Defending Inherent Rights Toolkit

I am in the Process of publishing this into a Book. I am a big advocate of sharing knowledge freely; free the knowldge and knowledge is free where it's not all about the messenger but the message but please if you going to use this info please cite my research and don't share this as if it is your own research and capitalize off it as this has happen to me already in a few instances with toxic relatives in the Indigenous Resistance Community. This has taken years of research to carefully put together and whereas I have been charged multiple times in Direct Actions relating to Sovereignty, Lands and Rights and have tried and tested the info shared here and successfully had charges withdrawn and helped others get heavy charges thrown out. Unfortunately I am not a well known figure as the more Indigenous activist sexy media figures among our Resistance are where this info needs to be out there more then "sound bites" and same old Warriors and Communities being featured hitting their heads against the colonial wall and where this toolkit needs to be used and shared to help us in court.

If we claim Sovereignty then only we can speak to such matters and are the only ones that can represent and speak for ourselves. There are too many Celebrity Activists/Warriors begging our peoples for constant handouts asking for poor peoples monies which only goes to feed the system we say we against and where these cool kids clubs only lose from the start. Its not only enough to throw on the camo, block a road and scream at tv camera's. You got to know the law and walk our talk being Sovereign. Real Warrirors reprewent themselves and don't beg our people in poverty for money and travel the world as celebrity activists making a career on our struggle.

Defending Your Inherent Rights

ToolKit

Prepared By: Johnny Hawke

“And there came one of the seuen Angels, which had the seuen vials, and talked with me, saying vnto mee, Come hither, I will shew vnto thee the iudgement of the great Whore, that sitteth vpon many waters:” Revelation 17:1

Disclaimer: This is not legal advice. To give legal advice one has to be complicit with the Private BAR Guilds that have been using merchant law principles to commercialize the law and profit from crime since the Middle Ages; Therefore legal practitioners cannot provide counsel without deliberately injuring the law and perverting the course of Justice. The information provided here is Spiritual Guidance.

Introduction

There is a variety of self representing legal guru’s offering their brand of solutions on how to stop the law in its tracks where most of these self-styled experts are termed by the courts as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (OPCA) Litigants. Some of these legal mavericks even charge a fee to access their information however no one can guarantee success in the commercial courts. The information within this guide is to help you to understand your own way of navigating through the deception developed over the centuries by the Private Bar Guilds.

What many in activist circles refer to as common law rights, natural rights, inherent rights and Indigenous rights are recognized in the legal system as “human rights” or “fundamental rights and freedoms.” In the courts we need to start using this term of fundamental rights and freedoms as using any other term may categorize us as frivolous and or vexatious litigants and using the term Human Rights and Indigenous Rights may designate us as a creature of statute.

As we engage with the courts we must also be educated on the legal foundation of Canada and its laws. Within its own laws we find that Canada is only a corporation masquerading as a nation, democracy, federal government and a landmass. Canada is only a fiction however its armed forces, militarized police, courts and prisons are very real. The following steps are to show you how to get out of the jurisdiction of the legal person and how to represent ourselves as we engage with the courts.

If we claim to be truly sovereign then we must speak for ourselves. The first step on this journey is to start using our intelligence intelligently. This means we must recognize how we cooperate within our own enslavement. We cooperate through commercial contracts that use tacit agreements to get consent for things we are not explicitly made aware of. We cooperate by continuing to consume the very lifestyle we claim to resist where even our decolonization movement has become big business. The courts are conducting commerce where we are designated as merchants. This guide is to show how our life force is being consumed by the Windigo as we are also in a very real Spiritual war.

The Foundation of Canada Inc.

The foundational Constitutional documents of the colonies of British North America in the landmass referred to as “Canada” is the 1764 Niagara Covenant Chain Wampum Belt which includes the 24 Nations Belt and the Two Row Wampum Belt. This was a collective Treaty Agreement between 24 Indigenous Nations that affirmed a Nation to Nation Relationship based on Peace, Co-existence and Non-Interference between 24 Indigenous Nations and the British.

This collective agreement offered by the British served to interpret and enact the 1763 Royal Proclamation where Indigenous Nations permitted the British to occupy some of its lands through establishment of treaties. The Royal Proclamation is seen as a Treaty Contract which set the rules for the Colonies to respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of its Indigenous allies. This collective agreement and all Treaties are founded on International Law via the Holy See, (Roman Catholic Church) in which the Church claims to rule over all the Earth and all within; As signatories to such agreements the Indigenous Nations were not informed of this provision. This is an example of a tacit contract agreement.

Timeline

1670 The Royal Charter for incorporating the Hudson Bay Company was given by King

Charles II of England to Prince Rupert for Hudsons Bay in the Northwest part of America

for the discovery for minerals, furs and passage into the South Sea for the Kingdom.

1764 Niagara Covenant Chain Wampum Belt which includes the 24 Nations Belt and the

Two Row Wampum Belt. This was a collective Treaty Agreement between 24 Indigenous

Nations that affirmed a Nation to Nation Relationship based on Peace, Co-existence and

Non-Interference between 24 Indigenous Nations and the British.

The 1867 British North America Act an enactment of the UK to consolidate it’s colonies in British North America as one Colony or what was termed “Dominion.”

1869 The Hudson Bay Company signed the deed of transfer to surrender an estimated 1.2 Billion acres of Indigenous territory to the British Crown. These lands were never part of any Treaty and this transfer was a violation of the Royal Proclamation, the 1764 Niagara Covenant.
1878 The Letters Patent Revocation Act provided for a permanent Governor General to the Dominion by her Majesty and all future heirs and successors.

The 1893 Statute Revision Act removed Section 2, the enacting clause of the BNA Act in relation to the future heirs and successors of the monarchy. This means when Queen Victoria died so did the BNA Act and the Indian Act. This does not mean the Monarchy extinguished jurisdiction over the Dominion but only that the BNA Act including the Indian Act was repealed and can no longer be amended or reenacted.

1930 British North America Act- Natural Resources Transfer Act

1931 UK Statute of Westminster, the UK’s extinguishes it authority, jurisdiction and where the Crown in Chancery gave up its possession over all lands in its dominions allowing the dominions to become a free independent states. This also meant all Crown lands obtained by Treaties with Indigenous Nations reverted back to Indigenous Title and Possession.

October 1, 1947, William Lyon Mckenzie King constituted The Letters Patent Constituting the Office of the Governor General Commander in Chief of Canada. This was an act of fraud. Commissioning Letters Patent for a Governor General to represent a Monarch can only be done by the Crown in Chancery of Great Britain and approved by His/Her Majesty. No Governor General was no longer required as Canada was a free and independent state and Britain hadn’t dispatched a Governor General to the Dominion since 1931.

In 1982, the UK as a foreign government and monarchy who had no longer had legal and lawful right over so called Canada, unlawfully and illegally amended and reenacted the BNA Act through the Canada Act to created the 1867 Constitution Act and the 1982 Constitution Act. The 1982 Constitution Act is not a constitution but only a charter for a corporation.

Steps to ratify and enact the Canada Act, 1982:

- All Provinces would need to sign Schedule B of the Act

- Quebec would need to authorize a proclamation to enact Section 23, (1) (a) of the Act

- Section 23. (1), (a) would be enacted through a proclamation

- Section 59. (3) would be enacted through a proclamation to repeal Section 59 and renumber the Act.

- Section 58 would be enacted through a proclamation to pass the Act

A total of 3 Proclamations were needed to pass the Act. None of this Happened.

So What is Canada?

The Federal Government of Canada is a Corporation that only has jurisdiction upon the Water governed by Maritime- Admiralty Law. The corporations name “The Federal Government of Canada” is in name only, just because the term “Federal” and “Government” is used does not mean it is so; Just as is the “1982 Constitution Act” is also in name only as it not a constitution enacted by a free independent people. “Canada Inc” is a foreign corporation owned by “The City of London.”

Canada's Interpretation Act 1985

General definitions 35 (1) In every enactment, Canada, for greater certainty, includes the internal waters of Canada and the territorial sea of Canada; Canadian waters includes the territorial sea of Canada and the internal waters of Canada; Internal waters.

Note: “Canada” by the Interpretation Act needs to be read with the legal rule of “includes”

The legal rule for the word “includes” is defined in Blacks Law Dictionary Sixth Edition under “Expressio unius set exclusion alteriuis” which says, The explicit mention of one thing is the exclusion of another. This maxim, legal rule is that where a statute, contract or other legal document includes a list of items falling into a category, the inclusion of certain items on that list should be presumed to mean that any excluded items are intentionally outside the definition.

By its own legal history, laws and legal definition, the corporation called The Federal Government of Canada, CANADA INC is only a Shipping and Trade Corporation owned by the Roman Catholic Church that only has jurisdiction on the Waters.

The Laws of Canada Inc.

Divine Law

The Roman Catholic Church by its Papal Bull, Unum Sanctum claims it’s rule over all the Earth and Peoples where the Pope is the representative of God on Earth known as the Vicar of Christ. The Papal Bull, Aeterni Regis is a canon law which created the Head Sovereign of all Roman Slaves which is the monarchy of England in which the Monarch is the defender of the faith. All Presidents, Prime Ministers, Priests, Judges, Officers are subordinates to this order.

The Bible itself is a divine contract between Man and God in which the Church claims to sit on this hierarchy. The Bible is present in all courts in which everyone swears upon this contract in the courts however this hierarchy has been violation of this contract for millennia.

“The Crown of England” is a sovereign corporation called “The City of London”. The Monarchy

of England is not the corporate head of what is referred to as “The Crown” but it is the Pope of Rome. The Roman Catholic Church was given control over the monarchy with the Concession of England to the Pope which was between King John I and Pope Innocent III which forever pledged England as a vessel state of the Holy Roman Empire. In 1297 the Concession of England to the Pope was used as a precedent to incorporate “The City of London” as an independent State controlled by this Roman Cult which would govern England with out depending on the monarchy.

Canon Law

The Roman Catholic Church’s Canon Law is a fully articulated legal code and has been around since the early days of Christianity. The Papal Bulls; Unum Sanctum, Romanus Pontifex, Aeterni Regis, Convocation are canon law that proclaims to rule over the Earth, enslave all People and their Souls. The Papal Bull, Inter Caetera (Doctrine of Discovery) is the foundation of the genocide of Indigenous Peoples and occupation of their lands. All courts are based on the Church’s Sacrament of Penance (Confession) and Indulgences which has been commercialized by the private BAR guilds. Canon Law can be seen as the old adage ‘All roads lead to Rome.’

Maritime-Admiralty Law

The origins of maritime law can be traced all the way back to ancient Egypt. In those days, ships were used to transport goods and a clearly defined set of rules was needed to ensure safety and fair trade and settle disputes between different parties. Maritime-Admiralty Law is the commercial law on the seas, also known as The Law of Water. This is International Law and governs all ships and corporations.

Common Law

The legal system of Canada like in the English common law system (inherited from its period as a colony of the British Empire), the French civil law system (inherited from its French Empire past). According to Black's Law Dictionary, common law is "the body of law derived from judicial decisions, rather than from statutes or constitutions."

The common law, so named because it was "common" to all the king's courts across England. England spread the English legal system across the British Isles, first to Wales, and then to Ireland and overseas colonies. These common law systems are legal systems that give great weight to judicial precedent, and to the style of reasoning inherited from the English legal system.

The Interpretation Act: Duality of legal traditions and application of provincial law;

8.1 Both the common law and the civil law are equally authoritative and recognized

sources of the law of property and civil rights in Canada.

Lex Merchant

Lex Mercatoria latin for "merchant law" often referred to as "the Law Merchant, it is the body of commercial law. The commercial law on the land. The Law Merchant has been used for trade since at-least the time of ancient Babylon. It is not a codified body of law, but rather a set of unwritten rules and customs developed through international trade practices, considered to be autonomous and not formally written down in a single legal document.

Law Merchant merges with Common Law

In the mid 1700’s Lord Mansfield of Britain actively incorporated the principles of international trade law and custom into English common law as they saw it: principles of commercial certainty, good faith, fair dealing, and the enforceability of seriously intended promises. As Lord Mansfield held, "Mercantile law is not the law of a particular country but the law of all nations” , but also that "the law of merchants and the law of the land is the same.”

The consolidation of common law and law merchant is not overly taught and for good reason. Law Merchant or Commercial Law is what operates everything. It is the operation of the Courts. All Legislations, Statutes, Enactments of Canada Inc are to create profit for the corporation in which the Judges rule from the Bench aka Bank. UNIDROIT, PPSA, BILLS OF EXCHANGE Act, Uniform Commercial Code.

Trust Law

The Roman Catholic Church’s canon law; Romanus Pontifex, Aeterni Regis and Convocation are Testamentary Deed Trusts. These Trusts are created to manage all lands, property, body and soul of everyone register to a birth certificate and SIN number. The Church has made itself the beneficiary to these Trusts. The Church through the 1666 Cestui Que Vie Act declares everyone “lost at sea” and is considered deceased so that the corporate states can be the Executor/Trustee and the Church the Beneficiary of these Trusts.

The The Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition, or Hague Trust Convention is a contract ratified by 14 so called “countries” to administer and implement these Papal Trusts in their own corporation and make such legislation to impose Birth Certificate and the Income Tax schemes on the people to become Roman Slaves.

Statutory Law

Laws created by governments are called "legislation". Legislation may also be called "statute law.” The laws which are created by elected representatives in the federal Parliament or a provincial Legislative Assembly are usually called "acts" or “statutes.” Statutes are often supplemented by "regulations" or other "statutory instruments" which are typically approved by the relevant government Minister. Legislation is one of the two main types of primary law in Canada, which means it is binding in court. The other main type of primary law is case law: the decisions made by judges in courts.

Contracts

Everything is commerce and is done through contracts. Simply put statutory laws or legislation are commercial contracts. These contracts establish the rules and regulations for each class of person to conduct commerce such as doctors, patients, drivers, farmers, students, employers, employee, Band Council, Indians etc. Unfortunately People do not know they are just chattel via the Birth Certificate contract where taxes are imposed and labour is exploited. Legal Slavery.

Court

All Courts are operating as Banks and are using the same principles and instruments. All Courts are administering the Roman Catholic Church’s Sacrament of Penance aka Confession. The Private Bar Guilds have monetized Indulgences and created a monopoly off of Sin.

The latin term “pro se” means “for oneself” and “cutis” means “true skin” which is in reference to “representing one’s own flesh.” A person who is claiming to be you in making the “self accusation” is the Prosecutor. The Courts are conducting commerce just as a Bank. Law dictionaries define a Bank also as; A bench or seat; the bench or tribunal occupied by the judges; the seat of judgment; a court.

Definitions of Legal Representation:

Once you’ve retained a lawyer, attorney or barrister for legal representation, you’ve already lost your case as it pertains to upholding the full extent of your inherent rights; Yes there are Human Rights Lawyers, they however operate within the jurisdiction of statutory law which designates those they represent as a legal person in which the legal person has statutory civil rights and not human rights.

The Art (of Law): In the 13th Century in Florence, the Medici organized merchants into private system or five major guilds called “arti mediane” and seven minor guilds called “arti

minori”; occult guilds called “Arti” (from which the word “art” is derived). Next to the cloth and

wool merchants who were also the first bankers, the Arti dei Guidici e Notai or the “Guild of

Judges and notaries” has historically been the second most powerful network of guilds for over

seven hundred and twenty years. Instead of using the Anglo-Saxon concept of Placitum- place

of justice, the private guilds created “courts” from caution meaning literally “bonding, securitization and bailment of oaths, vows and sureties” for profit the oldest organized crime

syndicate dedicated to law corruption in history.

Lawyer: The word lawyer is from the late 16th Century combining the latin words “lar/lares” which means “customary law” and “iuro/iurare” which means to “take an oath” or “to conspire”meaning “one who has sworn an oath to customary law.” The Private BAR Guilds since the middle ages have been using merchant principles to commercialize the law and personally profit from crime; This means that the current justice system is innately compromised as everything is in favour to benefit these Private BAR Guilds; Therefore no lawyer can’t be counsel without deliberately injuring the law and perverting the course of Justice.

Attorney: The word Attorn or Attornment is from 16th Century combining the Latin words “at”, “to” and “torn” (turn, round off) meaning “To consent, implicit or explicit, to a transfer of a right.”Hence the word Attorney means literally “ a person to whom rights have been transferred by consent, implicitly or explicitly.” In short an Attorney exists to prove you have given up your rights. Therefore no Attorney can’t be Counsel without deliberately injuring the law and perverting the course of Justice.

Barrister: The word Barrister is from the late 16th Century combining the Latin words “bar” (dunce, incompetent) “sto/stare” (to stand firm, to be in position) meaning to literally “to stand/represent a dunce/incompetent”. Hence the meaning is “a student of the law (of the private Guild) that has been called to the bar”. Therefore, no Barrister can be Counsel without deliberately injuring the law and perverting the course of Justice.

6 Key Things to Know about International Law

Lex Merchant

Lex Mercatoria latin for "merchant law" often referred to as "the Law Merchant, it is

the body of commercial law on the land. This custom law goes back to at least ancient

Babylon and set the foundation for international law.

Papal Deeds of Testamentary Trusts The Holy See (Roman Catholic Church) enacted the foundation of modern day International law via its Papal Bull, Unum Sanctum where this “Roman Cult” self proclaims its rule over the Earth in which the Pope represents God on Earth. Additional Papal Bulls, Romanus Pontifex, Aeterni Regis, Convocation claim the Church rules over everyone’s Body, Property and Soul, designated a head Sovereign and steward of all Roman Slaves as well as

The etymology of the word “catholic” means “universal”; “religion” means “to bind” and

“church” is taken from “circee” a greek goddess that used spells and sorcery on her

victims; Therefore the Roman Catholic Religion’s Church means “roman-universal-bondage

through spells and sorcery.” Today the chicanery of the use of language and law and what

It “spells” out is sorcery upon the violation of Human Rights. The etymology of “sorcery”

means to “bind fate.”

The United Nations The UN can be seen as a Consolidated Slave Holdings Company for the powers behind the Holy See, the Roman Catholic Church. Each member State of the UN enacts statutes to create economic slaves, the legal person to expropriate the worlds resources. The UN is a catalyst for a one-world government.

Established as a result of the crimes against humanity in WWII member states are obligated to the UN Charter and such covenants to prevent such acts however states as Canada and the US continue to deny Human Rights and impose genocidal policies upon Indigenous Peoples of the so called Americas. The United Nations is a colonial extension that manifests the Roman Catholic Church’s Papal Bull; Unum Sanctum, World Domination. All member States are only satellite administrations of this doctrine. The U.N’s Charter and the Charters of its member States while claiming to protect Human Rights allow the State’s

interest to override such fundamental rights and freedoms.

UN Resolution 637 VII “Blue Water Rule” adopted Dec 16, 1952 The “Blue Water rule” also known as the “Belgian Thesis” or the “Salt Water Thesis” asserts that to be eligible for decolonization, the presence of “blue water” between the colony and the colonizing country or a discreet set of boundaries would be needed. Under UN Resolution 637 VII the world’s states have agreed that nations located inside UN member states may not seek or obtain independence through self-determination.

The United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights: Article 6 “Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.” Caution: “A Person before the Law” means an Artificial Person under a States fictional legalisms. The legal person is subject to the enactments of a state which restricts and limits such fundamental Human Rights.

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: UNDRIP is the tokenism and “culturalization” of Indigenous Peoples rights which involves rendering Indigenous Nations as merely cultures which disregards our “peoplehood” which under international law is tied to the right to self determination.

Minimizing the Rights of Indigenous Peoples within the sphere of “culturalization” has also made it comfortable for Canada’s Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin in 2015 to term Canada’s relationship with Indigenous Nations as "cultural genocide” rather then not just terming it correctly as genocide.

UNDRIP’s Article 46 (1), (2),(3) is essentially a Notwithstanding Clause that permits the State’s interest to override any Indigenous Rights and to interpret and define Indigenous Rights as a State sees fit. UNDRIP basically places Indigenous Rights in the same standing as civil rights of the legal person and akin to minority rights and Section 35 of Canada’s Charter as well as Case law that all fall under the doctrine of discovery.

6 Key Things to Know about “Indigenous” Rights

The Indian, Metis and Inuit are the Legal Person
Indian Act: Definitions 2 (1) Indian means a Person. The Legal Person can only have Statutory rights not Human Rights.

Supreme Court of Canada Reference as to whether "Indians" includes in s. 91 (24) of the B.N.A. Act includes Eskimo [1939] S.C.R. 104: The Supreme Court found that for the purposes of section 91(24), Inuit should be considered Indians.

Daniels v. Canada: The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Métis and non-status Indians are "Indians" under the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Indian Act is Dead
The Indian Act: Definitions 2 (1): In this Act, band means; a body of Indians for whose use and benefit in common, lands, the legal title to which is vested in Her Majesty, have been set apart before, on or after September 4, 1951.

The Queen of Canada Proclamation was Feb 1952, the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II was on June 2, 1953, The Queen they are referring to in the above definition refers to Queen Victoria. This is left in the Indian Act because legally and lawfully it can’t be removed, amended or reenacted as it is an enactment of the Dominion of Canada. When Queen Victoria died so did the BNA Act and the Indian Act.

The Indian Act was a Dominion of Canada enactment that violated the Law of the Land of Indigenous Nations of Turtle Island and the Indigenous understanding and interpretation of the 1764 Niagara Covenant Chain Wampum Belt Treaty.

Indigenous Peoples who choose to stand under the s tatus of an Indian and a Canadian Citizen, a Statutory Creature surrender their Human Rights and Treaty Rights. This also includes accepting to be the class of person under the birth certificate, drivers licence, social insurance number (SIN) program and all other permits and licences for the citizen.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 2 (d) Freedom of Association protects everyone from being forced to play the role of a class of person or enslavement which extends to the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 4 No one shall be held in slavery or servitude. Indigenous Peoples and Nations are not the “Indian”

Assertion of Charter of Rights Section 25 (a) Indigenous Nationals need to cite Sec 25 (a) which affirms and recognizes our rights

and freedoms recognized in the Royal Proclamation. The Royal Proclamation was

presented to 24 Nations as the 1764 Niagara Covenant which was accepted in exchange

of the Two Row Wampum Belt and set the foundation of a Nation to Nation

Relationship affirming and recognizing our allodial title to our Territories and status as

Nation States.

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.

Note: Subsection (b) is an attempt to place an Indigenous National under the designation

of an Indian under the Indian Act.

Section 35 is a Trap

Section 35 Rights is for the Indian, a legal person. Section 35 Rights were not defined and

are being defined through the Supreme Court of Canada Case Law in which Johnson v.s

McIntosh and St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber Company v. The Queen set the precedent

to import the Doctrine of Discovery into Canadian law. Section 35 Rights acknowledge that

Canada has Jurisdiction over Indians and Indian Lands.

35 (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

(2) In this Act, aboriginal peoples of Canada includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.

(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) treaty rights includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada, [2005]

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.

Although the Doctrine of Discovery governs Canadian Case Law this ruling can help raise

the argument that the Royal Proclamation was interpreted to Indigenous Nations by the

Crown via Sir William Johnson offering the 1764 Niagara Covenant Chain Belt Treaty in

which we accepted by the exchange of the Two Row Wampum and understood this to be

an eternal Nation to Nation Agreement based on Peace, Co-Existence and Non-

Interference that further Acknowledged and affirmed our Title to our Territories and Human

Rights.

Singh vs Canada and Suresh v. Canada:

“The wording of section 7 says that it applies to "everyone" This includes all people within

Canada, including non-citizens.” The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the Human

Rights of Non-Citizens.

As Indigenous Nationals who are standing under our Human Rights as Non-Citizens of

Canada, the Charter protects the limitation and abridgement of our Human Rights.

6 Key Things to Know before Self Representation

How to Carry Yourself

Carry yourself in Dignity and Honour. Be Polite, this goes a long way.

• When the Court attempts to address you as the Legal Person, their trademark sign of what

appears as a name in all capital letters on the Birth Certificate do not reply. Correct them by

stating, “Your Honour, That assumed name is Capitis diminutio maxima. In Roman law, it is

The highest or most comprehensive loss of status. When one’s condition is changed from

one of freedom to one of bondage, a slave.

•. Address yourself as the Authorized Representative in this matter. Inform them the court can

address you as your given and given name name only. Never accept the legal name which is

the given name added with a surname in all capital letters. You are of a Family but do not

have a surname. The surname makes you the legal person.

The Rule of Law: The Rule of Law is the supreme primary operation of law that must always be respected. This rule teaches us that as one individual you were born with natural rights, fundamental freedoms that can never be limited or abridged. No government body or power has the right to breach or disrespect this rule. The rule of law is a power that protects you from government corruption.

You are not the Legal Person: The Legal Person, Juridical Person is an artificial person, a Statutory Creation and can not have Human Rights but only civil rights governed by statutory law. The Legal Person is created from the Birth Certificate however the Statement of Live Birth recognizes you as a living Human Being. The Statement of Live Birth is what we stand under and not the birth certificate.

There are Proper Operations of Law: Every time you make a claim in law, attached to that claim there has to be a corresponding obligation on the other party. The Court can not hear anything that is outside of the proper operations of their law.

Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments (OPCA) This term was coined in a 2012 in a Canadian court decision as an umbrella term for pseudolegal tactics and arguments. Pseudolaw consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that are claimed to be based on

accepted law or legal doctrine but have no actual basis in law and often purported to be

based on "common law.” though its interpretation of it has no relation to contemporary or

historical examples of common law. It may be used by people who engage in vexatious or

frivolous litigation. Some of these litigants are known as Freeman on the Land, The

Sovereign Citizen Movement and even Indigenous People who find themselves mixing

legitimate Rights with OPCA tactics and arguments; There also exists Indigenous

Individuals that are disciples of a self styled legal guru named Meredith Quinn whose

“teachings” are a mix of cultural and scientific references with pseudo historic international

treaties referred to as Camels Eye Treaty, Eye of Isis and others in which such “teachings”

also proclaim practitioners of this law can control the weather with songs and special

phrases.

UN Declaration on the Rights and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms:

Article 6: Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others;

(To know, seek, obtain, receive and hold information about all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including having access to information as to how those rights and freedoms are given effect in domestic legislative, judicial or administrative systems;

As provided for in human rights and other applicable international instruments, freely to publish, impart or disseminate to others views, information and knowledge on all human rights and fundamental freedoms;

To study, discuss, form and hold opinions on the observance, both in law and in practice, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms and, through these and other appropriate means, to draw public attention to those matters.

Article 9:

In the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the promotion and protection of human rights as referred to in the present Declaration, everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to benefit from an effective remedy and to be protected in the event of the violation of those rights.

To this end, everyone whose rights or freedoms are allegedly violated has the right, either in person or through legally authorized representation, to complain to and have that complaint promptly reviewed in a public hearing before an independent, impartial and competent judicial or other authority established by law and to obtain from such an authority a decision, in accordance with law, providing redress, including any compensation due, where there has been a violation of that person's rights or freedoms, as well as enforcement of the eventual decision and award, all without undue delay.

To the same end, everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, inter alia :
To complain about the policies and actions of individual officials and governmental bodies with regard to violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, by petition or other appropriate means, to competent domestic judicial, administrative or legislative authorities or any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, which should render their decision on the complaint without undue delay;

To attend public hearings, proceedings and trials so as to form an opinion on their compliance with national law and applicable international obligations and commitments;

To offer and provide professionally qualified legal assistance or other relevant advice and assistance in defending human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Everyone has a right to be a Self Represented Litigant:

Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 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.

Under R v Swain, R v Imon-Russel, R v Chemama, also state the accused have a right to self represent.

In Pintea v Johns, The Supreme Court of Canada endorsed the Principles on Self-Represented Litigants and Accused Persons published by the Canadian Judicial Council

in 2006.

In Jonsson v Lymer, The Court of Appeal of Alberta decided that vexatious litigant orders

should only be used in the most extreme cases, where there has been a clear pattern of

previous abuse by the litigant. The Court also pointed out that there are a number of other

more appropriate procedural techniques (such as case management interventions by a

judge) to make sure litigation is conducted fairly.

In Girao v Cunningham, the Ontario Court of Appeal stressed the important role that trial

judges, as well as opposing counsel, need to play to ensure trial fairness where one party is

self-represented. The judgment remarks that in this case, the judge and lawyers failed to do

their best to uphold the Principles on Self-Represented Litigants and Accused Persons

as endorsed and outlined in Pintea. These principles need to be followed throughout an

entire proceeding – this includes how the self-represented litigant is treated in the

courtroom, as well as needing the court to be flexible (while ensuring impartiality) in terms

of procedures and the admissibility of evidence when one party is self-represented

Guide to Defend your Inherent Rights

Assertion of Inherent Rights and Cease and Desist Notice

If you feel your actions of exercising your Human Rights via occupying your Territory,

engaging in Trade, Harvesting or Ceremony or not following vaccination mandates and

other limitations on your rights may cause a response from citizens and the State respond

by issuing an Assertion of Rights and Cease and Desist Notice. Issue this statement before

Any action or when confronted by authorities. This is not an enforceable legal order but

gives warning of legal consequences of violating your rights.

Sample Letter:

[Your Full Name][Your Address][City, Province, Postal Code][Phone Number][Email Address][Date][Recipient’s Full Name][Recipient’s Address][City, Province, Postal Code]Subject: Cease and Desist Notice Dear [Recipient’s Name], **Re: [Description of the Issue]

This is an Assertion of my Human Rights regarding my peaceful occupation, harvesting and trade within the Anishinaabek Five Council Fire Territory. These rights also include the right to refuse vaccinations and protects me from such vaccine mandates and enactments that limit and restricts such rights and freedoms.

I was born a free human being as documented in my statement of live birth completed and held on record by Ontario’s Registrar General. It is my understanding that CANADA is a common law jurisdiction through the following enactment:

The Interpretation Act: Duality of legal traditions and application of provincial law;

8.1 Both the common law and the civil law are equally authoritative and recognized

sources of the law of property and civil rights in Canada;

Any enactment and statute attempted to be applied in the limiting and abridgement of my Human Rights I will seek the Administration of Justice of the Rule of Law in a Superior Court which possess Inherent Jurisdiction that recognizes common law rights, my Human Rights in which is protected the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and several International Covenants Canada is signatory to.

I am an Ojibway National of the Anishinabek Confederacy, a Non-Citizen of Canada where the Royal Proclamation, the 1764 Niagara Covenant Chain Wampum Belt Treaty affirms and recognizes our Human Rights and allodial title to our lands which is entrenched in;

Charter of Rights 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.

In Singh vs Canada and Suresh v. Canada regarding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, “The wording of section 7 says that it applies to "everyone" This includes all people within Canada, including non-citizens.”

UN Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Article 11: Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to the lawful exercise of his or her occupation or profession. Everyone who, as a result of his or her profession, can affect the human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of others should respect those rights and freedoms and comply with relevant national and international standards of occupational and professional conduct or ethics.

This notice is also to formally demand that you immediately cease and desist from expropriating resources from Indigenous lands, preventing my use of occupying my Nations Territory, vaccination mandates, and other [specific action or behaviour] and such enactments that limits my rights and freedom. Your actions have caused [specific harm, such as financial loss, not able to feed my family, reputation damage, or emotional distress], and they constitute a violation of my Human Rights protected by International Covenants and Canada’s charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The details of your misconduct are as follows: Incident Description: [Provide a clear description of the issue, including dates, locations, and evidence.] Impact: [Explain the consequences of the recipient’s actions, such as financial losses or damage to reputation.]

Under [applicable laws, contractual agreements, or regulations], your conduct is unlawful and has adversely affected my [rights/interests/reputation]. I hereby demand that you: Immediately cease and desist from engaging in [specific behaviour].Take corrective actions, including [specific steps, e.g., removing harmful content, discontinuing a practice, or issuing a formal apology].Failure to comply with this demand by [specific deadline] will leave me no choice but to pursue all available legal remedies. This may include initiating a lawsuit, seeking injunctive relief, and pursuing monetary damages to the fullest extent permitted by law. Please note that this letter serves as your final warning.To avoid further escalation, I request that you confirm in writing no later than [specific date] that you will comply with the terms of this demand. You may send your response to [your address/email address].If you wish to discuss this matter or require clarification, you may contact me directly. However, I emphasize that no further delays will be tolerated.Sincerely,[Your Full Name][Your Signature (if sending a hard copy)]

Private Prosecution:

A private prosecution is a prosecution started by a private individual who is not acting on

behalf of a law enforcement agency or prosecution service. The right of a citizen to institute a prosecution for a breach of the law is applicable by the Criminal Code of Canada;

Section 504 - Laying Information to a Justice: Any one who, on reasonable grounds, believes that a person has committed an indictable offence may lay an information in writing and under oath before a justice, and the justice shall receive the information, where it is alleged

3. Filing a Constitutional Question

All Nation States members of the United Nations are legally obligated to provide process

for those whose Human Rights have been violated by the State. This is the process for Ontario,Canada: Form 4F Courts of Justice Act Notice of Constitutional Question.

The Following is a Sample Template on how to fill out Form 4F and File it. First Make an Affidavit that you Swear everything in your document is true.

The Appellant intends to question the constitutional applicability of:

• Vital Statistics Act 9 (1) Birth Certificate Registration

The Criminal Code, Section 430 (1)(C) Mischief
Courts of Justice Act, Section 51.2 (1), 125 (1)(2)(a)(b) Use of Official Languages of Court, Official Languages of the Court

• The Indian Act

• Section 121.1 (1) Criminal Code; Prohibits the sale, distribution, transportation, or

possession of unpackaged tobacco products or raw leaf tobacco that is not stamped

• Cannabis Act

Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act

• Emergencies Act

1867 British North America Act
1930 British North America Act - Natural Resource Transfer Act
The Constitution Act 1867

The Canada Act 1867

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.

The Appellant intends to claim a remedy under subsection 24 (1) of the Canadian Charter of

Rights and Freedoms in relation to an act or omission of the Government of Canada and

Ontario.

Statement of Recognition

I do declare the following in order to establish my claim of recognition; This claim of recognition has been created to notify you and the executive powers of CANADA concerning the limitation and abridgement of my natural rights and freedoms. I was born a free human being as documented in my statement of live birth completed and held on record by Ontario’s Registrar General. It is my understanding that CANADA is a common law jurisdiction through the following enactment: The Interpretation Act: 8.1 Both the common law and the civil law are equally authoritative and recognized sources of the law of property and civil rights in Canada.

Any enactment and statute attempted to be applied in the limiting and abridgement of my Human Rights, I will seek the Administration of Justice of the Rule of Law in a Superior Court which possess Inherent Jurisdiction that recognizes common law rights, my Human Rights in which is protected the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and several International Covenants Canada is signatory to.

Charter of Rights 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.

The following are the material facts giving rise to the constitutional question:

(Set out concisely the material facts that relate to the constitutional question. Where appropriate, attach pleadings or reasons for decision.)

The Crown Attorney in this matter is holding me in servitude by forcing me to play the role of JOHN HAWKE, which is the “Capitis diminutio maxima” and Dog-Latin representing the artificial legal person that was created by the Vital Statistics Act 9 (1) Birth Certificate registration which violates my right of freedom of association. I am a living Human being with a given name and a family name spelled out in proper English as “John Hawke” affirmed by the Statement of Live Birth. I am not a resident of Christian Island Indian Reserve 30 A, ON nor am I an Indian, a legal person under the Indian Act. I am of the Anishinabek Nation, a citizen of the Chippewa Tri Council Territories and reside in the Anishinabek community of Gchimissing.

The Crown Attorney is further holding me in servitude by forcing me to play the role of this statutory entity to be brought under the civil jurisdiction of the court and enacting Section 430(1)(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada for exercising my fundamental rights and freedoms on unsurrendered Anishinabek Lands. This court is obligated to administer justice under it’s inherent jurisdiction as a court, to apply this matter under the common law jurisdiction in respect to the rule of law.

The Police Laying of Information, Crowns Summons and Disclosure are holding me in servitude to a foreign language in violation of the Ontario Court Act which enacts only two official languages it uses in Court and in all court documents. All documents in this matter are unlawfully using a third foreign language known as Dog-Latin and American Sign Language, defined as a foreign language which is holding me in servitude and violating my Human Rights of not to be forced into association.

Band Council Enactments, Conservation Officers, By-law Officers, Police restricted me from exercising my fundamental rights and freedoms to trade, fish, hunt, occupy, and harvest upon Anishinabek Territories (Or name the Indigenous Nation you are in if you are a Settler) in which I was removed, property taken and forcibly detained by the State enacting the Cannabis Act, Section 30 (1)(c), Section 121.1 (1) of the Criminal Code.

Mandates enacted under the Emergency Act have restricted me from travel, work, trade, hunting, harvesting and subject to medical experimentation via vaccination mandates where application of this enactment happed on ( date by these agencies). I was restricted for exercising my rights by the Police and am now further held in servitude to play the role of the artificial person by the Crown Attorney in this matter.

The Crown Attorney is holding me in servitude to a foreign Monarchy and Government by applying said enactments listed in this document that restrict my Human Rights; Where such enactments have been created under the 1867 British North America Act, the Constitution Act 1867 by a foreign government and monarchy which recognizes and affirms the unlawful and illegal jurisdiction of said foreign government and monarchy over CANADA and its citizens.

The Crown Attorney is holding me in servitude to play the role of the legal person by

applying the 1930 British North America Act- Natural Resources Transfer Act which limits

and restricts my Human Rights. I was restricted in my right to hunt, trade, work, harvest,

and or occupy Anishinabek Lands. These Lands were never ceeded in any Treaty with

Canada or the Provinces.

The Following is the legal basis for the Constitutional Question:

(Set out concisely the legal basis for each question, identifying the nature of the constitutional principles to be argued.)

Vital Statistics Act 9 (1)

The Crown Attorney in this matter is holding me in servitude to play the role of the artificial person created by the Vital Statistics Act 9 (1) Birth Certificate registration. I am a living being as per the Statement of Live Birth. This court is legally obligated to administer justice under it’s inherent jurisdiction to hear this matter under the common law jurisdiction in respect to the rule of law as stated by;.

The Interpretation Act: Duality of legal traditions and application of provincial law;

8.1 Both the common law and the civil law are equally authoritative and recognized

sources of the law of property and civil rights in Canada;

Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990

Common law defences

80. Every rule and principle of the common law that renders any circumstance a justification or excuse for an act or a defence to a charge continues in force and applies in respect of offences, except in so far as they are altered by or inconsistent with this or any other Act.

Jonsson v Lymer

The Court of Appeal of Alberta decided that vexatious litigant orders should only be used in the most extreme cases, where there has been a clear pattern of

previous abuse by the litigant. The Court also pointed out that there are a number of other more appropriate procedural techniques (such as case management interventions by a judge) to make sure litigation is conducted fairly.

Ontario Court of Justice Act

- 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

Vincent v. Ottawa (City), 2007 (ON SC)

- (10) The Charter therefore does not bestow upon the court jurisdiction it previously

Lacked. It does, however, grant rights not previously enshrined, which may be enforced by Courts of competent jurisdiction having powers acquired independent of the charter.

(25) The Superior court of Justice has all the jurisdiction, power and authority historically exercised by courts of common law and equity

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.

Board v. Board (1919), 48 D.L.R. 13 at pp. 17-8, [1919] A.C. 956, [1919]

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.

The Supreme Court of Canada on S. 24(2) 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.

Thomson Newspapers Ltd v. Canada (Director of Investigation and Research

- While Individuals as a rule have full legal capacity by the operation of law alone, artificial persons are creatures of the state and enjoy civil rights and powers only upon the approval of statutory authorities.

The particularity of corporate privacy interests was discussed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906), at pp. 74‑75:

“The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights. He owes no duty to State, since he receives nothing there from, beyond protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”

Divito v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 47

- 22- Canada’s international obligation and relevant principles of international law are also instructive in defining the right: The content of Canada’s international human rights

obligations is, in my view, an Important indicia of the meaning of “the full benefit of the

Charter’s protection”. I believe that the Charter should generally be presumed to provide protection at least as great as that afforded by similar provisions in international human rights documents which Canada has ratified.

R. v. Hynes 1999 18979 (NL CA)

83) Prior to the Charter’s advent, the individual really had no special means of protecting against incursions upon his or her basic fundamental rights by executive or legislative arm of the state.

84) Respect of the rule of law, upon which, as W. Ivor Jennings in his text entitled The Law and the Constitution (University of London Press, 4th ed. ) points out at p.42, hinges the existence of public order, mandated compliance with directives and ordinances even if they infringed upon individual fundamental rights and freedoms.

A primary purpose of the Charter was to change this relationship of the individual with the state and its laws by endowing individuals with an effective means of challenging acts of the state in courts on the ground of violation of their constitutionally protected rights and freedoms.

R. v. Wagner, 2015 ONCI 66

The “rule of law” not only finds itself in the preamble of the Charter of Rights, its spirit is manifested throughout the document.

The idea that there are certain fundamental unwritten principles that govern all members of society, including legislators and which judges are expected to enforce is not particularly new.

The United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights

- Article 4, No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

2 (d) Freedom of Association, which includes the freedom of not being associated as a class of person.

Criminal Code of Canada, Section 430(1)(c)

This court is legally obligated to administer justice under it’s inherent jurisdiction as a court, to apply this matter under the common law jurisdiction in respect to the rule of law.

The Crown Attorney is holding me in servitude to play the role of the legal person by application of Section 430 (1) (c) Every one commits mischief who wilfully (d) obstructs, interrupts or interferes with any person in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property and dealing with this matter under Civil Jurisdiction. I was exercising my Human Rights to occupy and or harvest on Anishinabek Territory. This court is obligated to administer justice under it’s inherent jurisdiction as a court, to apply this matter under the common law jurisdiction in respect to the rule of law as stated by;