ACTION’s Mobile Heritage and Arts Centre’ provides tools and space to give a voice for the voiceless to educate Indigneous and Non-Indigneous Communities through artistic expressions of anti colonial resistance. Contact ojibwayrebel@gmail.com
Attached along with Video is my Constitutional Questions with Laws we need to use to hold Canada and Provinces and industry to their own laws and stop their actions on our territories
constitutional-challenge-2Download
constitutional-challenge-1Download
Case File No. E210409534
Ontario Court of Justice
Between
Appellant
-and-
–Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Affidavit of Service
Addendum
Notice of Constitutional Question
Dated Thursday December 9, 2021
I, Kaikaikons, of the Atik Dodem also known as John Courtney of the Hawke family of
Gchimnissing Anishinaabe Aki, Make Oath and say as follows:
1. I served the Attorney General of Canada, Constitutional Law Branch with a notice of Constitutional Question of the Applicant by sending a copy by fax to (416) 952-0298 and or email NCQ-AQC.Toronto@justice.gc.ca on December 9, 2021
2. I served the Attorney General of Ontario, with a notice of Constitutional Question of the Applicant by sending a copy by fax to 416, 326 4015 and or email attorneygeneral@ontario.ca
on December 9, 2021
3. I served the Crown Attorney’s Barrie, Midland with a notice of Constitutional
Question of the Applicant by sending a copy by fax to 705 739 6551 and or email VirtualCrownBarrie@ontario.ca on December 9, 2021
______________________________
John Courtney of the Hawke Family
Form 4F
Courts of Justice Act
Notice of Constitutional Question Case File No. E210409534
Scope ID: 1072035
Ontario Court of Justice
Between
Kaikaikons, Atik Doodem aka
(John Courtney of the Hawke Family)
Appellant
-and-
–Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Addendum of Notice of Constitutional Question
Dated December 9, 2021
The Appellant intends to question the constitutional applicability of:
Section 430 (1)(C) of the Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985,C. c-46)
Section 125 (1)(2)(a)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act (R.S.O, 1990,c.C.43)
Section 2 (1) of the Indian Act (R.s.c., 1985 C.25)
Section 88 of the Indian Act (R.S.C., 1985, C.25)
Part 1, Section (2),(4) of the Ontario Municipal Act (S.O.2001,C.25)
Section 9 (3) Ontario Vital Statistics Act. R.S.O. 1990, c.V.4
And seek remedy under subsection 24 (1)(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The date, time and location have not yet been established by the Ontario Court of Justice, Respondent and Appellant.
I, Kaikaikons of the Atik Clan of the Anishinabe Nation also known as John Courtney of the Hawke Family; a living human being with fundamental rights and freedom, inherent and treaty rights am seeking the administration of justice through the inherent jurisdiction of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice by the Courts legal obligation to:
The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 2, Section 3 (a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; (c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.
Constitution Act 19821 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 24 (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
Ontario Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 11 (2) The Superior Court of Justice has all the jurisdiction, power and authority historically exercised by courts of common law and equity in England and Ontario.
109 (1) Notice of a constitutional question shall be served on the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of Ontario in the following circumstances: 1. The constitutional validity or constitutional applicability of an Act of the Parliament of Canada or the Legislature, of a regulation or by-law made under such an Act or of a rule of common law is in question.
2. A remedy is claimed under subsection 24 (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in relation to an act or omission of the Government of Canada or the Government of Ontario.
M. (A.) v. Ryan, 1997 (SCC), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157 That the common law must develop in accordance with Charter values. A Trespass in common law equals an infringement or denial of a fundamental right or freedom (listed in the constitution act or the covenants themselves)
Michie Estate vs. City of Toronto (1967) CanLII 202 (ON SC)
1. 3rd Paragraph: The Supreme Court of Ontario, as a superior court has a broad universal
jurisdiction over all matters of substantive law.
Scarola v MNR, 2002 CanLII 741 (T.C.C)
1. Section 25. In Bogies v. The Queen, 97 DTC 1079, Bruce J. Said at page 1080
(3) The Court, as a statutory creation, does not have the inherent jurisdiction
(27) In R. V. Unnamed Person, (1985) O.J. N.O 189, Zuber J.A. said
The term “inherent jurisdiction” is one that is commonly and not always accurately used
when arguments are made with respect to the jurisdictional basis upon which a court is
asked to make a particular order. The Inherent jurisdiction of a superior court is derived not
from any statute or rule of law but from the very nature of the court as a superior court.
The Supreme Court of Canada on S. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 2014
The Administration of Justice: the term “administration of justice” in s. 24(2) embraces maintaining the rule of law and its processes and includes upholding charter rights in the justice system as a whole.
Procedure The charter itself contains no procedural directions. This led McIntyre J. in R. v. Mills to declare: There is no need for special procedures and rules to give it full and adequate effect.
Board v. Board (1919), 48 D.L.R. 13 at pp. 17-8, [1919] A.C. 956, [1919] 2 W.W.R. 940,
Viscount Haldane for the Privy Council in dealing with the question of the nature of jurisdiction of a superior Court said: If the right exists, the presumption is that there is a Court which can enforce it,
R. v. Peel Regional Police Service, Chief of Police, 2000 (ON SC)
[104] The courts too must conform to the rule of law: The rule of law is the very foundation of the Charter It stands to reason then that the courts are duty bound to apply the Charter
The rule of law, however, does more than demand compliance with the law. To validate this demand, the law must provide individuals with meaningful access to independent courts with the power to enforce the law by granting appropriate and effective remedies to those individuals whose rights have been violated
R v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd. (1985) further states Any accused individual, may defend a criminal charge by arguing that the law under which the charge is brought is constitutionally invalid.
As a Living Being with inherent rights affirmed by my Statement of Live Birth (see exhibit A) and as an Anishinaabe National a non-citizen of Canada the following material facts give rise to the constitutional question:
I am an Anishinaabe National of the Chippewa Tri Council of the Chippewas of Lakes Huron and Simcoe in which the Crown recognizes not as citizens of Canada but as allies in the International Treaty of the 1764 Niagara Covenant Chain Belt which was made in conjunction by the Crown with the 1763 Royal Proclamation. This Nation to Nation Relationship is affirmed and protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 25 and 26.
Section 25: The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including
(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and
(b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.
26 The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.
The Royal Proclamation 1763
“ And whereas it is just and reasonable and essential to our Interest, and the Security of our
Colonies, that the several Nations with who We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed.”
“And we do further expressly conjoin and require all Officers whatever, as well Military as
those employed in the Management of Direction of Indian Affairs, within the Territories reserved as aforesaid for the use of the said Indians, to seize and apprehend all Persons whatever; who standing charges with Treason, misprisions of Treason, Murders, or other Felonies or Misdemeanours, shall fly from Justice and take Refuge in the said Territory, and to send them unsure a proper guard to the Colony where the Crime was committed.
And We do hereby strictly forbid, on Pain of our Displeasure, all our loving Subjects from making any Purchases or Settlements whatever, or taking Possession of any of the Lands above reserved, without our especial leave and Licence for that Purpose first obtained.
And We do further strictly enjoin and require all Persons whatever who have either wilfully or inadvertently seated themselves upon any Lands within the Countries above described. or upon any other Lands which, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are still reserved to the said Indians as aforesaid, forthwith to remove themselves from such Settlements.
And whereas great Frauds and Abuses have been committed in purchasing Lands of the Indians, to the great Prejudice of our Interests. and to the great Dissatisfaction of the said Indians: In order, therefore, to prevent such Irregularities for the future, and to the end that the Indians may be convinced of our Justice and determined Resolution to remove all reasonable Cause of Discontent, We do, with the Advice of our Privy Council strictly enjoin and require, that no private Person do presume to make any purchase from the said Indians of any Lands reserved to the said Indians, within those parts of our Colonies where We have thought proper to allow Settlement: but that, if at any Time any of the Said Indians should be inclined to dispose of the said Lands, the same shall be Purchased only for Us, in our Name, at some public Meeting or Assembly of the said Indians, to be held for that Purpose by the Governor or Commander in Chief of our Colony respectively within which they shall lie: and in case they shall lie within the limits of any Proprietary Government, they shall be purchased only for the Use and in the name of such Proprietaries, conformable to such Directions and Instructions as We or they shall think proper to give for that Purpose:
And we do, by the Advice of our Privy Council, declare and enjoin, that the Trade with the said Indians shall be free and open to all our Subjects whatever, provided that every Person who may incline to Trade with the said Indians do take out a Licence for carrying on such Trade from the Governor or Commander in Chief of any of our Colonies respectively where such Person shall reside, and also give Security to observe such Regulations as We shall at any Time think fit, by ourselves or by our Commissaries to be appointed for this Purpose, to direct and appoint for the Benefit of the said Trade”
The Chippewas Tri Council of Lake Huron and Simcoe never surrendered through Treaty the specific lands (See Exhibit B,C,D,E) where the current Province, Municipality and assumed Private Property Title holders are obstructing in the unlawful use and enjoyment and operation of the property of the Chippewa Tri Council in which I as an Anishinabe National have the said Rights to access such lands without interruption. I was exercising my inherent Right to access land for Water, Life and Spiritual, Ceremony Sustenance.
Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 388 at Supra note 24, para 29
In the 2005 Mikisew Cree decision, Justice Binnie, for the court, confirmed the following excerpt from the Badger decision: “the words in the treaty must not be interpreted in their strict technical sense nor subjected to rigid modern rules of construction. Rather, they must be interpreted in the sense that they would naturally have been understood by the Indians at the time of the signing.”
The fundamental objective of the modern law of aboriginal and treaty rights is the reconciliation of aboriginal peoples and non-aboriginal peoples and their respective claims, interests and ambitions. The management of these relationships takes place in the shadow of a long history of grievances and misunderstanding. The multitude of smaller grievances created by the indifference of some government officials to aboriginal people’s concerns, and the lack of respect inherent in that indifference has been as destructive of the process of reconciliation as some of the larger and more explosive controversies. And so it is in this case
The duty of consultation which flows from the honour of the Crown, and its obligation to respect the existing treaty rights of aboriginal peoples (entrenched in s. 25 of the Constitution Act, 1982), was breached.
As a result of a complaint of a third party I was arrested and forcibly removed by the Police where the following violations of Charter Rights have occurred. The complainant alleges I was also harassing however my encampment (See Exhibit F,G,H,I) was located on lands not even on the assumed property and was peaceful in which I have over 100 witnesses that can testify that the complaint of harassment is false. The Encampment was located on lands not surrendered, see Exhibit (B,C,D,E)
The Police by enforcing the Criminal Code are holding me in servitude to Her Majesty, which is a violation of Charter Right Section 7 (d), the freedom of association. The Criminal Code is an enactment created under the Monarchy of the United Kingdom as Head of State of Canada whereas under the said 1764 Treaty and Royal Proclamations protected by Charter Right 25 and 26 the enforcement of Her Majesty’s Criminal Code is further violating the the following laws Canada is signatory and obligated to:
The United Nations, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 1. All Peoples have the right of Self-Determination and freely determine their political status.
Article 2. Each State Party must entrench the Provisions of this Agreement in their Constitutional process.
Article 8, SubSection 2. No One Shall be held in Servitude
The U.N. Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples 1960
Section 4. All armed or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise their right to complete independence and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
Section 5. Immediate steps shall be taken of all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
Constitutional Law of the United Kingdom proclaimed in the 1893 Statute Revision Act and 1931 Statute of Westminster that the dominions are free to become independent states where the Crown relinquished its legal authority over the Dominions such as Canada.
Canada has yet to abide by these International Laws where I am being held in Servitude to Her Majesty which violates the Charter Right Section 2 (d) Freedom of Association. These are major international violations being made by the Ontario Provincial Police and the specific Crown Attorney as an individual who is attempting to prosecute me.
The Ontario Provincial Police Officer # 13171, M BURROWS also violated Section 9 of the Charter; the right not to be arbitrarily detained which was violated when I was forcibly removed and denied my rights protected by section 2 (d), 25 and 26 on July 25, 2021.
When I was detained and arrested and whrere I am currently being prosecuted the Charter Right 15 (1): Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination has and is being violated by the OPP and Crown Attorney. I provided documentation of my rights to the appropriate parties before I was arrested to inform the OPP of my rights however as a result of a complaint by a third party an investigation was started.
As the disclosure exemplifies, my information was not included in the investigation and where I am currently being prosecuted demonstrates unfairness and a violation of inherent rights by the Police Agency and Crown Attorney. This also is a violation of Section 24 (2) where evidence was obtained in a manner that violated my Charter Rights.
As a living being with fundamental rights and freedoms the Charter Right Section 2 (d) is being further violated again in this matter where the Ontario Provincial Police and Crown Attorney are forcing me to Play the Role of the Legal Person of JOHN HAWKE, a corporation demonstrated in the Arrest Report, Occurrence Report and the Crown’s Adult Charge Screening Form where this name is presented in the foreign deceptive language of Dog Latin and is a corporation, a non living entity.
Black’s Law Dictionary (6th edition) defines the word name using these exact words: “The designation of an individual person, or of a firm or corporation.” The word corporation is defined by the same law dictionary as, “An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state.” Based on the definitions in this paragraph, in law, a name is a designation of a corporation which is an artificial person.
Black’s Law dictionary 6th edition, a corporation is “an artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state.
The Chicago Manual of Styles, on Foreign Languages describes all uppercase text with hyphens between each word is a SIGN or a Glosse in American Sign Language and all Capital Letters without Hyphens are Dog-Latin.
Blacks Law Dictionary 4th Edition Pg 569 describes Dog Latin as The latin of illiterate persons; Latin words put together on the English grammatical system. It is seen as all upper case text without hyphens.
Section 125 (1) (2)(A) (B) of the Courts of Justice Act states English and French are the official language of the Ontario Court of Justice. The Dog-Latin being used by the Crown Attorney and Ontario Provincial Police on such documents are attempting to hold me in servitude and associating my name with a language not legally permitted to be used a further breach of Charter Right 2 (d)
Another Further Violation of Charter Right 2(d) Freedom of Association is the Police and Crown Attorney is attempting to force me to play the Role of a Corporation holding be in servitude by enforcing the Indian Act R.S.C., 1985, c. I-5, Section 2 (1) and Section 88 and the Ontario Municipal Act Section 1 and 2 (4) on the same documents being used to attempt to prosecute me.
The OPP’s Arrest Report, Occurrence Report and the Crown’s Adult Charge Screening Form states the residence of JOHN HAWKE a corporation, non living entity as being Christian Island, First Nation, ON.
A First Nation’s legal definition is defined in the Indian Act as a Reserve where a Reserve (a) means a tract of land, the legal title to which is vested in Her Majesty, that has been set apart by Her Majesty for the use and benefit of a band.
A Band is defined by the Indian Act as: a body of Indians. Indian is defined in the same Act as: a person who pursuant to this Act. This racial and gender discriminative Act permitted Police Agencies, Courts, Government and Church to remove generations of Indians as children from the land to be sexually and physically abused in Residential Schools and where the Judicial System and Police are continued being used to criminalize Indigneous Peoples for exercsing our inherent rights demonstrated in the Crown Attorney’s attempt to prosecute and violate charter rights in this matter.
The Indian Act, Section 88 state provincial laws are applicable to Indians in the province.
Ontario Municipal Act says “Municipality” means a geographic area whose inhabitants are Incorporated. The inhabitants of every municipality are incorporated as a body corporate.
Gchimnissing is the residence where I as a living being live which is located in the geo-political area of the unsurrendered lands of the Chippewa Tri Council. Any Rights attempted to hold me in servitude as being an Indian with Section 35 rights which is only for Indians is a breach of 25, 26 and 2 (d) of the same Charter whereas I am an Anishinaabe National not an Indian or Legal Person.
Charter Rights Section 24, (2) was violated by Ontario Provincial Police where Evidence was Obtained in a manner by violating Charter 15 (1), 25 and 26 Rights.
The Police were informed before any actions with documentation of my inherent rights and title to the lands in question in which I have evidence. Police Agencies and the Judicial System have been used historically and in this matter to criminalize the Indigneous for exercising Inherent and Treaty Rights which is a violation of Charter Rights 25/26.
Disclosure shows that documentation served to the Police was not included in the Investigation of the Complaint made by the Third Party which shows the unfair treatment by police in how they obtained evidence therefore
The Evidence should be excluded where the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute by further violating the several Charter Rights being violatred in several instances stated.
Remedy in this Constitutional Question being sought:
All actions where Third Parties, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Crown attempt and or obstruct in the lawful use and enjoyment and operation of the property of the Chippewa Tri Council in which I as an Anishinabe National have the said Rights to access such lands without interruption must cease and desist.
Private Property on all Beaches on said lands must be removed.
Furthermore in addition to a Remedy being Sought the Charges of Mischief and Breach of Probation attempting to be placed on myself as the living being are to be Withdrawn as I am not the corporation JOHN HAWKE and have the inherent Rights as the living being also known as Kaikaikons or John Courtney of the Hawke Family to access such lands in which Charter Rights have been violated.
If this is unacceptable in the Remedy being Sought this matter may be a part of a collective of violations by Canada on Indigneous National and Tribal Governments who are taking such grievances to the International Criminal Court and seeking support from the permanent 5 states on the United Nations Security Council.
Friday December 10, 2021
_____________________________
The Live Being
Kaikaikons, Atik Doodem
John Courtney of the Hawke Family
81 Ogema Miikaan
Chimnissing, Anishinaabe Territory
705 247 2120
To:
Attorney General of Canada
Suite 3400, Exchange Tower
BOX 36, First Canadian Place
Toronto, ON, M5X 1K6
Fax (416) 973 3004, (613) 954-1920, (416) 952-0298
Attorney of Ontario
Constitutional Law Branch
4th Floor
720 Bay St
Toronto ON M5G 2K1
FAX 416 326 4015
Crown Attorney
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Barrie/Midland
75 Mullcaster, St. Barrie, ON L4M 3PS
FAX 705 739 6551/ 705 528 1085 VirtualCrownBarrie@ontario.ca