51.) THE "INDIAN ACT" IS DEAD. A very important legal precedent has just occurred. A Canadian Federal court has legally purviewed and cited as a point of law, the legal enforcement of the "United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples" (UNDRIP), while adjudicating the lawsuit: Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians vs. The Governor General of Canada and the Queen of England. (45 min. read )

 Not known if it had happened before, but on May 10, 2023, a Canadian Federal Court in session, adjudicating a lawsuit, while a Federal Judge was seated and listening to opening statements and arguments; a lawyer, as an "Officer of the Court", did say or utter the acronym UNDRIP, to explain and support his position to the court, citing UNDRIP as why it should be accepted by the court. The Judge also made the utterance of UNDRIP, while speaking on the argument. The judge was clarifying UNDRIP by what the lawyer was presenting to the Court, by referencing UNDRIP as law. Both judge and lawyer clarifying a legal argument, citing UNDRIP, as a point of law. The Federal Judge, without reservation, accepted the lawyers position of using UNDRIP as law, in support of his arguments. At that instance, the court made UNDRIP Federal Canadian Law.

UNDRIP means the: United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is also known as Bill C15.

A federal judge cannot legislate UNDRIP from the Bench. First, it is illegal, and second, it would be an impossible task to try to achieve this, during a lawsuit. All the while, trying to move the lawsuit along quickly. There is just too much information in UNDRIP to process within a court case and it is illegal. The only avenue feasible to put Canada's "action plan to achieve the objectives of the Declaration" in motion to implement UNDRIP/Bill C15, is for the Canadian government to "sit at the table." As the lawyer representing Canada in this lawsuit has already stated- Canada would rather "sit at the table", as the most desirable action and not go through this lawsuit.

Bill C15 is legally cited as UNDRIP.

Bill C15/UNDRIP defines "Declaration" as follows: "Declaration means the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples"

From Bill C15/UNDRIP- "Preamble: Whereas the Declaration is affirmed as a source for the interpretation of Canadian law;"

When something like the above legal precedent occurrs in a Federal Courtroom,  the utterance and acceptance of UNDRIP, by the court, the judge and the lawyers, gives way to the legal phrase of "opening the door" to all of UNDRIP.  "Opening the door", means all lawyers to the suit, have a right and duty to go in and use all of UNDRIP now. Which can only be done with "informed consent" of all the  indigenous parties involved in the suit. If lawyers for the parties in the suit, refuse to do that, or selectively use only parts of UNDRIP, or refuse to provide "informed consent" to their clients, who are parties to this lawsuit; it might very well be legal malpractice. And the lawyers would be violating UNDRIP and the oath they take, to become practicing lawyers. 

Also any lawyer would tell you, it would be impossible to give "informed consent" to all the parties in this lawsuit concerning all the aspects of UNDRIP as required under UNDRIP, while conducting a lawsuit. What has occurred, is considered a legal precident, and it would now follow, all of UNDRIP must be accepted and "enforced," as any other Federal Canadian legal statute or law, by all Federal Courts in Canada. And all Indigenous client parties in the lawsuit should have been informed of this, prior to the start of the case, not just the lawyers for the parties involved. But all the Indigenous people that are parties to the lawsuit, should have been informed of the use of UNDRIP and equipped with a full understanding of UNDRIP. That is legally referred to as "informed consent" as specified in UNDRIP. If all parties were informed of this except one, that would rightly be considered grounds for a mistrial or dismissal of the lawsuit.

This would not only mean an immediate end to the "Indian Act" being applicable in this federal court lawsuit, but in all courts. But also an end to all aspects of the "Indian Act", including for example- Haldiman Tract development, all lawsuits-including the one that this legal precedent has occurred, Hydro contract approval, etc..

How can the court selectively enforce two conflicting, and completely opposing acts such as the racist "Indian Act" and "UNDRIP" at the same time, in the same lawsuit? It would be "selective enforcement", just to begin with. And most certainly, the court would not be acting in Good Faith.

Now a word on "Selective Enforcement". Because of this legal precident made by a lawyer and a federal judge while Court was in session and legal arguments were being presented and heard, those legal actions mandate that all of UNDRIP must be accepted by all Canadian Federal Courts now and from this point forward. And the "Indian Act" is immediately eliminated, gone, dead. Yes, that means all sections of UNDRIP must now be recognized, exercised and enforced by the courts.  For the court to now selectively choose what parts of UNDRIP or the "Indian Act" it wants to use or not use, to enforce or not to enforce, is called "Selective Enforcement".

And SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT is illegal.

And the use of UNDRIP or both UNDRIP and the "Indian Act" is illegal in this lawsuit, as there has been no legislation or laws passed by the Canadian Parliament to enact such a process or how to interpret and use UNDRIP itself, or use UNDRIP and the "Indian Act" at the same time. 

And Bill C15/UNDRIP has not been brought into legal legislation by Canada, starting first with revealing publicly, Canada's "action plan to achieve the objectives of the Declaration"- BillC15/UNDRIP. And only then can legislation for laws begin. So how can the courts be using UNDRIP as law now? A legal quandary, front and center. But only one of many.

And under UNDRIP, as only one example of many, the "Indian Act" is in violation of the PREAMBLE. Where the PREAMBLE clearly states: "Whereas all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating the superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic, or cultural differences, including the doctrines of discovery and terra nullis, are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust." Clearly the "Indian Act", and the plaintiff in this lawsuit, fall completely within the confines of the Preamble's jurisdictional legal definition.

Old laywer saying- if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

This means the "Indian Act" and the Plaintiff in this lawsuit, are entities defined by UNDRIP's jurisdictional legal definition as being: "racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust." 

The "Indian Act-elected band council" of Six Nations, falls completely within UNDRIP's jurisdictional legal definition, because the "Indian Act-elected band council" was created by the Indian Act.

The "Indian Act-elected band council" of Six Nations "is racist, scientifically false, legally and valid morally condemnable and socially unjust."

This could quite possibly mean that everything in this Court case up to now, will have to be readjudicated, case dismissed or mistrial. If the case continues, it will have to be readjudicated from the start, with all of UNDRIP presiding over the lawsuit, or remainder of the lawsuit if it continues, ditching completely the "Indian Act", right from the beginning of the lawsuit. Or could the court have already done this, letting the lawyers know, without telling all the parties involved in the lawsuit. Again, this could be grounds for a mistrial or dismissal. 

Again, mistrial means it would have to be decided if the case could be retried, with UNDRIP front and center and the court mandating the enforcement of UNDRIP in its entirety, in all aspects and decisions by the court, regarding this lawsuit. The "Indian Act" would have to be completely eliminated from the court case, as it now, no longer exists. 

In the event of summary dismissal, the case cannot be refiled. "You get one bite of the apple", as the legal phrase goes.

But that would be putting the horse before the cart. As Canada has not yet revealed its "action plan to achieve the objectives of the Declaration"-UNDRIP. This has to happen first, only then can legislation to create laws regarding UNDRIP, occur. 

How can the plaintiff even have legal grounds to file or refile the lawsuit, as they were created forcibly and solely by the "Indian Act," at the end of a gun. This makes the plaintiff "poison fruit of the poison tree"-as you cannot benefit from a past bad deed. The "Indian Act" was displaying Canadian colonialism to the world, for over 140 years. Its how Canada deals with the Indigenous People of Canada. This type of vile and heinous "Indian Act" colonialism, is the reason why UNDRIP was created. To do away with this vile and heinous colonialism that pervades the world. 

And was it under the "Indian Act" or UNDRIP, that the plaintiff was given legal standing to begin and adjudicate this lawsuit? Can they proceed, only so long as the "Indian Act" is in force? Do you see the seeming endless questions that arise out of this legal precedent, that must be answered, before the case can proceed. If it can proceed.

Because what is really happening in this lawsuit, is the plaintiff- a Department of the Canada government, is suing the Canadian government, under the guise of the racist "Indian Act", for illegal acts that the Indian Act mandated. The Indian Act was never intended to be used this way. And using the judge's selective enforcement and interpretation of UNDRIP, without any Canadian Parliament guidance. All of this goes against the spirit and Good Faith of UNDRIP, which was one of the main purposes for the United Nations to create UNDRIP in the first place.

A Federal judge illegally legislating Canada's "action plan to achieve the objectives of the Declaration"- Bill C15/UNDRIP, in a courtroom during a lawsuit, is not acceptable as Canada's "action plan to achieve the objectives of the Declaration". Bill C15/UNDRIP" is now being used to go against the Indigenous Peoples of Canada, not for the Indigenous Peoples of Canada. It is a violation of UNDRIP.

Whatever decisions that this judge comes to in this lawsuit, this judge is going to have to explain and clarify in open court, each and every one of those decisions. Was it (1) a decision based on selective section(s) or all of the "Indian Act", or was it (2) a decision based on selective section(s) or all of UNDRIP, or was it (3) a decision based on selective selection(s) or all of both. All of which, a reasonable person would say is impossible, illegal and immoral. Violating the very spirit and purpose of UNDRIP.

Canadian courts can only enforce Canadian laws. Canadian courts cannot create laws. Only the parliament of Canada can legislate to create laws. And the Canadian courts must enforce those legislated laws that the Parliament has passed. Canada has not yet even revealed its "...action plan to achieve the objectives of the Declaration"-Bill C15/UNDRIP, let alone passed laws on the Declaration. Let alone the legislation needed to make it workable law. In this court case, the court may very well be making laws of its own creation. Thereby creating new Canadian law, as the lawsuit progresses, according to (1), (2) or (3) of the above paragraph.

Look for Canadian lawyers to try to say this doesn't apply. That Bill C15 is a big unknown right now. What happened in Canadian Federal court on May 10, 2023, is that UNDRIP/ Bill C15 is no longer a big unknown to the courts. It's being used as law in a current lawsuit. The judge in that lawsuit has given it legal purview. Bill C15 can be legally cited as UNDRIP. The judge in this lawsuit gave UNDRIP a legal purview, by allowing UNDRIP to be uttered, used as law and entered into the court record as law. It is now a legal mandate to use all of UNDRIP. And the "Indian Act" cannot be used at the same time, as it is completely contrary to UNDRIP, and illegal under UNDRIP.

Definition of "Purview": The body or enacting part of a statute. A statute is a law.

A motion must be made in this lawsuit to draw attention to this legal precident. And the legal quandaries that it has precipitated. To not make a motion like this, could very well be legal malpractice and perhaps grounds for dismissal or mistrial of the lawsuit. Meaning the case would have to be completely dropped, or decided if it could be started all over again.

The lawsuit in which this legal precident occurred, was: Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians versus the Governor General of Canada and the Queen of England.

This raises a myriad of legal questions. The Six Nations "Indian Act-elected band council" as the plaintiff in this case, did not have legal standing to adjudicate this lawsuit, under the "Indian Act". So was it given that right illegally under UNDRIP? As it certainly doesn't have the legal standing to adjudicate or continue this lawsuit under UNDRIP, either.  Would it not follow that the Six Nation "Indian Act-elected band council" does not have legal grounds to stand on, to continue or refile a lawsuit under UNDRIP? How can the Six Nation "Indian Act-elected band council" exist in UNDRIP, if UNDRIP declares and defines the "Indian Act- elected band Council" as "racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust"? The "Indian Act-elected band council" can only exist within the "Indian Act". How can the "Indian Act-elected band council" continue the lawsuit, if there is no longer an "Indian Act"? See court case: Isaac v. Davey. This is only the beginning of a swarm of unanswered questions that this legal precident in federal court has raised. 

And if I remember correctly, Isaac v. Davey appeals decision, basically says that: if there is an "Indian Act", then elected band council is the legal governing body of Six Nations. If there is no "Indian Act", then the Hereditary Chiefs of Six Nations are the legal governing body of Six Nations.

What happened on May 10, 2023 was the complete and legal elimination of the "Indian Act". So according to the Isaac v. Davy appeals decision, the Hereditary Chiefs of Six Nations are now the legal governing body of Six Nations.

It appears as though the court is conducting an experiment with this lawsuit. This court and this lawsuit, now "has the appearance of impropriety". The experimenting with UNDRIP and the "Indian Act" is also experimenting with the lives and future of all the Six Nation People, the Children and the future generations of the coming faces of Six Nations. All hanging in the balance, as if Indigenous People were not human beings. 

This is heinous, vile and totally unacceptable colonialism, put into motion by Canadian courts and the Canadian government.

A reasonable person would say, it would be legal malpractice of all officers of this court, to continue this case, even with entering into the court record, the legal status of UNDRIP and the "Indian Act". How can all legal parties involved in this lawsuit proceed without "informed consent" and clear direction from the court as to follow either UNDRIP, the "Indian Act" or both. 

Just what is going on in this court case? 

Maybe it is the Court's intention to use UNDRIP when there is no legal guidance to define it by. The court could cite UNDRIP in any number of ways, that are not in the spirit of UNDRIP, leaving only years in Appeals Court, to try and get UNDRIP's true meaning adjudicated for Six Nations People, the Children, and the future generations of the coming faces of Six Nations.

It is not saying that this is what the court will do, it is saying this is why a court must not  let a situation like this, occur, in the first place. Interestingly, this is all happening just before Canada will accept UNDRIP by its deadline on June 21st, 2023. And will begin to legislate guidelines on how UNDRIP will be enforced and used in the courts as law. But not in time for use in this court, when this lawsuit will probably be finished before then. A reasonable person would say conveniently for Canada.

Or have all the lawyers been informed of this, but the indigenous client parties involved have not?

It would appear that only the lawyers of all the parties involved and the judge, are the only ones who understand what's really going on in this lawsuit. It would seem that one or more of the parties involved in the lawsuit are purposefully and completely disconnected from this court case. And it would seem to a reasonable person, that the lawyers and judge, are quickly moving towards an apparent pre-determined end, and using the parties involved as pawns to get there, before the parties realize what is happening. That the court case is simply a staged show for the parties involved, to have them believe they are actually getting justice and their arguments considered . The court case is simply "the carrot at the end of the stick" to get the parties hurriedly, to the apparent pre-determined end. This would be a miscarrinage of justice. And against everything Bill C15/UNDRIP stands for. Is the lawsuit being quickly adjudicated to its end before June 21st 2023 when Canada will presented its "action plan"?

All of these are reasonable assumptions, given the legal precedent that has occurred in this courts legal jurisdiction. And given Canada's heinous and vile history of "Indian Act" colonialism.

Remember an excerpt from Article 10.) Stealing Indian human rights- a 1958 Memo from a worker in the Department of Indian affairs: "... Consult the indian, but do not act on the basis of what you hear: tell the Indian he has a voice and go through the motions of listening. Then interpret what you have heard to suit your own needs" Gerry Gambill- 1958, Department of Indian Affairs.

Remember Canada's opening statement in this court case, that they would prefer not to go through a lawsuit, but instead would prefer to "sit at the table". This now seems the only viable option, as it now appears this court case may has been bollixed beyond recovery.

Now a word on UNDRIP- is it the same as Bill C15? The answer is yes, the only difference is that there were alterations to UNDRIP to make Bill C15 applicable to Canada. These alterations are peripheral and do not change the meat and potatoes of UNDRIP. 

Bill C15 was given Royal Assent on June 21st, 2021. In that Royal Assent, Bill C15 states that it can be cited as UNDRIP.

The title page of Royal Assent, Bill C15 is as follows: "Second Session, Forty-third Parliament, 69-70, Elizabeth II, 2020-2021. STATUTES OF CANADA 2021. Chapter 14. An act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Assented to June 21st, 2021, Bill C15. SUMMARY: this enactment provides that the government of Canada must take all measures necessary to ensure that the laws of Canada are consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and must prepare and implement an action plan to achieve the objectives of the Declaration." 

More from Bill C15: "Short Title- This act may be cited as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act." 

Further under Bill C15: "Definitions: DECLARATIONS- means the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations as General Assembly Resolution 61/295 on September 13th, 2007 and that is set out in the schedule."

The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, being the definition of the acronym UNDRIP, is in fact Bill C15. And BillC15 is in fact UNDRIP. Don't let anyone try to tell you otherwise.

Definition - acronym: a word formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or major parts of a composed term.

Now, from the time of Royal Assent, June 21st, 2021, Canada must first.present their "action plan to achieve the objectives of the Declaration", within two years after Royal Assent, which will be this June 21, 2023. Canada to date, has not yet first presented this "action plan" publicly, as required within two years. It has until June 21st, 2023.

Could this be Canada's "action plan", to quietly put Bill C15 into effect, eliminating the "Indian Act" or commingling UNDRIP with the "Indian Act", during this lawsuit. 

This lawsuit is that important to Canadian government, that they must have control over it. Because if they can adjudicate this lawsuit before the "action plan" of UNDRIP begins, they will always have the upper hand in dealing with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy under UNDRIP. The Canadian government will contend that all will have been settled by the lawsuit, and all must abide by the Court's decision, not UNDRIP.

Or start the lawsuit with the "Indian Act" and blend with UNDRIP. Or just keep moving along with the lawsuit hoping nobody notices. All of this would allow the court to make all kinds of wild decisions of its own making. This is not to say that is what the court would do, but you cannot have a legal situation like this exist. And this legal precedent with all its conundrums, go completely against UNDRIP. Mixing and choosing, which parts of the "Indian Act" and UNDRIP the court chooses to use, no "informed consent", to get the court to its apparent pre- determined end, would be illegal. "Selective enforcement" is illegal, plain and simple.

There is now clear and undeniable proof of "the appearance of impropriety," in this lawsuit.

Again, has the court allowed the plaintiff to only legally exist in this court case under the "Indian Act"? How can the court also be citing UNDRIP at the same time? So many question pointing in the same undeniable direction- miscarriage of justice for the Indigenous People of Canada.

Remember and reread "Article 8.) Canada's 150 year plan to forcibly assimilate the Six Nation people, children and future generations of the Six Nations People, is in fact 'poison fruit or the poison tree'."

The end date of the 150 year plan to destroy the Six Nation people is 2025.

The current lawsuit would not have occurred without the Indian Act, as the current lawsuit was precipitated by the Indian Act. So you cannot use the Indian Act to adjudicate this lawsuit. 

How can the lawsuit still be valid in court this day, if the Indian Act is no longer valid in court this day. Legal conundrum after legal conundrum.

A reasonable person would say an outside United Nations legal advisor is necessary to intervene in this lawsuit to make determinations according to UNDRIP. And UNDRIP does provide for this, for situations just like this. Perhaps an international lawyer from Holland. As the Dutch are allies to the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. The Two Row Treaty.

The issue here about UNDRIP, is only one aspect of what's wrong with this court case moving forward. In fact if you read UNDRIP/Bill C15, this court case moving forward would fall under many violation of UNDRIP/ Bill C15. It is too complicated a document, to be hurried through a federal lawsuit, the way it is being done now. So complicated in fact, that a reasonable person, could not see how it could be used in this lawsuit, without, as just one example- "informed consent" of all parties involved. "Informed consent" is not for the lawyers and judge. It is for the Indigenous People. And getting "informed consent" for the indigenous parties could drag this lawsuit on for months of delays. It is just not practical or legal, to adjudicate UNDRIP this way in a lawsuit. It can only be done "at the table".

And "informed consent" can't even begin now, because Canada hasn't legislated laws as to how UNDRIP is going to be used. So there's no laws or direction right now, to get "informed consent" about UNDRIP. Maybe that's the way Canada wants it, so the court can do anything it wants to do with the lawsuit. UNDRIP was designed to prevent situations like this from occurring. But if Canada can get the lawsuit done before the "action plan" and implementation of UNDRIP, Canada will say all has been previously adjudicated through the courts prior to UNDRIP and therefore does not come under the jurisdiction of UNDRIP. Canada will say the Court's decision will be "grandfathered" in, as all indigenous parties in the lawsuit agreed to abide by the Court's decision and appeals, before UNDRIP. Canada's will say there is no recourse through UNDRIP now.

We're still waiting for Canada's to first publicly reveal its "action plan to achieve the objectives of the Declaration". Which must come before the legislation of laws, regarding UNDRIP, which are necessary to give legal guidance to the courts on how to proceed with UNDRIP. That is what the courts do not have now, laws to give legal guidance on how to legally proceed with UNDRIP.

Again, "informed consent" is a crucial part of Bill C15/UNDRIP. There has been no "informed consent" in this lawsuit and there cannot be "informed consent" in this lawsuit, as previously described. Also, UNDRIP is just too complicated an issue for any court venue, as the court cannot legislate laws. All must now be done "at the table", as preferred by Canada. There is no other way to proceed.

From UNDRIP/Bill C15 "Article 45: Nothing in this Declaration may be construed as diminishing or extinguishing the rights of indigenous peoples have now or may acquire in the future."

But that's exactly what the continuation and decisions of this lawsuit will do.

These are only a few examples of the numerous violations of UNDRIP, that this court case has, as it knowingly tramples on the Good Faith, that Canada is supposed to have, to implement UNDRIP/Bill C15.

This is how Bill C15 is being introduced to the Indigenous People of Canada. This is one of the tactics, of how Canada is going to use Bill C15 to forcefully assimilate Indigenous Peoples. How else can it be taken, given Canada's heinous and vile history of "Indian Act" colonialism.? Again, a clear violation of UNDRIP.

Remember Canada's 1923 reply to the League of Nations regarding Levi General's "The Redman's Appeal for Justice". In this Canadian government's 1923 reply, after giving a purview of the Indian Act, the Canadian government clearly states on page 16, the following: "The ultimate aim of the Government is to fit the indians for full citizenship."

The Canadian government is now going to use Bill's C15/UNDRIP to achieve what is still the government's mandated goal of- "The ultimate aim of the government is to fit the indians for full citizenship."

The Canadian Government is simply substituting Bill C15/UNDRIP for the "Indian Act" in this court case, to achieve what is still the government's madated goal of- "The ultimate aim of the government is to fit the indians for full citizenship". All in complete violation of the spirit and legal intention of Bill C15/UNDRIP, as set forth by the United Nations.

Shame on you Canada. The world is watching.