The distinction between civil rights, which means ‘the basic right to be free from unequal treatment, based on certain characteristics which we deem important, like race, gender, nationality, citizenship and disability,’ and civil liberties, which are typically enshrined in most societies for example, ‘basic freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights or interpreted through the years by courts and lawmakers.’ For most of us, then, when we talk about our ‘rights,’ we’re really talking about our ‘liberties.’
The phrase “rule of law” is relatively new. It does not appear in the US Constitution or the American Declaration of Independence, however, when the United Kingdom and the Domain of Canada enacted its Constitution in 1982, the phrase itself was included in the preamble, stating that “Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.”‘ The phrase “rule of law” has now entered common usage, becoming a part of popular parlance. All of us have seen this principled sounding phrase emerge and be used (and misused) time and again.
Rule of Law is applied by authority of the Jurisdiction through domicile and territoriality, paramount to the Canadian rule of law is the treaties the Crown has signed with the Mohawk Peoples that preclude Canadian sovereignty and vehemently enshrined within its own existence. The paramount question concerning the application of Canadian domicile law onto the Mohawk Peoples has been dealt with in the restrictive covenant known commonly as the Two Row Wampum treaty and ethic.
Further understanding of the real misapplication of the Canadian charter and rule of law onto the Mohawk is reliant on the subsequent retarded effects, for example, through theoretical and ambiguous notions of superiority, the common canadian now fails to observe the honor of the crown and distinct Mohawk civil liberties. Additionally in reference to the application of the Charter, section 32, The purpose of this section is to make it clear that the Charter only applies to governments, and not to private individuals, businesses or other organizations. Since the Mohawk are not considered canadian citizens, or subject to the canadian jurisdiction, in theory and in all practicality they must be seen as an “Other Organization”
The Court of Chancery in 1883 rejected the concept of an Anglo-Chinese domicile, where Chitty J of the Court of Chancery stated that “There is no authority that I am aware of in English law that an individual can become domiciled as a member of a community which is not the community possessing the supreme or sovereign territorial power.” This was later endorsed by Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1888, in holding that “residence in a foreign country, without subjection to its municipal laws and customs, is therefore ineffectual to create a new domicile.”
The reasoning behind such decisions was never satisfactorily explained, and the House of Lords later held in 1918 that these rulings built on dicta were wrongly decided and were thus swept aside. In holding that domicile in a foreign State could be properly acquired in such circumstances, Lord Finlay LC declared:
“Before special provision was made in the case of foreigners resident in such countries for application to their property of their own law of succession, for their trial on criminal charges by Courts which will command their confidence, and for the settlement of disputes between them and others of the same nationality by such Courts, the presumption against the acquisition of a domicile in such a country might be regarded as overwhelming, unless under very special circumstances. But since special provision for the protection of foreigners in such countries has been made, the strength of the presumption against the acquisition of a domicile there is very much diminished.”
From the records of the Federal – Provincial Arbitrations (Unsettled Accounts Arbitration), Indian Claims, Robinson Treaties, Vol. 5, entered in the Department of Indian Affairs, January 12, 1897: The Hon. J.J. Curran, Q.C., Solicitor General for Canada:
‘We contend that these Treaties are governed by international, rather than, municipal law. They were made with the tribes under the authority of the Sovereign, and the faith of the nation was pledged in dealing with those annuities. The Crown is a trustee in those matters, and occupies a special relationship towards those Indians, and is bound is watch over their interests and enforce their rights and will not be allowed to set up its own laches as a defence against these claims. All these claims are safeguards in a manner that is quite a different manner from any claim that would arise between two subjects of Her majesty who might come before any Court to have their matter adjudicated upon.’
Note: Laches – failure to do a thing at the right time, is inexcusable negligence. (slackness, negligence or remissness)
A “law” is a rule that prohibits or permits certain acts. A rule is a norm, bar, maxim, measure or standard.
Every society since the beginning of civilization depended upon the consent of the people to one or more rules as laws. No matter how powerful a government through its institutions of military and intelligence and propaganda, it is an indisputable fact that none have survived when it is overwhelmingly clear the will and consent of the people to the rules of law ceases to be.
A “rule” may be derived by instruction, discovery, custom or consent.
(i) The highest law is Divine being a rule given by divine and original instruction, as nothing may contradict such a rule; and
(ii) The second highest law be the reason of Mind, being an edict given by a great council of wise elders or jurists, as nothing absurd and without good reason may be considered law; and
(iii) The third highest law be the law of the people, as the consent and will of the people is the source of true authority.
The weakest rule is that of a tyrant, as any rule without authority or right of heaven but merely by force, cannot be sustained and the people shall eventually overcome, and render such unjust rule and unjust laws as dust. This be the law of all great civilizations from the beginning of time, and no king or assembly or city has sustained in ignorance to such foundation.
Yet of all the rules and laws that have withstood the test of time and been present in all sustained civilizations it is the Golden Rule of Law: That all law is equal that no one is above it; and that All law is measured that all may learn and know it; and that All law is standard that it may always be applied the same.
A rule that is secret cannot be a law; and a rule that is unclear in meaning cannot be a law; and a rule that cannot be applied cannot be a law. For a rule may be written by sign or symbol, but only when spoken at a place of law is it law; and a law may be spoken, but only when it is comprehended and agreed is it justice.
All people of the same community, must be subject to the same rule of law; and all men and women of a community, are bound to live by the rule of law of the community. For no one may be accused except by rule of law; and no one may be punished except by rule of law; and a man or woman who are not taught how to comprehend a law, cannot be bound by it.
Where there is no justice, there is no law. Where there is no honor, there is no law. Any law that is against such truth, cannot be law.
Continuity of Wampum Law as the Supreme Law of the Land
Atl Law is an ancient oral equality system of law and language emerging from the Mesolithic Period (25,000 to 9,500 BCE) around the regions of Mexico, Central Americas, and the northern half of South America.
Atl law is named after the Atl indigenous of the Andes (Antis) Mountains and northern half of South America, otherwise known at the Atlanteans who believed their laws were passed down directly from flesh and blood higher order beings. Atl Law evolved into the foundation of the laws of MesoAmerican Civilizations (Olmec, Zapotex, Aztec and Maya), Andean Civilizations (Inca, Moche, Chibcha and Canaris) and the Great Plains Civilizations of North America such as Wampum Law.
As Atl law was never legitimately replaced, nor the people of North America, Central America or South America lawfully conquered within the physical realm, the law of the land has remained continuous and unbroken the Atl Law of the indigenous nations.
As Wampum Law descends from Atl Law and incorporates the laws and knowledge of its common ancestry with the peoples of Central America and South America, Wampum Law remains the unbroken legitimate system of law of the land of North America.
Paramountcy: Kaia’nare:kowa, Tekeni Teiohate’ Wateriwihse’aonhon, Tehontatenentsonterontahkhwa, Skaronheseko:wa Tsiokterakentko:wa
|wdt_ID||Application||Domain of Canada||United Kingdom||Kanien'kehá:ka (Mohawk)|
|48||Tekeni Teiohate’ Wateriwihse’aonhon||✔️||✔️||✔️|
|45||Royal Proclamation 1763||✔️||✔️||✖|
|41||British Nort American Act(s)||✔️||✔️||✖|
Additional contemplation of the scope of application of law
- Minutes: CANADIAN-Standing_Senate_Committee_on_Aboriginal_Peoples
- Article: Elections_Canada_Online-Electoral_Insight-Aboriginal_Participation_in_Elections
- By Order: RCAP-Looking_Forward_Looking_Back-e011188230-01
- By Order: RCAP-Restructuring_the_Relationship-e011188230-02
- By Order: RCAP-Gathering_Strength-e011188230-03
- By Order: RCAP-Percieved_Realities-e011188230-04
- By Order: RCAP-Renewal_A_Twenty-Year_Commitment-e011188230-05