kisikawpimootewin - an exercise in Internet Archaelogy

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

For quite some time I have been very curious about the back story to a brief judgment from the Canadian Federal Court:

• kisikawpimootewin v. Canada, 2004 FC 1426: http://canlii.ca/t/1j246

It’s not a long judgment, but is, to say the least, quirky. The full style of cause helps illustrate that:

kisikawpimootewin, Sentient human being, Heir, Successor as Signatory of a separate and distinct Indigenous Peoples to Friendship Treaties (for the mutual benefits for trade and commerce), The Peace Treaties (to keep secure the trade and commerce), and Numbered Treaties (entrusting the Sovereign Territories to Her Majesty), made with Queen Victoria, Her Heir(s) and Successor(s) as Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heir(s), Successor(s) and Predecessor(s)

Plaintiff

- and -

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA, Her Majesty's Loyal sworn Officer(s) acting in Her Majesty's name

Defendant

What did kisikawpimootewin want? Well, that left Justice Snider stumped:

… It is plain and obvious that the Statement of Claim in this case discloses no reasonable cause of action for the following reasons:

1. The Defendant or Defendants are never identified beyond an all encompassing title of officer or officers of Her Majesty the Queen;

2. The Statement of Claim is very wordy and difficult to follow; there are large portions of it that have no relevance to any issue;

3. The language used is vague and overly inclusive;

4. There are no details about any of the events that comprise the allegations listed;

5. The Plaintiff claims protection under every Canadian provincial and federal law ever made and every international human rights law;

6. The list of types of damages claimed are not supported by any facts;

7. The relief requested, in a total amount of five billion dollars, is not based on any facts.

And when she asked for clarification, kisikawpimootewin simply added a new claim for breach of contract, $1 billion in damages (para. 10).

This leads (para. 9) to what has now become known as the Rule in kisikawpimootewin:

… The claim is vexatious in that the Defendant, if identifiable, is left both embarrassed and unable to defend itself. The Court is left with a proceeding so ill-defined that it is unable to discern an argument, or identify any specific material facts.

This was more recently restated in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 at para. 590 as:

... a court may ... strike a proceeding based on incomprehensible arguments and allegations, where the defendant is “left both embarrassed and unable to defend itself” and the court faces “a proceeding so ill‑defined that it is unable to discern an argument, or identify any specific material facts.”

kisikawpimootewin’s action was struck out, and the Crown was awarded $300 in costs: para. 15.

The Rule in kisikawpimootewin has become a popular mechanism in OPCA litigation for the Crown and others to simply point at documentation and say it is so hideously beyond comprehension that there is no point even trying to respond or amend that material into a useful form. For example, this approach was recently applied in Blackshear v. Canada, 2013 FC 590 to strike out the action by “‘Maitreya’ Isis Maryjane Blackshear, the Divine Holy Mother of All In/Of Creation’ and All Isis Nation Estates” (viewtopic.php?f=6&t=9342).

Needless to say, I was curious as to what kisikawpimootewin was all about, and a quick Google search led immediately to very strange website (http://signatoryindian.tripod.com/) ["signatoryindian"] which greets the viewer with a banner:

Welcome to kisikawpimootewin and group(s) website!

Under Construction!

Welcome to our open forum website!

All peoples are invited to participate and share their information and knowledge regarding the routing that has enslaved the Peoples of the world, enabling the corporations to destroy our food, water and air, upon the pretence of greed for the natural resource sand if left unchecked, will lead to the total extinction of all life on the planet.

The website itself is best viewed to be appreciated – to say it screams ‘eccentric’ is an understatement. And it’s filled with documents, dead-end links, court items and correspondence, all of which at first instance gave me no clue as to just what kisikawpimootewin was trying to do, why he/she deserved $5 billion, and also the identity of kisikawpimootewin him or herself. Further, it appears abandoned, untouched at from at latest 2005, a kind of virtual Pompeii, with its materials frozen in mid-development.

One thing I did quickly learn is that kisikawpimootewin had at least some contact or connection with Alberta-area OPCA litigants. The signatoryindian website is linked to a number of older Freeman-on-the-Land websites, and a number of early CERI (viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9261) document sets (http://allcreatorsgifts.blogspot.ca/200 ... chive.html)
(http://allcreatorsgifts.org/forumarc/32.html/)
(http://ecclesia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=407) refer to kisikawpimootewin. “minister” Belanger also links signatoryindian from his allcreatorsgifts website, but without explanation.

What follows is an attempt at internet archaeology – and I think the result is quite interesting. For one, it appears that the strategy kisikawpimootewin appears to have adopted is unique, or I suppose I should say in this context “sui generis”. Despite the apparently haphazard appearance of signatoryindian, the actual documents and corresponding litigation reveals a surprising level of aptitude for both legal research and writing, and takes us down some very odd legal avenues.

Last, I was curious as to just who kisikawpimootewin is/was, and the answer proved in its own way to be extremely quirky.

So I think the best way to start is to work through the signatoryindian website and try to evaluate what this is all about. In a way the website is well designed for that, as the bar on the left lists the important documents in chronological order.

First we have the two “Petition Of Right, NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW INCLUDING MONARCHS” documents. These are scans of 1627 and 1860 British legislation that permit a person to seek legal redress directly from the Monarch.

kisikawpimootewin tried to use this mechanism to file a claim directly to the Queen’s Privy Council For Canada (http://signatoryindian.tripod.com/id48.html). In brief, kisikawpimootewin demands the Monarch exercise her authority to make kisikawpimootewin immune from government authority and what is now the Indian Affairs department, give kisikawpimootewin back seized aboriginal lands and property and order he/she be left unmolested by state authorities. This is because the Indian Act provisions that permitted Indians to become “enfranchised” had been repealed in 1985.

So this is a good point to talk about the legal underpinnings of kisikawpimootewin’s scheme. Indians in Canada fall into one of two categories, “status” and “non-status” Indians. A “status” Indian is one whose relationship with the government is managed by an Indian Treaty. These Indians usually reside on Indian Reserves. Non-status Indians are ones who were “status” Indians, but who exercised a process, called “enfranchisement”, where the Indian gave up their Treaty rights in return for some cash and benefits. Afterwards non-status Indians are basically ordinary Canadian citizens (though that rule may be in flux, given some recent case law). The “enfranschisement” process was closed off in 1985 when the Indian Act provisions that allowed the process were repealed.

So – it would seem kisikawpimootewin is probably a non-status Indian, and believed that the repeal of the Indian Act enfranschisement process meant he/she could reclaim his/her lost Indian Treaty rights and property. Even further, it seems kisikawpimootewin believes he/she has no legal relationship at all with Canadian governments, and instead just Queen Elizabeth II.

Now here is another point where I was initially confused. kisikawpimootewin wrote to what was, for me, an entirely unfamiliar government body, the Queen’s Privy Counsel For Canada. This is an obsolescent appointed body whose original function was to advise the Monarch or his/her representative, the Governor General of Canada. The Privy Council basically now has nothing more than a ceremonial function, and appointments to that body are for honorary status purposes. The only thing the body still does is 'approves' things such as the legitimacy of Royal marriages. Presumably, kisikawpimootewin concluded this was the way to directly approach the Monarch.

Unsurprisingly, the Privy Counsel Office wrote back and said kisikawpimootewin ought to instead take the matter to the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs (http://signatoryindian.tripod.com/id50.html). kisikawpimootewin characterized this letter as “The response and refusal of the self-declared defacto GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL of the purported title CANADA.”

Undeterred, kisikawpimootewin now turns to the Courts, and files a Petition of Right in the Federal Court (http://signatoryindian.tripod.com/id51.html). This document has many unusual features – a one pound UK postage stamp on the front, red ink fingerprints, and demands the Respondent:

Deputy Attorney General For Canada Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heir(s) and Successor(s) loyal sworn Officer(s) appointed as COMMISSIONER(S) of the title CANADA and Her Majesty’s loyal sworn Office(s), The Loyal Deputy Attorney General For Her Majesty’s Trust Territory titled CANADA

enforce kisikawpimootewin’s Treaty rights and cough up 5 billion pounds.

This colourful document claims Canada is a “lawless state under Marshall LAW” governed by “the defacto GOVERNOR OF CANADA” under the War Measures Act 1914, whose misconduct has brought dishonour to the Monarchy. This is also the first mention of something that will later be of interest:

… further by the malicious hateful persecution(s) bestowed upon kisikawpimootewin as a Kaffir, evidenced in the Kaffir project and trial …

The damages are broken down into a bunch of headings, ranging from breach of contract, loss of privacy, to “malicious prosecution” and “hate prosecution”, which are apparently distinct.

The Federal Court refused to file this item, the clerk who responded noted the “Petition of Right” procedure was abolished in 1971, so please try filing your material in a valid way (http://signatoryindian.tripod.com/id52.html). kisikawpimootewin concludes this means the Federal Court is an Admiralty Court: “Federal Court Act declaring itself as an ADMIRALTY COURT.” (http://signatoryindian.tripod.com/id55.html), and writes the Queen to tell her of the wholesale treason of the unlawful Canadian governments and their leadership (http://signatoryindian.tripod.com/id53.html).

Undeterred, kisikawpimootewin now files a Statement of Claim (http://signatoryindian.tripod.com/id71.html) with the Federal Court – which that court accepts – even though it has the weird stamp and fingerprint ornamentation of the Petition of Right. This document expands on and shares much of the text of the Petition of Right, including the same remedies but now in Canadian dollars. It now names kisikawpimootewin as “Head of the family of the bear clan, and further a Heir and Successor of sentient Human being(s) of sovereign separate and distinct Indigenous peoples, on miskanahkministik”, and adds a couple legislative twists.

The first is reference to King George III’s royal proclamation of 1763 that structures the Crown’s interaction with Indians, an actual Crown order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Proclamation_of_1763) intended to shelter Indian communities following seizure of land formerly held by France. kisikawpimootewin correctly then observes that interaction between aboriginal populations and the Crown were structured via Indian Treaties, and that in his/her case that would apparently be Treaty No. 6.

kisikawpimootewin asserts that the failure of the Privy Council to provide his/her Indian title is a fraudulent use of the enfranchisement apparatus, in breach of Treaty rights and Law, and

... Orders for the repeal and removal of the usurped subject matter jurisdiction by the scheme of enfranchisement and its provisions by the titled CANADA, by action(s), or lack thereof committing treason against Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heir(s), Successor(s) and Predecessor(s).

Further, kisikawpimootewin’s right to “Unmolested Heritage, customs, usage and freely chosen mode(s) of life.” was breached by a wrongful prosecution, trial, and the Kaffir project:

As evidenced in the malicious and hateful attempt by the Defendant acting in Her Majesty’s name to label and prosecute the Plaintiff as a “Kaffir” in the “Kaffir” project and trial, the titled Canada was placed on notice by the world and ordered withdrawn in Her Majesty’s name by the titled Attorney General of Canada dated November 5th 1999.

and apparently a bevy of very serious crimes:

The Defendant acting in Her Majesty’s name, continues by coercion to molest and injure the Plaintiff by kidnapping, confinement and torture to force the Plaintiff under duress to submit to rape and sign fraudulent titled document(s) to usurp jurisdiction of the Plaintiff under the titled Canada and force the Plaintiff to comply to its regulations, licenses, fees and fines.

as well as some good ol’ fashioned international law offences:

The Defendant acting in Her Majesty’s name, by actions are in contravention and in breach of International Law of the United Nations conventions of human rights, within sections of crimes against humanity, by genocide and hate propaganda for continuance to molest injure, violate and deprive the Plaintiff of his rights, Heritage, customs, usage and freely chosen modes of life.

So this is the document that was tossed by the Federal Court as incomprehensible. To be fair, it is dreadfully opaque in many senses, but it is one key omission that makes what kisikawpimootewin is seeking so difficult to understand. He/she is, in effect, argues that repeal of legislation has a retroactive effect, and that any Indian who was enfranchised ‘reverted’ back to a status Indian when the enfranchisement provisions of the Indian Act were repealed.

And, to be fair to kisikawpimootewin, this is not an entirely out-there concept which has zero chance of success in Canada. Sure, the usual rule is that repeal or amendment of a law has no effect on pre-repeal/amendment events unless that is specifically and clearly identified in the legislation's amendment, or via a constitutional principle such as Charter, s. 11(i) which requires the courts apply the lesser punishment for an offence. However, Canadian courts have taken the approach that the special fiduciary relationship between aboriginal persons and the Crown means that many legal principles are viewed to give the maximum benefit to aboriginal persons and to protect their rights. For example, there is now case law that says that non-status Indians who were enfranchised retain some aboriginal rights – though that is still working its way up through the court hierarchy. But in brief, I don’t actually think kisikawpimootewin’s lawsuit is really entirely outside the realm of plausibility, though the 5 billion dollar or pound amount certainly is.

Now we reach perhaps one of the most interesting documents on the signatoryindian website, “Strategies for Statement Of Claim” (http://signatoryindian.tripod.com/id72.html). This is an outline written in plain-ish language (at least for this website) explaining kisikawpimootewin’s scheme, how litigation is going to be arranged to first have the courts acknowledge that enfranchised Indian rights remain unsatisfied, which kisikawpimootewin alleges is treason, and then if the Queen does not kick Canada and her agents into line, kisikawpimootewin will go to international law forums. This appears to be a public explanation to other aboriginal readers on the scheme, and it closes:

Others of our group normally edit our documents before they are published on our website. I felt that it was important, that our strategies be made available today, for all to review, and the group by consent also agreed, I hope you will kindly overlook my sentence structure and composition.

Please note:
We had attempted to address these issues previously, seeking injuries for $1.00, and were refused. Her Majesty’s subordinate Officers of the titled Canada are money driven, and declared that we must seek injuries for a reasonable amount. The titled ADMIRALTY COURT OF CANADA have previously ruled, 5 Billion dollars is a reasonable amount, for Her Majesty’s Honor and Dignity. Monies received in setlement will be used for the benefit of all.

As always, we look forward to any comments or suggestions.

with respect and in honor
kisikawpimootewin

Next we have correspondence (August 31, 2004) from the Federal government which asks kisikawpimootewin to not note the Crown in default until it has had a chance to respond, to which kisikawpimootewin (September 2, 2004) waves a fierce international law stick (http://signatoryindian.tripod.com/id73.html).

The Federal Court hearing to strike out the motion occurred on October 12, 2004, with the judgment to strike the action released two days later. In the interim, kisikawpimootewin posts a public notice (http://signatoryindian.tripod.com/id74.html) to his/her readers that warns of police brutality and even murder of kisikawpimootewin and fellow travelers:

If you hear that any or all of us was shot, beaten and or taserred to death resisting arrest, or were incarcerated and committed suicide, it isn’t true. If this happens, we hope other Peoples will continue our path and journey, and use our information to complete the Creator’s work, and free the Indigenous Peoples and other Peoples on miskanahkministik, (turtle island) for the benefit of the next seven generations.

This is accompanied by three letters: a Petition to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, a “Petition sent to the Countries of the World”, and last a general “urgent plea” to “The People(s) For The World” (http://signatoryindian.tripod.com/id79.html), all of which date to late September 2004. Their text is largely the same, and most of it just repeats the general scheme for kisikawpimootewin’s argument, but the last two paragraphs are a little more … dramatic:

5. Her Majesty’s Loyal sworn subordinate Officers upon said pretence of order and good government and enfranchisement, refuse to obey Her Majesty’s orders, Treaties and Her supreme Law for titled Canada and were prosecuting me as a “Kaffir” in the “Kaffir” project Trial, Action # 70160544P1. I sent petitions to numerous countries pleading for help, as it was my firm belief that I, and others of my family would be killed. The world responded and placed Her Majesty’s Loyal sworn subordinate Officers for titled Canada on notice and my family and I will be forever grateful. As part of the “Kaffir” project Trial, Action # 60794179P1 Her Majesty’s Officer(s) vouched for their compiled, certified and registered documents, genealogy, standing and rights of claim of kisikawpimootewin as a Signatory, and the “Kaffir” project Trial was ordered stayed in Her Majesty’s name on the 5th of November 1999.

During the “Kaffir” project trial a contract was put out on me, the authorities had the party involved, under surveillance and by aid of wiretap conversations stopped their plans prior to completion. The party involved were never held accountable in the court. The same party later appeared, demanded I and my family give them money and what ever they wanted or they would put out another contract on us, I called the local Police for help, they appeared and charged me with interfering with the demands of said party, the prosecutor refused to withdraw the charges, or to charge the party involved and called no evidence for Action No. 005782 on the 18th of April, 2001, the police proceeded with the action against me by private tribunal and private prosecution but withdrew on the day of commencement. I filed a complaint to the Police review board, they responded formally stating their officer(s) had conducted themselves properly. I guess if you are labeled a “Kaffir” you have no rights to object and anyone can do anything they want against you with no consequences or accountability.

6. Her Majesty’s Loyal sworn subordinate Officers for titled Canada continue to refuse to obey Her Majesty’s said orders of 1985 and upon pretence of said order and good government and enfranchisement, have again proceeded in a malicious and hateful action against kisikawpimootewin and his Peoples by authorization of warrant 04-100453, of Peter M. Caffaro appointed Commissioner, as Judge (Justice of the Peace) in the PROVINCE of ALBERTA, Canada, a biased Justice, party to the “Kaffir” project trial and by actions on the 5th day of August, 2004, molested, assaulted, kidnapped, confined and by Torture forced kisikawpimootewin and his Peoples to submit, under duress and sign fraudulent documents to usurp subject matter jurisdiction and as such raped took our seal (finger prints) and our identities (photographs) and laid charges of non-compliance to licensing, fees and fines of regulations under jurisdiction of titled Canada. Even though I have filed a Statement of Claim in the Federal Court # T-1542-04 against Her Majesty’s Officers of Canada to address their breaches of contract, treason, against Her Majesty and actions of the 5th day of August, 2004, Her Majesty’s Officers are still moving ahead with their prosecution against us and on the 15th day of September, 2004 upon pretence of fraud by torture of usurped jurisdiction, refused to accept my objection by reasons of jurisdiction and Her Majesty’s orders of 1985 and filed claim T-1542-04 and ordered us to be arrested. It is our firm belief that this action is an attempt by Her Majesty’s Loyal subordinate Officers for titled Canada to prevent us from addressing these serious issues, for the benefit of all the Indigenous Peoples in the Statement of Claim T-1542-04. Her Majesty’s Officer(s) have challenged the statement of claim, by motion to strike, declaring that Her Majesty’s Honour, Dignity, Credibility, Law, Treaties, and Her Supreme Laws for the Trust Territories titled Canada is scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and we firmly believe when we are arrested and confined, that we will be killed, upon pretence of justification that we are “Kaffirs” and it will be declared that we committed suicide. We again are pleading with the world to help us and Petition your country of origin or Petition Her Majesty requesting on our behalf that we be secured and protected by Her Majesty’s Loyal sworn Officers, headquarters, British Army Training Unit Sufffield, British Forces Post Office 14, at Batus, along side the Canadian Armed Forces Base CFB. Or petition the United Nation(s) requesting on our behalf we be secured and protected, from further injuries and molesting by Her Majesty’s Loyal sworn subordinate Officer(s) acting in Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heir(s) and Successor(s) name for the Trust Territories titled Canada.

Apparently, this plea for military intervention fell on deaf ears, and a few weeks later kisikawpimootewin’s lawsuit was ended. No appeal was apparently filed.

And that’s it. There are a number of additional documents on signatoryindian but they do not seem to directly relate to kisikawpimootewin’s lawsuit to recapture his/her Indian rights. There is an October 15, 2004 “Notice of Constitutional Questions” (split into two parts) that in brief attempts to challenge the constitutionality of applying criminal law to Indians via the kisikawpimootewin strategy. That does not really add anything to the tale. In this case, the defendant is:

: colin : jones

Sentient human being, Heir, Successor as Signatory of the Sovereign assini watchi neiyawak separate and distinct Indigenous Peoples to Friendship Treaties (for the mutual benefits for trade and commerce), The Peace Treaties (to keep secure the trade and commerce), and Numbered Treaties (entrusting the Sovereign Territories to Her Majesty), made with Queen Victoria, Her Heir(s) and Successor(s) as Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heir(s), Successor(s) and Predecessor(s) (Beneficiary)

It looks like this is an Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench criminal matter judging from the style of cause and file information, but my attempt to follow up on it led nowhere.

So it seems, aside from a front page banner notice of “New Update November 3, 2005 re: “Self determination” (drafted and ratified constitution) for the Indigenous Poeples on turtle island …” that all activity on signatoryindian ceases, and so it sits, unchanged, to today.

This litigation and website is a real curiousity. As I noted above, kisikawpimootewin’s argument is, as far as I know, entirely novel. I’ve never seen it anywhere else, and the degree of ‘legal professionalism’ in the material is also unexpected. A ton of research went into this project, and kisikawpimootewin and co. delved into some unusual legal domains.

Once you get past some of the weirdness, much of what is recorded here is appropriately formatted, cited, and even kind of coherent. And with respect to Justice Snider, I actually think the decision to strike out this action was wrong. kisikawpimootewin’s action was weak in concept, but there was, even in 2004, some dim prospect that a special duty persisted for non-status Indians after enfranchisement. It’s not a great argument, but it’s an argument, and if the Statement of Claim had just been a little more direct and less bombastic, that might have been made clear and perhaps a different result would have been met.

So I close this post with two items. The first is this investigation above has not led to the identity of kisikawpimootewin – yet – but I will address that in a following post. There is a very interesting tale, and it will revolve on the mysterious “Project Kaffir”.

But last, you might think that the signatoryindian website would be simply a forgotten curiosity. Strangely – you would be wrong. My investigation to try to disentangle the identity of the people behind this litigation also discovered signatoryindian is regularly linked and cited by a range of academic and government sources. Here are a few:

• Aboriginal Health Services, Vancouver Coastal Health “Companion document of Selected Papers” (http://www.culturalcompetency.ca/downlo ... cument.pdf)
  
  Kanata: Undergraduate Journal of the Indigenous Studies Community of McGill University, Montreal, 2010, vol. 3, winter (http://www.mcgill.ca/files/misc/KANATA_Vol.3.pdf)
  
  EDUC 5410 Course Outline and Material, University of Lethbridge, Faculty of Education (http://www.uleth.ca/education/sites/edu ... ohort).pdf)

You no doubt ask, why in world would this be the case? Well, it turns out that in every instance these authors are pointing to signatoryindian for one reason – it seems to be one of the very few places online where on can find the text of a piece of pre-Confederation (1857) legislation, “An Act to encourage the gradual Civilization of the Indian Tribes in this Province, and to amend the Laws respecting Indians”, passed in what is now Ontario (http://signatoryindian.tripod.com/routi ... /id10.html).

A weird legacy of a weird bit of litigation.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

Once you get past some of the weirdness, much of what is recorded here is appropriately formatted, cited, and even kind of coherent. And with respect to Justice Snider, I actually think the decision to strike out this action was wrong. kisikawpimootewin’s action was weak in concept, but there was, even in 2004, some dim prospect that a special duty persisted for non-status Indians after enfranchisement. It’s not a great argument, but it’s an argument, and if the Statement of Claim had just been a little more direct and less bombastic, that might have been made clear and perhaps a different result would have been met.

I don't know that I agree with your position that the court should have excavated Kisikawpimootewin's potential arguments out of the rubble. While the courts have a responsibility to give some leeway to self-represented litigants they don't have the reponsibility to actively act as their advocates. I think going through the masses of gibberish he presented to the court and, as you did, digging up a vague indication of a possible "dim prospect" and then accepting that as a basis for going forward might have exceeded that responsibility. While I suppose they could have, why should they? The guy was firing a shotgun hoping one pellet would hit and it's not the court's job to go actively looking for it. If the federal government's possible legal duty to non-status indians was his argument he should have said so rather than hinted at it in the middle of a forest of totally irrelevant arguments about the Queen.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

I don't know that I agree with your position that the court should have excavated Kisikawpimootewin's potential arguments out of the rubble. While the courts have a responsibility to give some leeway to self-represented litigants they don't have the reponsibility to actively act as their advocates. I think going through the masses of gibberish he presented to the court and, as you did, digging up a vague indication of a possible "dim prospect" and then accepting that as a basis for going forward might have exceeded that responsibility. While I suppose they could have, why should they? The guy was firing a shotgun hoping one pellet would hit and it's not the court's job to go actively looking for it. If the federal government's possible legal duty to non-status indians was his argument he should have said so rather than hinted at it in the middle of a forest of totally irrelevant arguments about the Queen.

You have hit upon one of the dilemmas facing the judiciary. Canadian courts are in the midst of what is sometimes called a crisis, an unprecedented wave of self-represented litigants ["SRL's"] appearing at all levels of court, in all kinds of matters. This development is proving to be a huge challenge for a number of reasons.

For one, the rule on when a court case may be terminated prior to trial is very strict. A legal action can only be struck out when it is, effectively, hopeless. A typically cited version of the rule is Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., [1990] 2 SCR 959:

... But if there is a chance that the plaintiff might succeed, then that plaintiff should not be "driven from the judgment seat". ... Neither the length and complexity of the issues, the novelty of the cause of action, nor the potential for the defendant to present a strong defence should prevent the plaintiff from proceeding with his or her case. ...

A tough, tough threshold to meet. The fact the threshold is so high is one reason why Meads v. Meads has proven such a useful tool in dealing with Sovereign / Freeman type arguments. That decision picks out and invalidates all the usual Sovereign / Freeman concepts, but does that in an even larger framework that this entire collection of schemes offends a broader principle, the inherent authority of superior courts. That helps subvert the entire range of these spurious ideas.

However, kisikawpimootewin has hit on something which is, as far as I know, entirely novel. As a consequence, the litigation should proceed, no matter how tenuous the chance of success.

Your second point is that this is a scavenger-hunt, and judges should not be obliged to engage in that. A chief problem to that approach comes from R. v. Phillips, 2003 ABCA 4 at paras. 16-28, which was affirmed in 2003 SCC 57. This judgment says that a judge has a duty to assist self-represented persons. If the judge does not, the entire matter can be thrown out. Here are some relevant passages:

[22] Perhaps some judges are beguiled by the consistency and simplicity of boiler-plate language. But trials involving unrepresented accuseds are rarely consistent or simple. Their need for guidance varies depending on the crime, the facts, the defences raised and the accused’s sophistication. The judge’s advice must be interactive, tailored to the circumstances of the offence and the offender, with appropriate instruction at each stage of a trial.

[23] ... The overriding duty is to ensure that the unrepresented accused has a fair trial. Consistent with that duty, the judge “is required within reason to provide assistance to the unrepresented accused, to aid him in the proper conduct of his defence, and to guide him throughout the trial in such a way that his defence is brought out with its full force and effect” ...

[24] The scope of a trial judge’s assistance to an unrepresented accused “is limited to what is reasonable and cannot and does not extend [...] to provision of the kind of advice that counsel could be expected to provide” ...

[25] In cases in which the trial judge’s guidance is alleged to have been inadequate, trial fairness is determined by considering whether the lack of guidance compromised the unrepresented accused’s ability to properly bring out his defence. ...

This principle first arose in a criminal law context, but since has been applied outside that category of litigation. Assisting self-represented litigants is a part of a trial judge's basic duties. If a judge can see how there could be a valid basis for litigation, it would be very difficult for that judge to not be obliged to tease that out.

The next complication is that to date the overriding focus for the courts and judiciary has been on "access to justice". This is a major theme for the Canadian Judicial Council and C.J.C. McLachlin. The Canadian Judicial Counsel has released what is effectively a binding guide for how judges should interact with self-represented litigants (http://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general ... 006_en.pdf). Here is some of what that document instructs judges to do:

1. Judges and court administrators should do whatever is possible to provide a fair and impartial process and prevent an unfair disadvantage to self-represented persons.

2. Self-represented persons should not be denied relief on the basis of a minor or easily rectified deficiency in their case.

3. Where appropriate, a judge should consider engaging in such case management activities as are required to protect the rights and interests of self-represented persons. Such case management should begin as early in the court process as possible.

4. When one or both parties are proceeding without representation, non-prejudicial and engaged case and courtroom management may be needed to protect the litigants’ equal right to be heard. Depending on the circumstances and nature of the case, the presiding judge may:

• (a) explain the process;
  
  (b) inquire whether both parties understand the process and the procedure;
  
  (c) make referrals to agencies able to assist the litigant in the preparation of the case;
  
  (d) provide information about the law and evidentiary requirements;
  
  (e) modify the traditional order of taking evidence; and
  
  (f) question witnesses.

A comment on that section states:

… 3. However, it is clear that treating all persons alike does not necessarily result in equal justice. The Ethical Principles for Judges also cites Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General)2 on a judge’s duty to “rectify and prevent” discriminatory effects against particular groups. …

“Particular groups” would almost certainly include any members of any aboriginal community.

As for the Chief Justice, she loudly and frequently protests that the cost of litigation and lawyers puts court remedies beyond many (if not most) Canadians. And she's right - it's a crisis - particularly in family law litigation. The cost of a contested divorce, let alone a dispute with child custody issues, is abhorrent.

This is a domain where I take a very dim view of the conduct of provincial law societies, and the legal practice as a whole. You cannot, in my mind, fairly demand to be a monopoly yet at the same time price your necessary services outside the range that can be afforded by your clientele. Yet that is precisely what has occurred, and it has driven many persons into the courts as self-represented litigants.

That takes us to another public debate. A few months ago a Canadian academic named Julie McFarlane released a report titled "The National Self-­Represented Litigants Project: Identifying and Meeting the Needs of Self-Represented Litigants" (http://www.representing-yourself.com/reportM15.pdf) which attracted quite a bit of public and media commentary, and depicted the woeful experiences of self-represented litigants in Canada. The report is based on McFarlane’s interviews with self-identified and self-reporting SRL's on their experiences in the court process, and why they represented themselves. Unsurprisingly, economic factors were often identified as a reason for self-representation.

However, the report takes on a much darker tone, and targets judges as enemies, largely unsympathetic to self-represented litigants, if not hostile and abusive. Lawyers are depicted as even less pleasant or principled. This has become a major theme in media reporting, and has created pressure on the judiciary – SRL’s are depicted as victims of a cruel, abusive process.

The Self-Represented Litigants Project report has without question some useful points, such as the fact that court forms are notoriously cryptic, and that there is an absence of authoritative assistance to guide SRL's. Beyond that, as social research goes, its methodology is quite unsophisticated and, in my opinion, suspect, particularly in how the sample pool was recruited. Though SRL's report what appear to me to be quite extraordinary events, no attempt is made to verify these claims. McFarlane herself appears to be less a detached academic than an advocate, particularly when she advanced a bizarre claim that Meads v. Meads was going to “conflate” and demonize all SRL's as OPCA litigants (http://drjuliemacfarlane.wordpress.com/ ... ess-and-t/), largely on the basis of inaccurate quotation of that decision, along with the proposition that 'honest' SRL's and OPCA SRL's will be confused because both refer to Black's Law Dictionary.

A moment's thought would realized that proposition itself was "conflation", given that courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, regularly use that resource. Anyone who has any in-the-trenches experience with an OPCA litigant will know they are utterly different from a typical SRL. For example, the latter don't show up in court and immediately announce they are outside court jurisdiction. Thankfully, McFarlane appears to have obtained a more balanced view of that particular topic and this focus does not appear in the final report, which instead entirely ignores the OPCA phenomenon and vexatious self-represented litigation.

Now if the situation was still not too complex, there is yet another backlash – and that is that trial lawyers are increasingly angry that judges are being too gentle and helpful to self-represented litigants, and that now things are ‘unfair’ for represented litigants and their lawyers!

And even beyond that, there is the question (very much in the air) of when a judge who reviews a case may say to both parties (represented or not) that they are wrong in the nature of the law and procedure, and instead the proper approach is something entirely different. Appellate courts have a habit of spanking trial judges who attempt to re-frame litigation – even when the litigation is otherwise entirely spurious.

In conclusion, this topic is just a morass. The judiciary is being pulled in all different directions by countervailing demands on resources (nail spurious and vexatious litigation fast), access to justice (only eliminate litigation that is truly hopeless, and after a treasure-hunt for valid arguments), be helpful to self-represented litigants (particularly ones who are members of aboriginal and other minorities, or special groups such as persons with mental impairment), aggressive lobbying from legal professionals, and a media that looks for sound bites and sob stories. It’s a nasty spot.

So, were I a judge, I’d go on the scavenger hunt. At least that would minimize the possibility of unnecessary appeal and re-trial. Does it drag out suspect litigation? Absolutely. But, until the Supreme Court of Canada comes down and says that triage is acceptable on a more aggressive basis, the wise trial judge only strikes out a proceeding that is a ‘guaranteed kill.’

That may change. The court system and its resources are stretched to the point of failure. I know there is grumbling. We will wait and see - but it will take intervention from the top to change the present rules.

SMS Möwe

[Backo]

Mowe, my apologies in advance for cherrypicking one paragraph out of a comprehensive post which I largely agree with. However, I disagree with your opinion that:

This is a domain where I take a very dim view of the conduct of provincial law societies, and the legal practice as a whole. You cannot, in my mind, fairly demand to be a monopoly yet at the same time price your necessary services outside the range that can be afforded by your clientele. Yet that is precisely what has occurred, and it has driven many persons into the courts as self-represented litigants.

On the issue of monopoly, this site itself shows that allowing unqualified persons to represent others in their legal affairs is a recipe for disaster. It allows gurus to advance their own agendas at no risk to themselves. I would also argue that it is not, in truth, a monopoly. Anyone is allowed to become a lawyer and compete in the market place, provided they have attained the necessary qualifications.

As for lawyers pricing their services out of reach, if legal services are a basic expectation in our society for certain types of matters, then the cost of such services should be funded by government in the same way as the police and the courts. Mechanics are not required to provided fixed price services (sorry) and the government ought not intervene to articifically set prices in other sectors, including the legal sector.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Mowe, my apologies in advance for cherrypicking one paragraph out of a comprehensive post which I largely agree with.

Absolutely no apology necessary. This is a point where I know my opinion is somewhat extreme, but as I hope to illustrate, Canada is a nasty spot with our legal professionals.

On the issue of monopoly, this site itself shows that allowing unqualified persons to represent others in their legal affairs is a recipe for disaster. It allows gurus to advance their own agendas at no risk to themselves.

Absolutely no argument at all. In Canada, there is at the moment however a disagreement on whether certain legal services may instead be provided by trained and certified ‘lawyers-lite’, such as paralegals and notaries. The different provincial law societies have not taken the same approach, and some are taking a strict approach that “it’s a lawyer or nothing”, which is doubly problematic when we get to some constitutional issues I’ll explain below.

I would also argue that it is not, in truth, a monopoly. Anyone is allowed to become a lawyer and compete in the market place, provided they have attained the necessary qualifications.

We have a de-facto quota issue on the number of lawyers entering into the marketplace. There are only a certain number of law schools, and their enrollment is a strict limit. However, beyond capacity limits, law school is not an obstacle, as practically no one fails the program. The issue is an even bigger bottleneck for persons with academic credentials who then wish to become certified lawyers. I do not know what the practice is in Australia, but in Canada the historic approach has been that a person may only be admitted as a lawyer after spending a year “articling” in a law firm, a kind of apprenticeship. There is a limited possibility of a non-Canadian lawyer ‘challenging’ their way in, but otherwise this is a requirement. The law societies are the ones that have mandated this step.

The issue that has emerged is that in certain areas the number of articling positions is fewer than law school graduates - much fewer. The leading cause seems to be that large law firms are not willing to invest in articling students. Canada has had a spiral of amalgamation between its law firms over the past several decades. The deficit of articling positions has created a backlog of ‘lawyers-to-be’. This may ultimately force a change in how persons qualify to be lawyers. One suggestion has been to simply turn the process into an admission test. Another is to broaden the forms of ‘apprenticeship’ to include work with certain government or court bodies. As I noted, it's up to the law societies, and they have not been at all proactive on this issue.

So we at the moment have a nasty supply and demand issue. What makes that worse is that record numbers of new lawyers are quitting very soon after they are admitted to the bar. The causes of that are, in my opinion, complex, but if you read professional legal publications it's usually attributed to the poor attitude and work ethic of those shifty and ill-disciplined youngsters.

The net result is that while there are plenty of very expensive and large firms willing to take on corporate and commercial work, the number of lawyers who engage in mid to small scale litigation is limited and decreasing. ‘General’ services are a real problem in smaller centres.

As for lawyers pricing their services out of reach, if legal services are a basic expectation in our society for certain types of matters, then the cost of such services should be funded by government in the same way as the police and the courts. … the government ought not intervene to articifically set prices in other sectors, including the legal sector.

There is a synergy here of a number of factors. The first is that Canadian law societies have been pushing to have their status as self-regulating organizations that control their own membership not be a facet of delegated legislative authority but instead recognized as a constitutional principle. And it’s working. There has not yet been a Supreme Court of Canada decision on this point (that I know of) but the lower courts have moved to this, to me, quite extraordinary position. At present legal professional discipline is of lawyers by lawyers – we do not have government supervision. That may even now be a constitutional principle and not subject to legislative revision. How far will the process go? Who knows.

To me that kind of special social status takes a profession outside a ‘business’ to a ‘something else’. Exactly what? Again, I do not know.

Here is a second issue, which also has a strong constitutional element. Canadian provinces generally have two trial-level courts, “provincial courts” which are intended for smaller matters and simpler offences, and “superior inherent jurisdiction courts” with a general jurisdiction that includes serious criminal matters, judicial reviews, real property disputes, testamentary matters, and civil litigation over a usually quite low threshold.

Provincial courts are intended for fast and dirty litigation with a reduced emphasis on strict procedure and principles of evidence. The superior trial courts have a much more complex pre-trial and trial procedure. There two extremes are stark, and arguably there is room for at least a ‘middle process’ as well.

However, the real spanner in the works is the constitutional reform that occurred in 1982, where Canada repatriated the Canada Act and added our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I could go on all day on the wisdom of the latter, but I will simply explain that after the Charter came into force the Supreme Court of Canada engaged in a spiral of decisions that added greatly to the required procedural justice standards in both civil and criminal litigation in the superior courts – but especially in criminal actions. Suddenly litigation became much, much more complex, particularly pre-trial.

There is now a realization that this probably was an error, and practically every Supreme Court Justice who has retired in the last years has said the same thing – trial judges really need to cut spurious procedural justice applications off and trim down the complexity of litigation at the superior courts. That’s nice, but until the Supreme Court actually gets around to giving the trial judges concrete authority on that? They won’t, the risk of appeal is just too high.

So now we hit the second constitutional nightmare. We have a crisis in family law. I think Australia has already encountered and weathered your version of this – I understand that much family law is now addressed outside the courts via a complex of tribunals and counseling, but that the courts have a supervisory but limited role. Canada may end up moving that way, it is certainly being actively studied, particularly by the judiciary.

But here is out special problem, and it is a unique constitutional oops. By a quirk of how jurisdiction was divided between the Federal government and the provincial governments, all divorce litigation must be conducted in courts that have a Federally appointed judge – the superior courts. Weirdly, common-law family matters are provincial in jurisdiction, and can be allocated to provincial courts or to tribunals, but for divorces, including child support and custody issues? It has to go through the procedurally complex and rigorous superior courts.

This has been a nightmare, particularly when combined with the increasingly stringent procedural requirements flowing from new Charter jurisprudence. We have a strict and extremely rigorous adversarial process and are trying to funnel divorced couples through that mechanism. The McFarlane paper I noted above does not actually recognize this is the issue, but her reports that it is grinding people to dust are entirely accurate. It is a mess.

Family law attracts, sadly, the bottom-feeders of our legal profession. There are good lawyers, but they are thin on the ground. When you combine: (a) inscrutable and baroque superior court procedure, (b) a dire shortage of any lawyer who will take on this litigation, meaning even the inept can get plenty of work, (c) a nearly infinite ability to frustrate divorce action via procedure, and (d) the billing that can come from that? Not good. Not good at all.

And then there are the SRL’s. Even when they try – and many do their very best – this is absolutely not the way to manage this kind of dispute. It brings out the worst in the couples, and the litigation goes on… and on… and on…

And here we are caught. Constitutional reform and amendment in Canada is all but impossible due to our amendment procedure. What we need is to either construct specialized superior courts for family law or rationalize that all family law matters, common-law and marriage, are treated the same and via a simpler and non-adversarial process. This would require massive court reform, and possibly constitutional reform. We are, at the very best, in the most preliminary stages.

The judiciary are the ones who are pushing that reform, not the law societies. I think that says much.

Here is a place where until we make that transition it would be so very helpful to have professional legal helpers, state funded or otherwise. So much of what is needed in a family law context is simple document management and organization, and assisting divorcing couples with our bizarre and arcanely complex legal system. I think the legal profession could learn much from medical care, which is government funded and run in Canada. Much front-line care can and is managed by nurses, with physician backup as needed. I see no reason why that analogue could not be a helpful model for legal disputes, particularly in family law, with ‘lawyers-lite’ in the front tier, and ‘lawyers-proper’ providing the more technical support.

However, that will only occur once the law societies permit others to work in their domain, and there is a ‘loosening’ of professional responsibility, so that more friction and error is tolerated.

I do not claim to have a grand model on what the ideal fix may be, but I can assure you of this. In Canada? We’re sinking. Not the lawyers - no, they are doing fine. Making more money than ever. But the public and courts? No, not so well.

Since the law societies have decided to purport themselves as constitutionally distinct and untouchable entities, they will have obligations that go along with that. To date, they are not doing a very good job, in my opinion.

And perhaps that too is a reason the young lawyers are quitting, in droves.

[Thanks for putting up with what no doubt amounts to a rant – I think about this subject often, as it troubles me very much.]

SMS Möwe

[Backo]

Fair play. I suppose I fell into the trap of looking at your comments through the lens of my own experience. There are number of significant differences to the profession in my jurisdiction, if not Australia wide.

The powers of our law societies have been stripped back significantly. It sounds like you need a Mick Baker.

http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/ ... 05-002.pdf
http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/ ... 05-482.pdf
http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/ ... 06-145.pdf

I won’t blame him solely for the legislative intervention into regulation of the industry but the publicity surrounding the conduct of his practice appeared, at least to me, to be a motivating factor of the parliament in enacting the Legal Profession Act. Constitutionally, lawyers had no grounds here to argue an entitlement to regulate their own disciplinary affairs, although they still retain an important (but not sole) role in admission and entitlement to practice.

[Burnaby49]

A few things I won't argue:

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is turning into the monster that devoured the entire judiciary. The Supreme Court spent the decade or so after the signing of the Charter grinding out constitution-relate decisions. Their cumulative effect is now paralyzing the court system. Every defendant's Charter rights have to protected to the nth degree or the trial can be overturned. This has resulted in a huge overhead of essentially unnecessary procedural steps to ensure Supreme Court mandated Charter rights are protected that adds large amounts of wasted time to almost all trials, certainly all criminal trials.

Even in my venue of civil tax litigation routine court cases very frequently end up in arguments by taxpayers that their rights under the Charter have been violated, essentially a Hail Mary when all else fails. Ofen they can't even link their claimed rights to the actual Charter but the court has to waste time anyhow. I'd say the majority of self-represented taxpayers pull out the Charter rights card at some point in their hearing because they don't know enough about tax to defend their case otherwise. Mowe and I have both given examples of these with our sovereign nutjobs.

Mowe is spot on regarding family law. I write professional publications analyzing Canadian court decisions. At the moment I'm reviewing family law divorce cases. A total nightmare. Expensive high-level courts clogged for days or weeks on what are largely fairly minor issues that could be resolved through arbitration or other alternate forms of dispute resolution. A massive system set up to allow angry individuals to squander their entire net worth to no real purpose.

[wserra]

You have hit upon one of the dilemmas facing the judiciary. Canadian courts are in the midst of what is sometimes called a crisis, an unprecedented wave of self-represented litigants ["SRL's"] appearing at all levels of court, in all kinds of matters. This development is proving to be a huge challenge for a number of reasons.

For one, the rule on when a court case may be terminated prior to trial is very strict.

That's somewhat surprising. Civil cases are dismissed all the time here, whether on failure to state a claim or on summary judgment. Moreover, I have a feeling the black-letter standards are not that different: for summary judgment, failure to demonstrate sufficient evidence for one or more elements of the cause of action (or, in the case of a strict liability case, one or more elements of a defense) so that a reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party. Needless to say, there's a body of law for all reasonably common fact patterns. We especially see it in the types of cases we discuss on this board. I'm posting all the time about how Judge So-and-So dismissed Nitwit v. Govt without even requiring an answer.

Can summary determinations be abused? Sure, like anything else that incorporates discretion. But I see nothing wrong with the principle, and 95% of the time with its application.

A tough, tough threshold to meet.

So maybe part of the solution is widening the threshold. From the rest of your post, that wouldn't require much in the way of theory, just practice.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

For one, the rule on when a court case may be terminated prior to trial is very strict.

That's somewhat surprising. Civil cases are dismissed all the time here, whether on failure to state a claim or on summary judgment. Moreover, I have a feeling the black-letter standards are not that different: for summary judgment, failure to demonstrate sufficient evidence for one or more elements of the cause of action (or, in the case of a strict liability case, one or more elements of a defense) so that a reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party. Needless to say, there's a body of law for all reasonably common fact patterns. ...

The problem is simple; in summary disposition applications the rule is that any fact alleged by the party who is the target of the application is presumed to be true, unless it is obviously nonsensical, or a "bald allegation". Canadian courts do not use a "reasonable jury" test. Instead, a matter can only be struck if there is a missing but necessary fact, an error of law, or the matter is otherwise vexatious. I believe in this sense we are following the UK courts on a strict basis.

If the parties have a dispute on facts, the matter goes to trial or some other form of viva voce hearing.

Litigation conjestion may mean the courts necessarily 'loosen the rules' on this, but to date there has been no move from the Supreme Court of Canada to do so.

SMS Möwe

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

But enough of all this serious law-talking stuff - let's get to some fun!

So who is kisikawpimootewin? Simple Internet searches did not turn up a link, and kisikawpimootewin fastidiously identified himself/herself in the litigation documentation as nothing else. Similarly, the Federal Court case simply has "kisikawpimootewin" represented by "kisikawpimootewin".

That said, signatoryindian offered a number of leads, particularly kisikawpiootewin’s snailmail address. The court file number mentioned in the correspondence to international authorities is simply the Federal Court matter that started this investigation. And there is that mysterious “Project Kaffir”.

Signatoryindian also mentions that kisikawpimootewin had allies, or associates. I have identified two webpages (http://z8.invisionfree.com/kmvoice/ar/t387.htm) (http://z8.invisionfree.com/kmvoice/ar/t395.htm) that appear to archive some kind of communication between persons associated with the kisikawpimootewin litigation: “Gitche Ogimaw Ke Nee Ka Neet”, “Ogimaw Moon”, “Ikenonhne”, “To Qi”. There is perhaps a distinct “Moon”, who also identifies himself as “colin for kisikawpimootewin and group”. Some of these persons are identified with telephone numbers, but only one maps to Alberta. Their conversation is … well, cryptic.

All correspondence to kisikawpimootewin was vectored to a single ground-mail address, 10023 81 Ave, Edmonton, Alberta, T6E 1W7. It is currently a hair salon, but in 2004 there were three businesses that operated from that location: Aaa security supply, Alberta Lock Solid (an actually and ongoing company it seems), and A1 Security Locksmiths. Investigating the first two options struck out, but the last was paydirt:

• R. v. Jones, 2000 CanLII 28221 (AB QB): http://canlii.ca/t/2bqrq

The defendant in this action is “Donald-David Jones, Signatory Indian, representing himself.”

Do we have our man? At worst, we are getting close! This is a lawsuit where David Donald Jones is charged in the Alberta Provincial Court with having failed to file income tax for his company, A1 Security Locksmith. Signatory Indian Jones argues (at Queen’s Bench) that those charges must be dismissed:

[3] The applicant seeks an Order in the nature of certiorari dismissing the charges against him on the basis that the Provincial Court of Alberta lacks jurisdiction over the applicant by virtue of the Royal Proclamation of King George III, granted October 7th, 1763.

[4] The applicant further claims ancestral rights under Treaty No. 6, which he submits should be characterized as a peace contract. He traces his lineage to those people inhabiting the lands northwest of Edmonton, now known as Michel Reserve No. 132.

The body of the judgment refutes that allegation, but has some interesting tidbits. First, David-Donald Jones is a status Indian (para. 8 ) which is a little unexpected given kisikawpimootewin’s basic argument.

Jones also argues that there is no relationship between him and the Crown, and so the Crown can only comment in court after it has obtained a license. As proof, Jones argues in a different matter (Her Majesty the Queen v. Barry Wayne Luprypa, Leo Fred Badger (waived), Garnet Desjarlais (waived), Kenneth Edward Jones et al. (70160544-P1, 0101-0109, 0301-0308, 0310, 0401, 0601, 0602, 0701, 0702, 0801, 0802), another judge had accepted that license proposition – but the audio recording is problematic (paras. 10-13). However, Justice Johnstone concludes this is immaterial as she is a judge of a higher court, and therefore not bound by whatever was on those tapes.

Justice Johnstone observes this entire proceeding is a conundrum (para. 23):

I am confronted with the troublesome problem which earlier faced several of my colleagues; namely that, on the one hand, the appellant does not recognize nor believe he is bound by or needs to comply with the laws of Canada or Alberta; while on the other, he makes application to this court for such a ruling.

continues that the question of whether Indians are bound by law or not is already one that has been reviewed and decided in many other court decisions (paras. 24-37), and concludes:

[38] First, I find no merit in the argument that Mr. Smart, as a representative of the Crown, required a licence before he could properly appear before this court and deal with a descendant of the signatory to Treaty No. 6. Clearly following the rules of interpretation as set forth in Badger, supra, the relevant provisions relating to licensing must be interpreted by giving these words their natural meaning that is the meaning that would have been understood by the Indians at the time of the signing. The Royal Proclamation of George III contemplated licensing for purposes of conducting commerce and did not deal with the issues of sovereignty and jurisdiction.

[39] Furthermore, having regard to the provisions of Treaty No. 6 and the acknowledgement by the applicant that his forefather was a signatory to such Treaty, he is indeed bound by the provisions of the Treaty, and as such, bound to respect and obey the laws of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada and, subsequently, Alberta. Accordingly, I am completely satisfied and find that the Courts of Canada and Alberta have jurisdiction over the applicant. Therefore, the applicant's application is hereby dismissed.

So does this end the investigation? Well … no.

First, there are two other names that come up in the Johnstone decision, Donald-David Jones brother, Kenneth Edward Jones (a.k.a. Kenneth-Edward: Jones (Tribal main)”, who acted as his sibling’s agent, and a Timothy Shawn Wishewan, “…who submitted he had been subpoenaed to attend the hearing and give assistance to the applicant, was denied status to appear.”

And it seems Donald-David: Jones has a different special name that is not kisikawpimootewin. In R. v. Jones, 2002 ABCA 230 (http://canlii.ca/t/5gts), an appeal of a decision that Indians are not exempt from the courts, he was identified this manner:

:miskinakapiwiyin: (turtleman): bear-clan.
:North - American - Signatory - Indian.
[Donald-David: Jones]

So how about this Timothy Wishewan? Well, he is no stranger to the courts! His first appearance is in R. v. Main, 2000 ABQB 56 (http://canlii.ca/t/5nkw), where pioneering Detaxer David-Kevin: Lindsay was denied permission to represent a James K. Main. The judgment provides an interesting backstory (paras. 2-13). Main had refused to file his income tax returns and was tried on that basis. Lindsay acted as his agent in the lower court. This led to courtroom antics:

[5] … Mr. Lindsay then applied to have Judge Maher disqualify himself from hearing the proceedings against Mr. Main. It was the position of Mr. Lindsay, on behalf of Mr. Main, that Judge Maher had exhibited bias and prejudice towards Mr. Main by forcing him to enter pleas to the charges prior to disclosure. Judge Maher responded that no one insisted that Mr. Main enter a plea to the charges. After listening to the submissions of Mr. Lindsay, Judge Maher dismissed the application. Timothy Wishewan, who was sitting in the courtroom, then attempted to arrest Judge Maher for treason on the basis that he had referred to the courtroom as his court rather than a courtroom belonging to the citizens of Canada. He ordered Corporal Dennis, a member of the RCMP, to arrest Judge Maher and to take him into custody. Judge Maher adjourned court and left the courtroom.

[6] Mr. Lindsay, just prior to Mr. Wishewan attempting to arrest Judge Maher on the grounds of treason, stated to Judge Maher, “Okay, that’s fine, and are you going to confirm for the record again whose court this is.”

Well, that’s dramatic! Lindsay in another website (http://www.cyberclass.net/dlindsay.htm) describes the arrest this way:

… it was our position that this judge was either:

a) incompetent and ignorant of the law which has been settled for years, or,

b) he had absolutely no respect for the rights and freedoms of the people appearing before him.

In either scenario, we felt a reasonable apprehension of bias and prejudice and therefore requested that the judge recuse himself from this case, which he refused to do, yelling at us that this was "my courtroom". This is typical of the attitude exhibited by many judges, especially those in Provincial Court. We then informed Judge Maher that this court belongs to the people, not to him.

After setting an adjournment date, Timothy Wishewan then placed the judge under citizen’s arrest. Immediately the judge began shaking so badly that he could not hold his own glass of water, knowing full well what he had done to us. As a result, he immediately left the courtroom.

Several criminal charges have now been laid against Judge Maher as well against numerous RCMP officers. …

Next, Wishewan appears as an agent for an unfamiliar person in Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. v. Correia, 2001 ABQB 312 (http://canlii.ca/t/5m87). The counterclaim advanced by Wishewan is characterized this way (para. 11):

A careful reading of this document reveals it for what it truly is. It is a stream of consciousness rant tying together a number of misguided notions possessed by the plaintiff by Counterclaim. It reveals a frustration possessed by him but also a clear misunderstanding of what is required in order to constitute a valid Counterclaim.

Last, we have three 2004 judgments of Justice Clarke:

• R. v. Wishewan, 2004 ABQB 335: http://canlii.ca/t/1h1h1
  R. v. Wishewan, 2004 ABQB 375: http://canlii.ca/t/1h3vp
  R. v. Wishewan, 2004 ABQB 387: http://canlii.ca/t/1j0tm

All three deal with Wishewan’s attempts to pay fines from a set of provincial matters by working as a “cattle industry volunteer”. That is rejected as the court concludes it does not have jurisdiction to test what is or is not valid ‘work’ in this context.

Wishewan’s last reported (un)appearance in a judgment is R. v. J.W.S., 2004 ABQB 407 (http://canlii.ca/t/1h81f), where the court is concerned that a mentally ill patient who advanced OPCA strategies wanted Wishewan as his representative. J.W.S. had someone else in mind, but Justice Watson noted that this Timothy Wishewan had been acting as an agent/guru for others, and identifies the matters above.

Is Wishewan our man? I don’t think so. None of this litigation mentions anything Indian-related. Further, the obituary of his mother says nothing of any Indian heritage (http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/rememb ... =128329319). Other information I found online about Wishewan suggests he is simply an early-mid period Detaxer. He posts quite a little rant about his income tax order here (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/c ... Eoem-tgTEJ) after the Crown lawyer and judge did not provide their oaths, and the Income Tax Act was not produced on demand:

IN the END the STRAWMAN GOT FINDED

$ 10, 000.00 Dollars or 42 days x 5 = 210 Days if NOT paid.

WISHEWAN ACCEPTED the CHARGE OF THE JUDGE, for all OFFER(s) of the orders. wrote accepted for Value upon the 4 pages told the Judge he was RETURNING it .

THEN returned to the Judge for HIS BOND the Blue INK signature. 15 minutes later the Judge Signed it and returned it to Wishewan.

THE CROWN ordered that A CAPS guard must accompany both down stairs. To certify the Instument I agreed I was caring a ONE MILLION DOLLAR BOND I need protection to deliver it to the BANK for Processing.

IT was handed to the Head bank teller ( Head Justice Account Manager ) down stairs where THEY CERIFIED THE deposit .

The Paper Work returned to WISHEWAN shows NO FINE OR JAIL TIME ONLY A ORDER to comply with the Income Tax ? ? ? Signed by the JUDGE

Now the secures party : Timothy - Shawn : Wishewan is requesting the BOND as he is the secured party upon the Judges BOND for the $ 1 000 000.00 Dollars

A Notice of Judicial Review FOR COURT MARSHAL is being filed upon the Judge .

DID WE WIN ? ? ? I Don't Know the FAT lady has NOT Sung yet ? ? ? BUT
I HAVE HER NEGOTIBALE INSTRUMENT ? ? ?

Excitable fellow isn’t he? “minister” Belanger was less impressed and claims Wishewan is actually … a CRA infiltrator and agent! (http://inpursuitofhappiness.wordpress.c ... id-number/).

That “cattle industry volunteer” business? It appears he was travelling to raise awareness of how bovine spongiform encephalitis had harmed Canada’s cattle industry (for example, http://www.producer.com/2003/08/beef-su ... e-highway/). He even got a mention in Parliament for having collected over 10,000 signatures on his truck liner (http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications ... e=E&Mode=1)!

So I am fairly certain Timothy Wishewan is not kisikawpimootewin. Frankly, kisikawpimootewin is vastly more coherent … and can spell. That leaves us with one final candidate, “Kenneth-Edward: Jones (Tribal main)”. However, that name does not lead anywhere in reported jurisprudence.

But it does take us to an interesting 2000 Edmonton Journal news story, “Charges dropped in tobacco sting”, here reprinted in an aboriginal activist newspaper (http://www.caledoniawakeupcall.com/upda ... urnal.html). The article describes how RCMP across Canada engaged in a massive investigation of the distribution and sales of a brand of cigarettes, “Sago brand”, that were manufactured illegally on a Mohawk reserve. Sales totaled about $25 million. One named Edmonton distributor is Kenneth Edward Jones. The investigation was in 1996, but in 1999 the charges were stayed because the Crown concluded it would take the matter too long to get to trial.

Now we have something familiar. kisikawpimootewin complained he had been the target of unfair police investigation, but the charges had been dropped, and his complaints of persecution were ignored. The timeline looks right.

But is this Project Kaffir? And why is kisikawpimootewin so concerned about being “labeled a Kaffir”? The likely reason is that that term can be considered an offensive and racist title for black persons, that use being largely in South Africa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaffir_(racial_term)

And sure enough, it turns out that the RCMP investigation in Edmonton into the Sago cigarette smuggling had been named “Project Kaffir”, but this was not a consequence of some racist masterplan, but instead that RCMP computers produce randomly generated six-letter code names for investigations. This time the dice rolled “Kaffir” This is reported in a story in a now defunct magazine titled “Alberta Report”, a part of which is available online ((http://business.highbeam.com/5587/artic ... esignation):

Those bigoted microchips: a computer-generated RCMP designation provokes racism charges.

August 5, 1996, Davis Sheremata

Court documents surrendered to accused cigarette smuggler Bob Ruman two weeks ago did not include a gun carved from soap, but they had something else that he hopes might prove a ticket to freedom. They contained an RCMP file on the investigation, which netted 10 Edmonton-area individuals accused of trafficking in cigarettes made at an Ontario Indian reserve, entitled Project Kaffir. "Kaffir" is South African slang for blacks; the designation gave Mr. Ruman and co-defendant Ken Jones, both Indians, a ready-made claim of racism to counter the charges against them.

RCMP Sergeant Bob Cameron explains that every K-division project gets a computer-generated six-letter name …

For me that seals it. Ken Jone, a.k.a. Kenneth Edward Jones, a.k.a. “Kenneth-Edward: Jones (Tribal main)”, a.k.a. kisikawpimootewin.

The other targets of Project Kaffir have a few associated reported court decisions:

• Ruman v. Canada, 2002 FCT 845: http://canlii.ca/t/k0r
  Ruman v. Canada, 2005 FC 389: http://canlii.ca/t/1jzz5
  Ruman v. Canada, 2005 FC 474: http://canlii.ca/t/1k5zj

but none mention in any way aboriginal or Indian interests, though the first does allege the Edmonton-area social housing corporation and utilities engaged in terrorism.

That is all I could learn about Ken Jones - kisikawpimootewin. I do not know if this litigant is still alive, or if he continues to operate a lock and security company. kisikawpimootewin clearly had some interaction with other anti-government pseudolegal actors of the period, but I see his project as something unique and different. Just how those persons found one another is also an interesting but unanswered question.

In the end Mr. Jone's contribution to Canadian jurisprudence continues both via the Rule in kisikawpimootewin, and the sadly neglected tale of Project Kaffir. More generally, his activities in 2004 reveal a quite remarkable legal project, and I am very glad that by intention or neglect the statutoryindian webpage has survived to this date. Whether genius or madness, I do not know - but it has provided a unique opportunity for investigation.

If, by chance, someone who happens to have had more first-hand involvement in this curious episode stumbles upon this report I would be fascinated to hear your observations and comments.

SMS Möwe

[grixit]

I hereby award Mowe the Order of the Meloncat for outstanding research skills.

[grixit]

The word "kaffir" is only pejorative in South Africa. It comes from India, where it just means "stranger". It was adopted by moslems in the region to mean "non moslem". This meaning crossed over to Africa where european settlers, for some reason, decided to use it for some of the natives.

[Burnaby49]

I hereby award Mowe the Order of the Meloncat for outstanding research skills.

Better clear that through demo first. Since she's abandoned it for Dementedcat it might be ok.

[Burnaby49]

It is finally time to out Mowe and reveal his true identity! He is obviously gumshoe Philip Marlowe cynically walking down those dark mean streets that a man must go in the noirish black and white lighting of whatever Canadian city he inhabits.

Now that he has been identified I have a question for Philip. In your latest posting you state;

The body of the judgment refutes that allegation, but has some interesting tidbits. First, David-Donald Jones is a status Indian (para. 8 ) which is a little unexpected given kisikawpimootewin’s basic argument.

Does this mean that the argument that you tweaked out of his pleadings in a prior post, that as a non-status indian he should have had a chance to argue that he should be reverted back to his status benefits, is invalid?

Once you get past some of the weirdness, much of what is recorded here is appropriately formatted, cited, and even kind of coherent. And with respect to Justice Snider, I actually think the decision to strike out this action was wrong. kisikawpimootewin’s action was weak in concept, but there was, even in 2004, some dim prospect that a special duty persisted for non-status Indians after enfranchisement. It’s not a great argument, but it’s an argument, and if the Statement of Claim had just been a little more direct and less bombastic, that might have been made clear and perhaps a different result would have been met.

As I read it he has been status all along. If so that might be why the court did not consider this argument, it was a moot point.

[Chados]

The problems Mowe is pointing out are real ones in criminal actions. As much as we don't like these clowns, we simply have to parse their pleadings carefully and extract the meritorious claims from the morass of gibberish. I'm speaking as a career prosecutor, by the way. It's important because we live by the rule of law, even if the sovereigns don't. If we ignore the bits of merit in the sea of garbage, we're denying them the same right of access to the courts that everyone else in society has-their meritorious claims have the right to be fairly heard, fairly responded to, and fairly adjudicated. the fact that we have to read carefully to get to them doesn't change those fundamental rights. Pro se litigants are by their very definition clueless as to the real law, and that's magnified a thousand-fold with sovereigns, who have so twisted the law in their own minds as to be unrecognizable. the challenge of these guys is dealing with the blizzard of paperwork. It can be done. If you understand the movement, you can zip through a 50-page document with a highlighter, pick out the wheat from the chaff, respond to that, and nuke the rest with a couple of citations to well-worn federal ases dismissing fringe-on-the-flag or commercial-law arguments.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

It is finally time to out Mowe and reveal his true identity! He is obviously gumshoe Philip Marlowe cynically walking down those dark mean streets that a man must go in the noirish black and white lighting of whatever Canadian city he inhabits.

I don't even know how to respond to that - other than to say that I suspect the persons who are the subjects of this forum would likely identify me more as "Rorschach / Walter Kovacs" from "Watchmen". Comic or graphic novel please, not the movie. Though the movie was alright in certain senses.

Now that he has been identified I have a question for Philip. In your latest posting you state;

The body of the judgment refutes that allegation, but has some interesting tidbits. First, David-Donald Jones is a status Indian (para. 8 ) which is a little unexpected given kisikawpimootewin’s basic argument.

Does this mean that the argument that you tweaked out of his pleadings in a prior post, that as a non-status indian he should have had a chance to argue that he should be reverted back to his status benefits, is invalid?

...

As I read it he has been status all along. If so that might be why the court did not consider this argument, it was a moot point.

This is entirely possible, though the 2004 Federal Court kisikawpimootewin judgment gives no hint of that.

Here is a plausible counter-argument. Is it possible that Ken and Donald were not full siblings, but instead half-brothers? Or one was adopted? If so, then Donald may have been a status Indian, but Ken was not. That would allow the brothers to explore the two different approaches to how Indians fit within the legal system in the 2000 and later 2004 cases.

The R. v. Jones decision dates to 2000, and relates to yet earlier failure to pay income tax. R. v. Jones also makes no mention of the enfranchisement argument that was advanced four years later in relation to Kenneth Edward Jones, but instead is restricted to Donald David Jones, a status Indian.

R. v. Jones advances a simpler scheme, that the relationship between an Indian and the state is between the Monarch and the Indian - government actors need a "licence" before they have any potential capacity to interact with an Indian. I do not think we have the resources to expand much more on the Jones' approach at that point.

So my suggestion is this. The 2000 R. v. Jones decision shows an earlier state in the Brothers Jones exploration of law. When it failed, the more sophisticated (and novel) retroactive enfranchisement scheme was employed in 2004 - but only with Kenneth Edward Jones, a non-status Indian.

It is no more than a guess, but I think matches the order and relative sophistication of the Jones family litigation.

SMS Möwe

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

The problems Mowe is pointing out are real ones in criminal actions. As much as we don't like these clowns, we simply have to parse their pleadings carefully and extract the meritorious claims from the morass of gibberish. I'm speaking as a career prosecutor, by the way. It's important because we live by the rule of law, even if the sovereigns don't. If we ignore the bits of merit in the sea of garbage, we're denying them the same right of access to the courts that everyone else in society has-their meritorious claims have the right to be fairly heard, fairly responded to, and fairly adjudicated. the fact that we have to read carefully to get to them doesn't change those fundamental rights. Pro se litigants are by their very definition clueless as to the real law, and that's magnified a thousand-fold with sovereigns, who have so twisted the law in their own minds as to be unrecognizable. the challenge of these guys is dealing with the blizzard of paperwork. It can be done. If you understand the movement, you can zip through a 50-page document with a highlighter, pick out the wheat from the chaff, respond to that, and nuke the rest with a couple of citations to well-worn federal ases dismissing fringe-on-the-flag or commercial-law arguments.

I entirely agree with Chados, both in the necessity to respect the rights of the Freemen / Sovereign litigants, and that with a bit of experience it is not all that difficult to disentangle potentially viable issues from a morass of crap.

While we don't see it so often in the reported case law, there are instances where genuine litigation gets mashed together with spurious pseudolaw. R. v. Duncan, 2013 ONCJ 160 (http://canlii.ca/t/fwsm0) is a perfect example of that. Though it is tedious to go through that process, we benefit as a society by ensuring valid issues are heard and decided, and this process reaffirms that the court system is indeed a valid one in which the public can have confidence.

That's the great thing about decisions like R. v. Duncan - it defeats Freeman arguments both on a legal and social basis. The allegation judges are corrupt is shown as absurd, simply by a judge doing their entire job.

As for the time wasted, again I'm with Chados. There is so very little originality or novelty in most Freeman / Sovereign materials - they are the kings of 'cut and paste'. With some familiarity with the subject matter it's easy to parse out anything new.

(and yes, when it is truly new I may become quite excitable, as is perhaps illustrated by this message thread.)

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

I'd rather self-identify with Marlowe. At the end of the series he married a beautiful heiress and moved to Palm Springs. Rorschach ended up as a pink blot on the Antarctic snow.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

... The powers of our law societies have been stripped back significantly. It sounds like you need a Mick Baker.

...

I won’t blame him solely for the legislative intervention into regulation of the industry but the publicity surrounding the conduct of his practice appeared, at least to me, to be a motivating factor of the parliament in enacting the Legal Profession Act. ...

Backo, thanks for pointing out Mick and his Adventures in Creative Client Billing. At least I am glad to say I don't think I have before encountered a "but read the fine print" argument in a retainer agreement interpretation dispute. Hopefully won't see that again, either.

I think Justice McPherson nailed his character exactly with this parallel:

... the clients were all in poor financial circumstances and were unsophisticated persons inexperienced in legal matters. The methods adopted by the practitioner were in my view intended to cow them into submission by relentless demands upon them even if they were not due. He used his authority, position and facilities as a solicitor and partner in the firm in order to overwhelm them. The firm’s letterhead prominently displays a logo of a rhinoceros. This symbol of animal aggression was, as it proved, arrayed not only against opponents of the firm’s clients but against the clients themselves if they dared to defy him. His Honour correctly described the practitioner as treating the complainants “shamefully” by ignoring their interests or subordinating them to the interests of the firm or his own.

Sadly, Mick captures a certain facet of Canadian legal practice rather well.

Mick's attitude brings to mind a statement I heard while with a group of lawyers: "This entire self-rep litigant problem will go away if the local Law Society continues to refuse representation by non-lawyers, and we keep hiking up lawyers' fees until self-reps are entirely driven out of the superior courts - where they do not, in any case, even belong."

I remember scrutinizing the speaker, who was a senior member of the local bar association, wondering if this was some kind of Swiftian "modest proposal", a hyperbole intended to shock his peers, so that they would recognize the dire effect of their apparently selfish attitude to court access. But no, he meant it.

SMS Möwe

[GeistPunk]

Hi all, I'm new here and realize I'm resurrecting an ancient thread, but I have info regarding this.

Unfortunately I don't know a whole lot about this specific case per se, I do happen to know most of the players personally. Specifically Kisikawpemootewin himself and Timothy Wishewan, and I have some insights as to what they are thinking. As I understand it a lot of this freeman stuff started from an incident involving a RCMP sting operation and unlawful selling of tobacco.

I'm going to be skant with some details that might identify me, as I don't particularly want to be linked to them or their beliefs.

First off, Kisikawpemootewin is still alive and kicking, though he's fairly old now. As far as I'm aware he's no longer active in freeman circles and hasn't done anything in that vein in years, though he definitely does still believe he's right. He's living a sort of semi-retired life right now.

Also, he's not a dumb or mean-spirited person. He's actually very nice and funny in real life, talking to him is like talking to a kindly grandpa. He is pretty intelligent, he just happens to believe some very strange things.

Having seen the fall down the rabbit hole (and almost having done so myself) I kind of understand why these guys think the way they do. Often it starts with a basically correct but flawed understanding of some segment of law, some perceived or actual failing or injustice in the system, and then compounding errors or misinformation just piling up until you get something like this mess. Often early on these guys get a few 'wins' that confirm that their freeman worldview is correct. Usually a 'win' in traffic court or over some small bylaw issue. (note: these "wins" are usually the result of a legit mistake by the officer, or the prosecution opting to drop the case due to not really knowing what's going on)

He does not run a locksmithing business anymore. Unsurprisingly it was shut down by law enforcement. I don't really know why. The explanation I've heard is accusations of some kind of contraband that they never had. However IMO a more likely explanation is that along with failing to file taxes, they probably stopped or were unable to renew their license. I think this is the case as the shutdown happened only a few years after they fell down the freeman-on-the-land rabbit hole.

As far as the question of whether he was trying to restore his indian status, I doubt that's the case even though it seems to be what he's arguing for. The reason why I don't think this was the goal is due to how he and his group see the Canadian government. Essentially, they believe that Canada never really became a country and therefore doesn't have any true authority. They tend to bounce between the idea that we're still under the British empire, and the idea that 'Canada" is really just a corporation. The latter is the root of the reason they really think they can 'opt out' of governance. I'm sure you're all aware of the basic belief of sovcits/freemen that we all have a 'strawman' identity attached to us, and what Kisikawpemootewin and others have tried to do is eliminate the 'strawman' as they believe they'll be able to operate outside the system governed only by 'common law' (note they don't mean caselaw or anything that actually refers to real common law, more they have this vague notion of some primordial, basic law. I'm not sure where they get this 'common law' from, but depending on who you talk to it seems to either be ancient native american law, or some sort of divine law from god)

Knowing the above gives a little more insight as to why they tried to contact the queens privy council and the united nations. I'm not 100% sure why they believe the war measures act is still in effect, but I think it ties back to taxation.

As for the 5 billion dollars thing, I'm not sure how they came to that number. I do know that many of them believe that social insurance and/or the birth certificate is a bank account that contains enough for 'your entire life' (this is how they explain things like healthcare and pension) and often try to draw from that. Due to the idea that it can take care of you forever, they tend to think the value is in the millions. I am unsure if this concept is related to this case however.

As for what Kisikawpemootewin and co. learned from this case, unfortunately the takeaway was not that they have a flawed understanding of law, but what they 'learned' is that court is the wrong venue to address these concerns as it is controlled by Canada. They attempted for a little while to achieve their objectives by sending letters and documents various places, but sort of lost their steam and largely stopped doing this years ago.

I'll poke back here now and then if anyone wants to ask questions!

Edit: also, re:identity, Kisikawpemootewin is/was "Ken Jones", which is likely still his legal name however he rejects entirely. Timothy Wishewan is.. a unique individual and the two do know each other but they are not the same person.