The first affidavit ('Affidavit') was part of an emergency application made some days before the September 12 Supreme Court hearing, seeking to halt the impending RCMP action until the constitutional question could be heard. It was not heard by the court, which simply put it over to be dealt with along with the other matters on the September 12 date.
The second affidavit ('Supplemental Affidavit') was filed in support of the other matters, which were heard and dismissed by the court at what now appears to be the "hoax" hearing heard on the 12th.]
XSOGIMLAHXA, applying on his own behalf and on behalf of all the members of the HOUSE OF XSGOGIMLAXA
Applicant, Appellant, Plaintiff,AND:
DELGAMUUKW, also known as Earl Muldoe, suing on his own behalf and on behalf of all the members of the HOUSES OF DELGAMUUKW and HAAKW, (and others suing on their own behalf and on behalf of thirty-eight GITKSAN HOUSES and twelve WET'SUWET'EN HOUSES as shown in Schedule 1 to the Order made herein by Lamer C.J. and dated July 11, 1994).
Respondants, Appellants, Plaintiffs,AND:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN in right of the PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA and the ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA,
Respondents, Respondents, Defendant and Intervener
1. I am legal assistant to counsel for the applicant herein.
2. Loss of life is probable in the absence of the requested relief.
3. The requested relief is an order enjoining the RCMP against mounting a preemptive raid on the armed Indian encampment at Gustafsen Lake pending the resolution of the constitutional question whether the assumption by the RCMP of jurisdiction over the Indians prima facie is ultra vires, treasonable and fraudulent and, arguably, genocidal.
4. For constitutional law and international law purposes the land, the Indians and the legal issue at Gustafsen Lake are the same as the land, the Indians and the legal issue involved in this appellant's motion to state a constitutional question in the case of Delgamuukw v. AGBC.
SWORN BEFORE ME at the city of Ottawa, in the Region Municipality
of Ottawa-Carleton, in the Province of Ontario,
this ? (illegible) day of September, 1995
I, Margaret Clark, legal assistant, of Ottawa MAKE OATH AND SAY:
1. This affadavit is given further to my affadavit dated 5 September 1995 accompanying the notice of motion for an injunction herein.
2. I am advised and do verily believe that in the early morning hours of this day Indian(s) protesting police jurisdiction were shot and killed by police at or near Kettle Point, Ontario on the eastern shore of Lake Huron in the Province of Ontario.
3. Police jurisdiction relative to the said Kettle Point was placed in issue by the hereditary chief Shaukeens in an action in Federal Court of Canada brought by him against Canada for a declaration of jurisdictional right.
4. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in respect of the peremptory (without addressing either the case of Mohegan Indians v. Conneticut or the constitutional common law as affirmed by the Royal Proclamation of 1763) dismissal by the courts below of the said action was denied 6 July 1995 on the ground the issue was of no importance.
5. That denial was one of a set of denials in a joint application by Indians and Indian supporters from Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia, in respect of which set a joint application for leave to appeal from the Supreme Court's denials is now pending in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (UK). [In the original affidavit] A copy of the said application is annexed as Exhibit "A".
6. On reasonable and probable grounds I have to swear that the above mentioned death(s) are the reasonable and probable consequence of the aforesaid denials of leave by the Supreme Court of Canada, which denials were made in bad faith by Judges who themselves are in a conflict of interest relative to the said jurisdictional issue.
7. By refusing to address the legal issue of juridical jurisdiction the Supreme Court of Canada effectively ordered the police throughout Canada to continue assuming, as they have been doing, that they have jurisdiction relative to land that arguably has not "been ceded to or purchased by Us" within the meaning of the Royal Proclamation of 1763. But that constitutional instrument prima facie renders such assumption ultra vires and criminal: to wit, the crimes "Misprision of Treason" and "Fraud".
8. Since at law a person is presumed to have intended the reasonable and probable consequences of his actions, and since judicial immunity from prosecution is waived by article IV of the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948, the Judges of the Supreme Court of Canada who denied leave to appeal in relation to legal issues of juridical jurisdiction prima facie are subject to prosecution for "complicity in genocide" contrary to articles ii(a) and (b) and iii(e) of the said convention.
9. More deaths, whether Indian or police, are probable unless the Supreme Court of Canada grants the injunction requested in the present proceedings.
10. For although the said injunction on its face will apply only to lands directly in issue in the case of Delgamuukw v. Attorney General of British Columbia nevertheless the principle of jurisdictional law is common to all lands across Canada "which not having been ceded to or purchased by Us" from the Indians "are reserved to the Indians, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds". Upon such lands the express, clear and plain constitutional injunction is that the Indians "should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession" by any Governor, Commander in Chief, Judge or any underling in the employ of the crown.
11. The legal point of the above mentioned Mohegan case is that the non-native domestic courts have no jurisdiction over the question whether any given disputed tract of land "has been ceded to or purchased by Us." Queen Anne apparently agreed with the Mohegan's submission that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done and, correspondingly, that since there was a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the domestic courts that therefore juridical jurisdiction ought to be vested exclusively in an independent and impartial third party tribunal, namely the special permanent constitutional court created by her upon the recommendation of her Attorney General Lord Northey and her Imperial Privy Council.
12. When the injunction in these proceedings has been granted it is reasonable and probable to calculate that the several provincial Attorneys General in Canada will hesitate hereafter to order or to allow the police to raid protesting Indian encampments pending the overdue resolution of the underlying jurisdictional issue in accordance with the rule of law.
13. Exhibit "B" [attached to the original affidavit] is the affidavit delivered by the lawyer for the respondent the Attorney General of British Columbia in the present Delgamuukw appeal. That affidavit is correct when it states that the issue of juridical jurisdiction was not raised before and hence could not have been decided by the courts below in the said Delgamuukw case. Indeed, that was precisely the traditional Indians' legal point in all of the cases in respect of which leave to appeal was denied by the Supreme Court of Canada as described above. Even so, in each of those cases the courts below held either that the Indians' allegation of "no jurisdiction" was scandalous and would not be listened to on its merits or, alternatively, that the issue was precluded by the decision in the said Delgamuukw case (even though as now admitted by the Attorney General that issue was not even raised in the Delgamuukw case) or, further in the alternative, that the issue was of such momentous importance to Canada that only the Supreme Court of Canada could make the declaration of law requested.
14. It is legally impossible for a submission of law to be both true and scandalous, for if the submission is true it necessarily follows that it is the conduct of the courts, the lawyers and the police that is the scandal, not the truthful allegation.
15. As stated in the affidavit delivered in support of XSGOGIMLAHXA'S application regarding the underlying jurisdictional issue, the reason the issue was not raised in the said Delgamuukw case, in spite of the Indians' instructions to assert native sovereignty, was because the Indians' lawyers like the Judges are in the same conflict of interest relative to the crucial issue. That is, if the Indians' legal point is well taken then it follows that members of the Law Societies have themselves prematurely, treasonably, fraudulently and genocidally have invaded and occupied the lands "which not having been ceded to or purchased by Us" from the Indians "are reserved to the Indians, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds".
16. In virtue of Exhibit "B" the Attorney General of British Columbia is arguing in affidavit form that, even if the Indians as alleged by XSGOGIMLAHXA's were defrauded by their lawyers into relinquishing their Indian jurisdiction by attorning to the jurisdiction of the non-native domestic court system, now those Indians, or at least some of them, should be stopped from exposing the fraud in which the lawyers and the judges are the historic accomplices. Such an argument is base, corrupt and inadmissable.
17. In Exhibit "B" the Attorney General of British Columbia argues in affidavit form that "there is no connection between the RCMP at Gustafsen Lake and the main [Delgamuukw] action". That allegation is chicanery in aid of treason, fraud and genocide. It is made, not for the lawful purpose of upholding the rule of law, but rather, for the illegal purpose of evading the law that exposes the ongoing crimes in progress of the Canadian legal establishment, its lawyers, judges, police and underlings. The constitution is simple, the evasion of it complex. The constitution says all land in Canada prima facie is reserved for the Indians until such time as the crown can prove it has purchased the land from the Indians. It makes no difference whatsoever that the land be at Gustafsen Lake, the eastern shore of Lake Huron, the Moise River in Quebec, the foothills of Alberta the Lake Temagami region of Ontario, or any where else. The constitutional common law as affirmed by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 expressly, clearly and plainly precludes non-native domestic jurisdiction "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...or any of them." The Mohegan precident precludes the domestic legal establishment judging in its own interest the arising issue whether any particular land in fact is "still reserved".
18. The Attorney General's affidavit, Exhibit "B", seeks to suborn the Supreme Court of Canada into perpetuating the above indentified treason, fraud and genocide by willfully blinding itself to existing law upon the basis of a transparent pretext. Aside from the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada is already a party to the said treason, fraud and genocide, the subornation would be unthinkable. The duty of the Supreme Court is to prefer the public's interest in the whole truth as the basis for the rule of law, over the conflicting interest of the legal establishment in concealing and continuing its own crimes.
SWORN BEFORE ME at Ottawa, Ontario, this 7th day of September 1995
Margaret Clark (signature)
DH McGuire Barrister and Solicitor
A commissioner etc.