The Tender For Law

Volume 9

Jan 25, 2015 3:41 AM

Michael Atkins

Why is there no discussion on Section 91.24? Section 91 is federal legislative authority. Number 24 is one of 29 items listed under Canadian authority. The other items include currency, banking, lighthouses, military, taxation, postal service etc. .24 Indians and lands reserved for indians. Three questions need to be answered. 1. What is an "indian". 2. Who gave canada authority to govern? 3. What is the amount held in trust from our lands under the indian act? And please keep the comments to the statement and the questions. We' re tired of hearing the same surrender treaty nonsense. Spirit and intent is lawyer jibberish meant to draw attention away from section 91.24.

is this one of the things it is too late to make a difference over from 1982 uk canada act?

Read Comments

Michael Atkins

Ok. So the strangers who make up the CROWN think I am an indian. They even have evidence of me acting in this capacity. Yes i have collected my 5 bucks on treaty day. Will a resignation disolve this? Or is that a whole a different level of joinder. ?

Michael Atkins

Craig Blacksmith13 hrs � Edited � Ho mitakuyapi. Something to ponder if ur interested. We were in court yesterday challenging Canadian jurisdiction. Comments have been made that in today's world we will never be given a fair trial because we carry around drivers licenses, status cards, pay bills, use Canadian money etc etc. Here's our position on this as Dakota Oyate. Yes we are in "their" court. Yes we carry around drivers licence, status cards etc. Our take on this is that the government gave them themselves authority over the indian July 1, 1867 when the constitution was passed. Included in their law was section 91 which is a unilateral (passing laws on their own) granting of federal authority. Currency, banking, taxation, marriage, divorce, postal service etc. These are all standard government authorities. What isn't standard is #24 on the list: Indians and lands reserved for indians. Keep in mind "Canada" at the time was on the east coast and along the north shores of the Great Lakes. It wasn't "Canada" as it is today. Our Dakota Oyate refused to surrender "sign treaty" so a refugee theory was established and other tribes signed away the western prairie provinces. Today, we have completely blown their fabricated history and exposed it as lies. In addition to this is the indian act which was passed into law in 1876. The indian act makes the "indian" in section 91.24 a legal permanent ward of the government. This why it states in the indian act that our lands are to be held in trust for our use and benefit with the federal government as trustee. (great white father) So as legal wards we are not bound by their laws outside of the indian act. We are not capable of administering ourselves so everything done, drivers licenses, registration, passports etc are all within this indian act for our benefit. Now as Dakota Oyate, we will not negotiate as "indians" today as was the case back in the 1860's. We have documented history of our alliance with the British and we see "Canada" as a creation of the British government not as a nation. The British are only sovereign on their lands. We are sovereign here. We will not enter into a treaty with a corporate entity which is what the British North America Act (Canada) is. We are in their court because it was the only way we could legally challenge jurisdiction. As the constitutional lawyer for canada states "no court has countenanced such an argument". If no court countenanced it, how can there be legal precedent. Canada cannot have it both ways. Either "indians" are wards (children, mentally incompetent, animals) with no legal responsibilities or "indians" are human beings that are being subjected to war crimes by stripping us of our humanity. Canada is not a sovereign nation. We are. Like � � Share 42 people like this. 11 shares Traci Braaten 12 hrs � Like Nic Leech Best wishes for this case.12 hrs � Like � 1 Nic Leech I would suggest a case based on being forced to use these forms of identification because to do anything else would once - and still could - be cited as revolutionary activities....with all the potential consequences. Under current geo-political circumstances, it could be considered as terrorism to refuse. - Ultimate hypocrisy. ...See More11 hrs � Like Larry Douglas Great work, craig. keep us informed.6 hrs � Like � 1 Write a comment...

Crystal Marie34 mins � Omg so just got up from a nap safe to say I'll b up all night Like � � Share Darren Sinclair Welcome to my world28 mins � Like Crystal Marie Aww muffin insomnia is my world 26 mins � Like Darren Sinclair Muffin insomniac22 mins � Like

Pete Daoust

Well, if ever CRA calls, ask the agent his/her name and drivers licence number, and his address.......and ask him/her his SIN number..... :D

See what he/she tells you, and do the EXACT same thing when someone ask you these same question :D