A brief summary of the legal battles-in-progress presently being waged by Tthowgwelth to force the Canadian courts to address and respect section 109 of the Canadian constitution which enacts that crown title is “subject to” Indian title rather than the other way round as is assumed by the legal profession and judiciary in Canada:

  1. Tthowgwelth and Toanunck v. Supreme Court of Canada and Supreme Court of the USA. Dated and delivered March 1, 2006, in the Civil Court First Hall, Malta. Seeks a declaration of jurisdictional law alone that the Supreme Court of Canada (and of the USA) is obliged by the rule of law to address rather than ignore section 109 (and its USA constitutional counterpart article ii, section 2, paragraph 2, clause 1) on the ground the continuing refusal to do so intentionally inflicts “serious bodily or mental harm” contrary to article 2(b) of the convention to prevent and punish the crime of genocide. The Malta court’s jurisdiction is based upon two recent developments. In 2004 United States Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas recognized the US constitution’s counterpart to Canada’s section 109 renders the whole of federal Indian law an unconstitutional infringement of Indian sovereignty. In 2005 in a case brought before it by the Guatemalan indigenous person Rigoberta Menchu the Constitutional Court of Spain recognized the universal extraterritorial jurisdiction of all constitutional courts to prevent and punish the “judicial inactivity” of their counterparts if it amounts to aiding and abetting genocide. Malta is an English-speaking jurisdiction with the same jurisdiction as a co-member with Spain in the European Union. The first hearing was held March 28, 2006.

  2. Tthowgwelth and Toanunck v. Supreme Court of Canada and Supreme Court of the USA. Dated and delivered March 1, 2006, in the Supreme Court of New York and the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Both cases append the Malta court application and ask these North American courts to address the constitutional law they have been ignoring with genocidal consequence, without waiting to be told to do so by the Malta court or by the European Court of Human Rights on appeal from the Malta court if it comes to that.

  3. Tthowgwelth v. National Energy Board of Canada. Dated and delivered March 16, 2006. Appends the Malta application and the British Columbia application and asks the NEB to stay the proceedings before it in relation to the Mackenzie Gas Project and the Enbridge Gateway Project on the ground the NEB is a court and no court can proceed with a hearing unless and until it can identify a constitutional basis justifying its assumption of jurisdiction. On March 30, 2006, the NEB refused to consider the question. On April 11, 2006, Tthowgwelth’s appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal shall be delivered.

  4. Tthowgwelth v.International Criminal Court in the matter of its first prosecution of United Nations v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo of the Congo for the war crime of using children as soldiers. Dated and delivered March 24, 2006. Seeks a stay of proceedings unless and until the issue of genocide in North America is first addressed, on the ground the rule of law based upon equal application can not be seen to function when the mighty get away with major and massive genocide at home while prosecuting breaches abroad.

Tthowgwelth’s legal argument is that the Canadian legal profession and judges knowingly and intentionally are committing genocide rather than address section 109 of the Canadian constitution because they are in a profound conflict of interest due to the historical fact they massively, methodically and systemically have certified and upheld private titles as being “good and marketable” even though such titles trace only so far back as Public Lands Act patents that are unsupported by an enabling cession and purchase of the constitutionally-entrenched and protected indigenous national “Interest” within the meaning of Section 109. All of Canada constitutionally is “reserved” under section 109 against disposition under any provincial Public Lands Act unless and until an enabling treaty of cession and purchase is proven to have been made under the authority of section 91(24) between the national government of Canada and the national indigenous government of whatever territory is in question. Like the Public Lands Act the Indian Act is not applicable to constitutionally-reserved land still “subject to” the indigenous national “Interest” within the meaning of section 109, but rather is applicable only to ceded land subsequently “set apart for a particular band.”

Back to SIS