonies because he vio­lated the orig­i­nal con­sti­tu­tional contract.

As explained in legal his­to­rian Chris­t­ian Fritz’s descrip­tion of the role of the right of rev­o­lu­tion in Amer­i­can Rev­o­lu­tion, Amer­i­can inde­pen­dence was jus­ti­fied by con­ven­tional the­o­ries under Anglo-American con­sti­tu­tional thought at the time about the people’s col­lec­tive right to cast off an arbi­trary king. “Both nat­ural law and Eng­lish con­sti­tu­tional doc­trine gave the colonists a right to revolt against the sovereign’s oppres­sion.” But these under­stand­ings about the right of rev­o­lu­tion on the eve of the Amer­i­can Rev­o­lu­tion rested on a tra­di­tional model of government.

That model posited the exis­tence of a hypo­thet­i­cal bar­gain struck in the mists of antiq­uity between a king and a peo­ple. “In this bar­gain, the peo­ple were pro­tected by the monarch in exchange for the peo­ple giv­ing the king alle­giance. This was a con­trac­tual rela­tion­ship. Amer­i­can rev­o­lu­tion­ar­ies accused George III of breach­ing his implied duty of pro­tec­tion under that con­tract, thereby releas­ing the peo­ple in the colonies from their alle­giance. The sovereign’s breach of the hypo­thet­i­cal con­tract gave rise to the sub­jects’ right of revolution”—grounded on both nat­ural law and Eng­lish con­sti­tu­tional doctrine.”

Exam­ples of the right of rev­o­lu­tion as pos­i­tive law

Although many dec­la­ra­tions of inde­pen­dence seek legit­i­macy by appeal­ing to the right of rev­o­lu­tion, far fewer con­sti­tu­tions men­tion this right or guar­an­tee this right to cit­i­zens because of the desta­bi­liz­ing effect such a guar­an­tee would likely pro­duce. Among the exam­ples of an artic­u­la­tion of a right of rev­o­lu­tion as pos­i­tive law include:

1) The szlachta, nobles of the Polish-Lithuanian Com­mon­wealth, also main­tained a right of rebel­lion, known as rokosz.
2) New Hampshire’s constitution[29] guar­an­tees its cit­i­zens the right to reform gov­ern­ment, in Arti­cle 10 of the New Hamp­shire constitution’s Bill of Rights: When­ever the ends of gov­ern­ment are per­verted, and pub­lic lib­erty man­i­festly endan­gered, and all other means of redress are inef­fec­tual, the peo­ple may, and of right ought to reform the old, or estab­lish a new gov­ern­ment. The doc­trine of non­re­sis­tance against arbi­trary power, and oppres­sion, is absurd, slav­ish, and destruc­tive of the good and hap­pi­ness of mankind.
3) The Ken­tucky constitution[30] also guar­an­tees a right to alter, reform or abol­ish their gov­ern­ment in the Ken­tucky Bill of Rights:
All power is inher­ent in the peo­ple, and all free gov­ern­ments are founded on their author­ity and insti­tuted for their peace, safety, hap­pi­ness and the pro­tec­tion of prop­erty. For the advance­ment of these ends, they have at all times an inalien­able and inde­fea­si­ble right to alter, reform or abol­ish their gov­ern­ment in such man­ner as they may deem proper.
4) Sim­i­lar word­ing is used in Pennsylvania’s constitution,[31] under Arti­cle 1, Sec­tion 2 of the Dec­la­ra­tion of Rights:
All power is inher­ent in the peo­ple, and all free gov­ern­ments are founded on their author­ity and insti­tuted for their peace, safety and hap­pi­ness. For the advance­ment of these ends they have at all times an inalien­able and inde­fea­si­ble right to alter, reform or abol­ish their gov­ern­ment in such man­ner as they may think proper.
5) Arti­cle I, §2 of the Ten­nessee constitution[32] states: That gov­ern­ment being insti­tuted for the com­mon ben­e­fit, the doc­trine of non-resistance against arbi­trary power and oppres­sion is absurd, slav­ish, and destruc­tive of the good and hap­pi­ness of mankind.
6) North Carolina’s con­sti­tu­tion of Novem­ber 21, 1789 also con­tains in its Dec­la­ra­tion of Rights:[citation needed]
3d. That Gov­ern­ment ought to be insti­tuted for the com­mon ben­e­fit, pro­tec­tion and secu­rity of the peo­ple; and that the doc­trine of non-resistance against arbi­trary power and oppres­sion is absurd, slav­ish, and destruc­tive to the good and hap­pi­ness of mankind.
7) The Con­sti­tu­tion of Texas[33] also con­tains sim­i­lar word­ing in Arti­cle 1, Sect 2:
All polit­i­cal power is inher­ent in the peo­ple, and all free gov­ern­ments are founded on their author­ity, and insti­tuted for their ben­e­fit. The faith of the peo­ple of Texas stands pledged to the preser­va­tion of a repub­li­can form of gov­ern­ment, and, sub­ject to this lim­i­ta­tion only, they have at all times the inalien­able right to alter, reform or abol­ish their gov­ern­ment in such man­ner as they may think expe­di­ent.
8) The post-World War II Grundge­setz, the Fun­da­men­tal Law of the Fed­eral Repub­lic of Ger­many con­tains both entrenched, un-amendable clauses pro­tect­ing human and nat­ural rights, as well as a clause in its Arti­cle 20, rec­og­niz­ing the right of the peo­ple to resist tyranny, if all other mea­sures have failed.
5) The Greek Con­sti­tu­tion, in Arti­cle 120, states that “[…] it is both the right and the duty of the peo­ple to resist by all pos­si­ble means against any­one who attempts the vio­lent abo­li­tion of the Constitution.”

Sum­mery: pend­ing dis­cus­sion and com­ments, send to doolittb@aol.com.

Con­sol­i­dated and Pre­pared as directed by “PEARL” …/…/evaluation-of-administrative-regulations-and-liabilities

Posted in Articles, Pentortoise | National Asset Recovery Projects, Recovery Projects | Leave a comment

Single to Double Jeopardy

Posted on January 6, 2012 by avatar
Posted in Articles | Leave a comment