Soto Nation At Court
Chief Kaneekaneet and Colleagues Appeal Terms


By Applicants
Lawrence Agecoutay / Robert Agecoutay & Chester Fernand Girard


Appeal No.
In The Court Of Appeal For The Province Of Saskatchewan

Lawrence Agecoutay,
Robert Agecoutay
Chester Fernand Girard
Members Of Soto Nation
Turtle Island North


Her Majesty The Queen
As represented by the
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Colonial House Canada

PUBLIC DISCLAIMER : Colonial House Canada shall include Elizabeth II –Queen as Crown
A)      The Applicants have been imprisoned by a hostile Colonial House Canada without evidence of jurisdiction; and,
B)      And, the Applicants have objected to the presumption of the Colonial House Canada to possess some state-nation credibility; and, the Applicants have requested that a Provost Marshall shall attend to the claim of prisoner of war status; and, therein, ensure safety of person and property against the prevailing Colonial House Canada
C)      These Applicants demand evidence to be presented by Colonial House Canada through the United Nations and its International Court Of Justice in collaboration with the Human Rights Commission; wherein, it is established that a “COURT” may be convened to determine
i)                     The validity of Colonial House Canada’s claim of state-nationhood status at this UN
ii)                   The validity of a COURT system as may be established to facilitate issues between nations [i.e., Soto Nation v Colonial House Canada]
iii)                  That the Applicants, as prisoners of Colonial House Canada may be accorded prisoner of war protection, as per established Conventions and Treaties accepted by the United Nations; and,
iv)                 The Applicants shall be released, forthwith, upon their own recognizance – with UN Provost Marshall supervision
NOTATION : It is a regrettable presumption that an unfair, overt and structural bias – as evidenced by history - is established within the Colonial House Canada COURT system against these Applicants; as based upon the Papal Bulls Romauns Pontifex and Inter Caetera [Terra Nullius] and the English Crown’s Supremacy Acts. There is no acceptable contrary submission by the Respondent. There is a presumption within these Applicants that they will continue to suffer.
The Role Of The Court : Mutual Integrity and Respect Between The Parties
It is to be reminded upon this Appeal “COURT” of Saskatchewan that there is an existing legacy of physical abuse associated with the arrest of the Applicants. And, this physical abuse resulted in broken bones and infestation by scabies; as well as a denial of access to qualified legal counsel – as evidenced at this original Regina trial where the Defendants proclaimed frustration in being able to secure counsel who would structure their defence upon principals of claimed sovereign state versus claimed sovereign state.
The challenge to the Appeal “COURT” of Saskatchewan is to absolve this entrenched fear and apprehension of overt innate bias within the understanding of these Applicants.
The Regina Trial Judge Mister Justice Gerein specifically avoided the Defendant’s challenge to his “COURT”; and, he failed to acknowledge his limitations of in the matters of lex cause. Mister Justice Gerein claimed a judicial role; yet, wilted at the Defendant’s challenge for him to elect a style of court; and, therefore, there was no established foundation upon which a successful defending legal argument could arise. This frustration was echoed by Mister Mulligan‘s comments to M.J. Gerein’s evident failure to provide a fair hearing [Regina Trial Report P.29].
This Saskatchewan Appeal “Court” may exercise discretion and licence to create a forum of just law; to enshrine the positive principles of Natural Justice. This will only occur where this “Court” avoids a criticism of “Star Chamber” events.
The Applicants advocate a sincere role as healers. They further wish this “Court” to permit its “heart” to settle issues with its intellect; therein, finding a grace with the cloud of colonial history. Should there have been doubt within the jury of the Regina Trial? These Applicants argue that doubt was reasonable where a trial by “peers” had occurred. The evident regrettable legacy of that trial was that the conduct by M.J. Gerein perforated the fabric of the trial with an apprehension instilled into the jury that they could not entertain constitutional challenges in their decision-making. That jury took upon themselves a role a Terra Nullius vindicators of the Colonial House of Canada; therein, electing only to consider the restrictive points of law arising from a polluted and toxic Criminal Code that has inevitably created a history of exceptional convictions of Original Peoples / Indians / First Nations in order to substantiate the published policies of overt apartheid in Colonial House Canada. It is to be remembered that the Regina Trial is structured as a Christian institution versus the traditional heritage claims of the Accused Parties from Soto Nation. These challenges are well known in Australia and New Zealand; where aboriginal peoples have secured a growing case law to challenge the historical and polluted “settled equals conquered”. The United Nations has witnessed human rights challenges to the Holy See; who refuses to expunge the Papal Bulls Inter Caetera and Romanus Pontifex.
These Applicants are certainly not alone in Colonial House Canada in seeking to expunge the ruthless legacies of the Residential Schools and the evident records of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Both native and non-native peoples are involved in a quest to eliminate the racism that is so historical in “Court” decisions in Colonial House Canada; including the Supreme Court of Canada, who has judged that indigenous peoples are 10%ers – only worthy of 1/10th of that of non-natives [sexual abuse issues and real estate issues].
The Colonial House Canada Supreme Court has been petitioned on October 31st ,2008 [copy attached to this submission as Appendix I] to Cease and Desist any further decision-making forthwith. This petition bears upon inferior “Courts” such as the Appeal Court of Saskatchewan.
In these matters the following is submitted for clarity in these matters of evident bias and fairness in “Court” proceedings within an atmosphere where lex cause is not determined: Note: Colonial House Canada is to be referenced as “CHC”; Saskatchewan Appeal Court is “SAC”

POWER may be likened to authority in that there is an enabling nature where some facet of influence creates a predominance in a given circumstance. The Colonial House Canada misrepresents to the world that it possesses an authority through the constituencies of the regions of “confederation”; whereas, this claim to power is structured through an abuse of authority by fraud in that there is no existing legal basis upon which to garner this authority of governance with an sense of integrity; rather it is founded entirely through an abuse of human rights arising from the 15th century Papal Bulls and the 16th century Supremacy Acts. The Appellants disavow any credence to these claimed authorities


The judiciary, in order to establish impartiality, must not only be unbiased, but must be seen to be unbiased. Bias arises within the context of unreasonableness in the exercise of authority or power and influence. And, original bias is the claim proposed by these Appellants in witnessing the manner in which the Colonial House of Canada judiciary has performed decision-making in regard to aboriginal / indigenous / First Nation / Indians / Original Peoples. This stigma of original bias prevails upon the “Court” of Appeal in Saskatchewan in that this judiciary aught to know that there is no foundation to the CHC.


The burden of proof upon these Appellants Agecoutay / Girard by the SAC is one of reverse onus: i.e., to be required to show no ignorance of law or mistake of law; and, more substantially, to show that CHC is not a fictitious state nation with parliamentary powers to establish and execute judicial decision-making. These Appellants reject this reverse onus burden.


“But For” the sky falling, there would not be any clouds upon the roadway. These Appellants argue that they are not subjects of this original action for arrest; that they are subjects of another nation not residing in the claimed CHC; and, therefore, not within the jurisdiction of this legal fiction.


The Appellants dismiss the objectives of causation upon their actions. They argue that they are paramount in their determination of sovereignty; and, not within the claimed realms of CHC governance
These Appellants claim original human civil rights. And, they claim to have been performing acts within the reasonable person test when they were invaded by hostile CHC para-military forces and seized into arrest. The global nature of civil rights prevails for the benefit of these Appellants. And, the very nature of these civil rights were ignored by M.J. Gerein in the Regina Trial. Fundamental natural justice was not included into the demeanor of the judicial proceedings – and, these Appellants claim a right to be forthwith released from prison and to benefit by a complete exoneration of these charges; with compensation.


There is no original agreement between the Parties to the Regina Trial regarding the conduct of the Hearing – i.e., there is no agreement in the matter of common law rules versus codified rules; admiralty or military rules. This void creates a general cause to solicit a full dismissal of the Regina Trial as being unfairly biased : namely, the mens rae could not be delineated in a manner of coordinated logic between the parties. The Record clearly demonstrates a substantial variance in the forms of logic applied to the issues by M.J. Gerein, the Crown counsel; and, the Respondents


Due process was avoided in the Regina Trial by the conduct of M.J. Gerein. The confrontation between the Accused Respondents and the Crown required evidence of jurisdiction to hold persons into arrest; to collect evidence regarding a claimed contravention of statutory law; and, to provide reasonable access to law. Parliamentary committees since 1960 – including those chaired by M.J. McGuigan – resulted in a clear evocation of alarm that the overwhelming volume of law within CHC is such as to create a reasonable argument of absence of access to the law – including affordability. These Appellants claim denial of fundamental principles of justice and absence of natural rights; entitling these Appellants to a dismissal of the Regina Trial due to the plethora of civil human rights abuses.


Contempt of court flows both ways. This power of the judiciary is subject to abuse. M.J. Gerein established a Record wherein he demonstrated a clear contempt by failing to adequately consider the petitions by the Accused Respondents to issues of rights within realms of law


The “Court” of M.J. Gerein was challenged by the Accused Respondents. The powers of this judge were cited as being specious and alarming in the provocation of fear created within the Accused. Where was the jurisdiction created by the Regina “Court”. There was not a meeting of minds in this regard between the Crown, the judiciary and the Accused Respondents.


This metaphysical causation was absent regarding mens rae in the Appellants. They are entitled to a dismissal of the convictions


Due process requires an establishment of jurisdiction. This failed at the Regina Trial. The Appellants suffered as a result as evidenced by the conviction on charges. The jury was in-equipped to consider the fundamental petition of sovereignty as claimed by these Accused Respondents. There was no procedural justice.


Equity requires some evident form off fairness. Remedies were and are absent to these convicted Accused Respondent Appellants. They are presented before the SAC without benefit of legal counsel. And, their cause shall fail without equity.


There was a substantial disparity at the Regina Trial regarding the evidence to be considered. The absence of equity created an imbalance of probabilities in favour of the Crown; resulting in the convictions. This should be reversed by the SAC. The claimed evidence of THC at the time of seizure is in doubt. There was no evidence provided regarding the continuous maturation of the THC content beyond the prevailing host greenhouses. This evidence should be denied as a justification for arrest and conviction.


It would not be fair for the Accused convicted Respondent Appellants Agecoutay / Girard to propose that their business activities should continue in the absence of scientific testing of their products. The Crown alleged an intent by the Accused to market their products into he general community without regard to the health and safety of persons – especially, naïve persons who make be induced to participate in what the CHC legislated as being a contravention of its Criminal Code. A trial of fairness would have considered the four corners of this allegation of intent. The absence of qualified legal counsel prevented a balance of arguments; and, therefore, the Accused should enjoy the benefits of the SAC reversal of these convictions.


The postulates of evidence as presented by Crown to the Regina Trial was at variance to the test of probabilities. The logical axioms of predicate logic was not present. There was no logical basis for the jury to conclude a conviction on charges. M.J. Gerein did not advise and guide this jury adequately in order to preserve the claimed integrity of the administration of justice on behalf of the good of the whole.


It may be argued by the Crown that these Accused and convicted Appellants aught to have perceived that their business activities would cause them to come into conflict with the law of CHC. These Accused did offer an elementary logic for their actions; asserting their belief that they were following the guiding influence of the Creator. Certainly, to be assisted by God or the Creator is an argument difficult to prove. There is the severe punishment that arises from accepting an oath of truthfulness in testimony. These Accused Appellants did not propose that they were mentally incompetent; nor, did M.J. Gerein report into the record any concern for their competence. Hence, the Crown carried the burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that these Accused fully possessed mens rae in their actions. There was no evident submissions by Crown that purported that these Accused developed a plan to avoid conviction. Therefore, M.J. Gerein possessed no empowerment to proceed to permit the jury to consider allegations of fundamental corruption in a criminal sense within the applicable jurisdiction claimed by CHC.


CHC possess a parliamentary record of being the instigator at the United Nations of a Peace Keeping Force. As a claimed democratic monarchial institution, this CHC proposes to legislate statutes within the golden rules of fundamental justice within a disharmonious schematic of both common law and codified law. There is no evidence that this CHC has included the traditional rules of law as prevailing within the indigenous nations of Turtle Island North. There are no claims by CHC to provide any modicum of respect for “Indian” heritage within these CHC laws and governance proclamations. Consequently, the fundamental principles of ignorance of the law arise as being absent in this Regina Trial that resulted in convictions. This absence of justice creates a substantial flaw in the applied logic of M.J. Gerein; requiring a reversal of the convictions.


Habeas Corpus, as a crux in natural justice, has been denied to these Accused Appellants. Where are the submissions by Crown establishing the original jurisdiction of the “Court” and the authorities of the judge ? Where did M.J. Gerein perform an equity provision in adequately protecting the Accused from abuse of process ?


The Accused Appellants did not perceive acceptable harm within risk. There was not submission by Crown to establish this concept within the mens rae


The role of the “Court” in contemporary includes exclusion of star chamber features; and, embraces the principles of legal egalitarianism / equality before the law. CHC jurisprudence has yet to evolve beyond the colonial mentality of the 17th century. This is evident in the culpability of all parties in the Regina Trial process must be weighed with equity. The failure of the process as provided by M.J. Gerein demonstrates the continuance of assimilation as outweighing equity. The façade of including historical references to the legacy of the native persons on trial was one of demonstrating the process as not including the concepts of the Stockholm Syndrome upon the decision-making of persons who have been raised within a colonial structure that endorsed Residential Schools and the burning / burial of children within that system not more than 30 years ago. Where did the Regina Trial and M.J. Gerein demonstrate a compassion for the traditions and heritage that Lawrence Agecoutay and his associate Accused brought to that table ? Where was the respect and lawful consideration for the pipe bearer ? How did the “Court” provide a balance to the jury to ensure no bias ? That “Court” failed in this prerequisite.


The concept of no ignorance of law may be claimed provides exceptions to this rule. New citizens, foreign visitors, mentally incapacitated persons, persons not adequately functional in English or French. What is the traditional working language of the Accused? How was this accommodated within this Regina Trial ? Did the Accused possess an unambiguous knowledge of the language of the “Court”. Not only does knowledge require a use of the language; rather, it requires the ability to include the historical application of the language. Did Chief Kaneekaneet and his associate Accused use the language at Trial in the same manner as the Trial Judge, Crown prosecutors and the members of the jury ? No. That variance was demonstrated repeatedly by the references made by the Accused to points requiring the Trial Judge to render interpretations – which he failed to offer for clarity. There was no meeting of the minds.


Impartiality is a fundamental prerequisite of the Trial in CHC jurisdiction as well as within the Soto Nation jurisdictions. How was this need for impartiality made evident at the Regina Trial ? The absence of this impartiality was referred to by Mister Mulligan when recorded as saying that there was doubt that the trial would be fair.


The judiciary test is one of being responsible to the state which created its institution. The role of the law is to be impartial in a modern democratic system of governance. The judiciary of CHC is at odds with the judiciary of Soto Nation. There are no Treaties to provide balance or accountability. The CHC judiciary has established a past practice of endorsing the colonial assimilation and apartheid policies of the Master state. The Accused challenged the bias of the Regina Trial judiciary; without these challenges being attended to adequately by the Trial Judge M.J. Gerein. The result was an imbalance of Terms and Conditions, which created an accumulated and overwhelming problem for the jury; resulting in convictions of these Accused peoples. Judicial review without bias would


The cardinal prerequisite of a judge is to provide a balance and prevent bias from contaminating the environment of the trial. The jurisdiction must be established by the judge. M.J. Gerein avoided entering into this phase of responsibility; therein, creating a void in the process – to the disadvantage of the Accused; and, to the disadvantage of the jury.


The jury functions as a trier of fact. The absence of legal representation by the Accused created a flawed process; which provided the opportunity for imbalance to be established. There was no direction from M.J. Gerein to establish within the minds of this Regina Trial jury that they must know clearly impartiality; that this “Court” trial was a mixed economies of varied traditions, cultures, substantive law and knowledge of law that fundamentally created a requirement for a trial within a trial. The finding of fact was clouded; obviating an impartial verdict.


The provisions of a jury trial were established for the Regina Trial as being an opportunity to provide “peerage”. M.J. Gerein ruled that there was no imbalance of “peerage” in the jury selection contrary to the objections of the Accused; who voiced that there was an obvious absence of equity in the jury selection; therein, reinforcing the apprehension within the minds of the Accused that their case was lost before it began.


It is well known that justice and law are not necessarily compatriots within the legal system of courts. The role of the judge being to weigh the points of law; and, not to be concerned about the nature of justice within the parameters of the statutes under consideration. There were some latitudes available to M.J. Gerein; through which he could attain a clear uncontested trial; and, therein avoiding any justified accusations of inadequacy or bias. Was “justice” attending in the Regina Trial room for the Accused against the overwhelming odds in favour of the state Crown ? No. Injustice prevailed. The modicum of justice was avoided; and, therefore the process was contaminated.


How was law evident at the Regina Trial ? How were the Accused adequately informed of their culpabilities ? How was the jury panel advised of the parameters within which they must perform their tasks ?  What was the law ? These points were not attended to at the Regina Trial; hence, to the sufferance of the Accused. The questions of law versus economics prevailed. Economics outweighed law. There was no evident compassion to provide the four cornerstones of law to the Accused.


A classical system of logic is to be provided for by the judge at trials. The laws were to provide a forum avoiding the principles of bivalence; there was to be no probabilities of doubt in the minds of he jury – and, no doubt within the minds of the Accused. The process and the judge were not able to avoid ambivalence at this trial; logic suffered; and inequity reined. The law of the excluded middle avoids doubt. There was considerable doubt in the environment of this Regina Trial. The good administration of justice therefore was failed.


Yes, what was the law of the land ? Whose land was under consideration ? What jurisdiction of law prevailed ? Was there anarchy at the Soto Nation? Was there criminality ? By whose definition on these sovereign lands were issues to be judged? M.J. Gerein did not establish the law of the land. – and, the Accused suffered.


How was legitimacy established into the decorum of the Regina Trial room ? Whose decorum reigned ? How was this paramountcy of protocol established ? Were all Parties informed of the discrepancies of claimed jurisdiction ? Were the minds of the jurists clear on these points of variance and constitutional contest ? Who possessed a legitimate jurisdiction ? And, how was this tested ? Did the Accused suffer as a result of this overwhelming cloud of doubt ? Yes, they did suffer.


The issues of lex causae were evident in the Regina trial Record. There was a demonstrated conflict of laws that was not settled before the jury ruled o convict. Were the traditional laws of Soto Nation at variance with the chosen and declared laws of CHC ? Yes, and, there was no Treaty established to close these variances that tainted the justice and trial.


There must be a clear, unequivocal use of logic at the Regina Trial. The jury, in particular, must demonstrates in their decision making that logic ruled; and, that passion played no part in their ruling. There was an odour of bias prevalent in the trial house. Therefore, it became unavoidable for the jury to likewise become contaminated by this pollution of the CHC legacies in the matter of treatment of indigenous peoples and their subsequent imprisonment. Again, the overwhelming odds of imprisoned native peoples demonstrates a continued intolerance for basic human rights; and, a rejection of the Terra Nullius principles.


The Magna Carta is not a document endorsed by Soto Nation. However, it did establish a burden upon the common law systems to provide a growing pathology of good common sense in the application of law. There was no inquiry by M.J. Gerein in to the rule of law at the Soto Nation. There was no Treaty between Chief Kaneekaneet and associates and this Regina Trial judge. There were no rules agreed upon at this trial. No rules of evidence were established. There was a preponderance of presumption erroneously exercised by the judge in allocating paramountcy to the Crown’s claim of state nationhood.


The intent is critical in criminal trials within CHC jurisdiction. Again, since no jurisdiction was established; rather an atmosphere of anarchy prevailed at the Regina Trial. This mens rae , as a fundamental element of a crime, needs to be3 established by the Prosecution. No meeting of the minds prevailed. And, M.J. Gerein did not establish a paramountcy of law on behalf of the CHC Crown.


Was there a mistake of law that resulted in the Accused coming under arrest ? No. The Accused did not abandon their claimed territory and invade the claimed CHC territories. And, the claim of territory was not established by the Crown at the Regina Trial. Again, presumption rained; without consideration to the void of clarity surrounding these Accused. If the Accused had accepted the jurisdiction of CHC laws, would they have possessed a justification to claim mistake of law. There is a strong probability that qualified competent defence counsel could have established a preponderance of mistake of law. But, this was not possible at this Regina Trial due to the hostile invading nature of the CHC paramilitary forces that executed the arrest and seizures of claimed prohibited goods. It is doubtful that the Accused would have contended mistake of law even though they would have possessed a fundamental right in law to offer such a defence.


Many historical documents – and, now, including the CHC Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the decision-making on the claims by Residential School Victims – attest to the passion for the colonial houses breaching the sanctity of the Original Peoples of Turtle Island North [which was substantially at variance to the more respectful visitations by the far east’s’ Zheng Heh and the missionaries of monks that came to these lands over several thousands of years ]. Original Peolpes offered forward to European private companies the protocol of Gus Wen Tah [Peace, Trust and Friendship]. The CHC has created a toxic legacy in parliament and courts under its jurisdiction against the fundamental rights of Original Peoples. This Regina Trial perpetuated these attitudes and policies. The Accused suffered.


Terra Nullius : Papal Bulls and English Supremacy Acts still invade the very fabric of logic and law in the CHC territories. No humans at home unless they be Christian. The Pope declared that any Monarch who failed to comply with his dictates would suffer invasion, death and condemnation to Hell.
The CHC libraries and documents arising from governance are replete with reinforcement of these obligatory doctrines of fundamental hatred; which should have no place in a free and democratic society – and, they should not be present under the claimed jurisdiction of any jurist. But, they were in the courtroom claimed somehow by M.J. Gerein.
The Soto Nation and other Original Peoples have never entered into a Treaty with any qualified party. There is no law of “settled equals conquered. There was no abandonment by Original Peoples of their lands and resources. There was no capacity in law for the exploring private companies to seize or acquire lands while being protected through the admiralty of the English Crown, or, of other European states.
While the Appeal Court of Saskatchewan is a recognized legal fiction; there is the existing opportunity for this claimed “Court” to avoid further contamination of the justice process that it creates for the administration of its Criminal Code. The SAC should adjourn without receiving the petitions of either the Applicants or the Respondents. There should be an immediate release of these Accused and convicted persons. And, compensation should be ordered through a UN-administered commission. The CHC taxpayers are entitled to this recognition of inadequacy by the CHC “Court”.


The evident role of M.J. Gerein was to be pejorative: to belittle the Accused. He succeeded. The Regina Trial needs to be expunged.


There is a fundamental presumption of innocence that is not afforded to Original Peoples’ territorial claims. The CHC is without good reputation. The CHC has a tradition of thuggery – in the true sense as it was established in India. Innocence is fragile. The Accused were never accorded this presumption at the Regina Trial.

At first sight, when Chief Kaneekaneet carried the bundle of pipes, he and his colleagues became contaminated with prejudice and bias. This is the legacy of the CHC – and, one which has recently been noted by the UN Human Rights Commission in its public condemnation of CHC policies regarding human rights abuses. At first blush, the Crown is exposed as continuing to be based within the Terra Nullius principles- even at the Regina Trial.

Again, there was no “peerage” at the Regina Trial.


The procedural law rules were never agreed upon at the Regina Trial.


The liability resting upon the Crown at the Regina Trial is one of contaminated and toxic past practice and evident resident policy at the M.J. Gerein “Court”.


Evidence Rules were not Treatied at the Regina Trial; therefore, any consideration of fact by the jury was null and void.


Reasonable person testing establishes a preponderance of doubt; especially, regarding state of mind in the Accused.


The Accused demonstrated a history of being at conflict with CHC law. Why was this ? They also demonstrated a history of accomplishment. Even the proposed evidence at the Regina Trial related to the good quality of their enterprise. What reasonable person would knowingly [since their operations were subject to periodic police air surveillance] expose themselves to hatred and obvious arrest ? The contrary argument is that these Accused sincerely believed that their enterprise was without reproach by law.


The evidence of the Accused is that their enterprise was one of being a for-profit humanitarian quest in health care. The CHC avoids existing scientific evidence that equates a series of hemp chemicals as being agents to good health. Obviously, there are pathogens within hemp that are contrary to good health. The United States and Canada continue to examine the realities of a commercial market that requires regulation in order to avoid pathogens infiltrating the product. Certainly, the Accused sought some form of profit. However, the remaining Accused testimony is that they are not an organized criminal element. The Supreme Court of Canada has previously ruled that there shall not be sufferance in the actions of those who seek to contribute to the good policies and practices of a free and democratic state. There are test areas for taxation purposes being conducted by the United States in an effort to determine how to avoid responsibility for promoting a product that was the required fundamental crop in the formation of the 13 colonies.
The Accused did not seek unjust enrichment.


Were the Accused reckless in their pursuit of creating a viable commercial enterprise. Probably. And, somewhat naïve, as well. If these elements were removed from politics the world would face far fewer crisis. The Accused should not be charged with reckless abandon. They did test their products. They could use better testing protocol. They intended to avoid creating a product that would violate reasonable health criteria.


The resolution of the territorial jurisdiction dispute is best settled before the UN International Court of Justice.


There is no rule of reverse onus with jurisdiction in these issues. The CHC state failed to proffer adequate evidence of jurisdiction.


The rights of these Accused are enshrined into international Treaties and Agreements; some of which CHC refuses to endorse or comply with today – he Rights of Children and Rights of Aboriginal Peoples are two issues worthy of note here as being prevalent negligence matters weighing upon the CHC state.


How can one establish rights in law when there are no Treaties between two Parties to establish a diplomacy ? CHC will be called forward to justify its claim before the UN Credentials Committee. Soto Nation has not sought out the endorsement of the UN.


The Rules of Natural Justice are relevant at the Regina Trial. They were not in evidence to the benefit of the Accused.


There is a limited scope liability upon the Accused. This scope of liability is upon all Parties to the “Court” – it should not have been the sole burden upon the Accused. This liability would not have been established had the Accused been represented by legal counsel.


To create statutes a state nation must have credibility. No province within the claimed Canada house have been created within acceptable international rules. CHC fails as a state nation; therefore the Courts and statutes of its legislature are toxic and void.


The obvious impact of CHC policies upon native peoples has created injuries upon any person who shows physical traits of being indigenous. These two Accused Lawrence Agecoutay and Robert Agecoutay have histories of being challenged by the impact of being relegated to a refuge camp called a reserve. Chester Girard is a Métis person who is likely castigated by both cultures : native and non-native.


Substantive law was lacking at the Regina Trial. The convictions ought to be voided.


SUMMERS v. TICE : Both Equally Guilty
The Summers v. Tice trial records may be examined as contributing to the matter of product liability. Were the Accused reasonably liable for arrest as caused by their commercial choices? Were the Accused negligent wit abandon ? Were they fundamentally criminal in their pursuits ? How will we know if there is no establishment of jurisdiction of the Regina Trial ? Whose laws ?


The Regina Trial needs to be expunged.


As trier of fact, M.J. Gerein conducted a biased hearing, establishing a preponderance of presumed bias within the minds of the jury. M.J. Gerin avoided adequately cautioning the jury to avoid the properties of bias. The basis of fact was not grounded. There was no trial, except through the misconception of a trial at “Court”.


There was no establishment through agreement of the structure of the “Court” and its rules of evidence. There was a biased presumption placed upon this Regina Trial.


Universal Human Rights prevail upon Canada as a UN member. The conduct of trials against Original Peoples is a strident provocation of Terra Nullius in its most repugnant best.


War Crimes are now a jurisdiction within the United Nations. The Records of this Regina Trial have become testaments to a growing file of abuses being catalogued in preparation to submitting a Statement of Claim before this UN general Assembly in petition for a Canada War Crimes Tribunal to be convened.


Were the Accused Applicants the creators of their own plight at law ? Yes, they consciously chose to grow a product called hemp. They consciously chose to test the THC quotient of this hemp. They attempted to avoid conflict of law in growing this product due to their limited knowledge of the CHC laws and their jurisdiction upon the Soto Nation Peoples.
Though willful, these Accused Appellants were not acting with moral turpitude. They considered their actions to acceptable within community standards.

Submitted : March 9th, 2009
Rules Of Order Not Declared By “Saskatchewan Court”
 TO :
1.     Elizabeth II – Queen / Canada
2.     Governor-In-Council Canada
3.     Lt Governor In Council Saskatchewan
4.     The Appeal Court, Province Of Saskatchewan, Canada
5.     The United Nations General Assembly & Credentials Committee
6.     The UN International Court Of Justice, The Hague
7.     The UN Human Rights Commission
8.     The European Court Of Human Rights
9.     The International Labour Organization
10.The Nobel Foundation
11.The International Red Cross Association; and,
12.Amnesty International
Absence Of Records In Preparation Of Submissions To Appeal Venues
·        The following are produced and submitted in the absence of a full copy of the transcripts of the original trial before M.J. Gerein, Saskatchewan Queens Bench; regarding the Accused : Speaker : Grand Chief Kitchi-Ostew-Kaneekanagoshick-Okimow-Wacon-Kaneekaneet [Lawrence Agecoutay]; Robert Agecoutay; and, Chester Girard / or, in names as they have made known to the “Court”.
Specifically, The Records, Pages 1- 212 have not been provided
Submitted : March 9th, 2009     Rules Of Order Not Declared By “Saskatchewan Court”
Terra Nullius Papa Bulls And The Overwhelming Adverse Impact Upon Ordre Public
Ignorance Of Law   Mistake Of Law    Crown Canada Misdirection Of Law By Prejudicial Intent
Indigenous laws v. Crown Canada In The Matter Jurisdiction Of The Canada Constitution and Treaty 4
Conceptualizing Complicity In Alien Tort Cases & Exposing The UN To Potential Suit
The Parties : “A”
Primary Application Before The United Nations International Court Of Justice
Affidavit Of Truth : Sworn By: namely, As members of The Sovereign Soto Nation In Turtle Island, North :
·        Speaker : Grand Chief Kitchi-Ostew-Kaneekanagoshick-Okimow-Wacon-Kaneekaneet [Lawrence Agecoutay]; Robert Agecoutay; and, Chester Girard
In The Matter Of Conflict Of Laws & Choice Of Laws : including [but, not limited to] Lex Domicile; theory of statuta; rules on renvoi, lex fori, lex situs : The Military Invasion Of Sovereign Indigenous Lands By A Hostile Claimed State-Nation Canada & Elizabeth II- Queen & In Consequence The Arrest, Trial, Conviction, Beating & Imprisonment Of The Accused; namely, Peoples Of The Sovereign Anishinabe Nation Of Turtle Island North Grand Chief Kaneekaneet [Lawrence Agecoutay], Robert Agecoutay & Chester Girard
Parties “B”
Fundamental Objections By Party “A” To Procedures Of Elizabeth II- Queen; and her Assigns Canada : No Jurisdiction : Lex Cause : Elizabeth II- Queen and her agent / assignee Canada – without good and just cause have executed arrests, tortures, trials; and, imprisonment of these Parties, supra, without establishing legitimate jurisdiction of its “courts”.
To The Attention Of Elizabeth II- Queen & The Claimed Corporate Canada
Petitioned To The Attention Of [but, not limited to] The Court Of Appeal Saskatchewan Canada ; Assignee on behalf of Canada / Elizabeth II-Queen & To The Attention Of The United Nations International Court Of Justice & The Organization Of American States Human Rights Commission & Court
A Matter Of A War Crime By Elizabeth II – Queen and her Assignee Canada In Association With A Practice Of Genocide Against The Parties “A”, supra and their ancestors or relatives, friends; and associates for the good of the whole.
Elizabeth II- Queen and her agent Canada – without good and just cause - have executed a military invasion upon indigenous peoples of the paramount sovereign state-nation Anishinabe of Turtle Island North; and, further have claimed a false jurisdiction to try, convict, torture and imprison three parties who are citizen members of this said sovereign nation Anishinabe Turtle Island North ; otherwise known as North America. This matter is, herein, appealed to the international community for release, relief and compensation.
Objectives Of This Party “A” Submission
1.     Expose the absence of jurisdiction of the Crown Elizabeth II- Queen and her Assignee Canada to establish a governing regime; and, including, the provision for a judiciary
2.     To expose the original trial and conviction of these accused parties as being without merit or jurisdiction; and,
3.     To appeal to international law jurisdictions; and, the internal Canadian judiciary regime for relief from arrest, trial, conviction and imprisonment; and, therein, to secure an
immediate release from internment; a security against further invasion and arrest; compensation for false imprisonment; return of business assets or a reasonable compensation for loss of revenue resulting from the illegal business interruption; and, a public apology from Elizabeth II-Queen and her Assignee Canada for these violations of fundamental human rights. 
In these matters, it is submitted that there is no prevailing right of claim by any jurisdiction of judiciary in “Canada” due to the inadequate constitutional formation by fraudulent conspiracies of private enterprises to occupy and govern lands without benefit of war, nor the abandonment of paramount allodial rights by indigenous peoples. In these matters, submissions have been placed before Elizabeth II-Queen, Canada the Supreme Court of Canada; the European Court Of Human Rights; and, the Secretary General o the United Nations that state-nation credentials are inadequate as presented by Canada to the League of Nations and the subsequent United Nations; wherein, it is claimed a right of Canada to be recognized as state-nation; and, thereafter, to enjoy the benefits of membership therein. Hence, the Supreme Court of Canada has been petitioned to cease any further hearings; as these judgments may inevitably be ruled ultra vires by the UN ICJ at the Hague. In consequence, this proclamation injunction against the Supreme Court embraces any claimed jurisdiction by its inferior bodies; including these judiciaries instituted within the boundaries of the claimed province Saskatchewan.
Overriding and Prevailing Matter Of Intent Of Elizabeth II – Crown
The Accused / Convicted / Imprisoned sovereign Parties, herein, supra, proclaim irrevocably and in truth before the world community that the intent of the business activities, as charged; namely, the cultivation of hemp medicine and ancillary products is an acceptable purpose for the benefit of the good of the whole.
Elizabeth II- Queen and her Assignee Canada have executed an injustice through the production of false documents of state-nation incorporation. And, within this corrupt conspiracy, this Monarch regime has claimed a right to produce and enforce certain documents from its houses of parliament and legislature which purport to regulate the activities of citizens and others within claimed territories. These claims to state-nationhood are founded upon the proclamations from the Holy See Catholic Church through its dictums of Terra Nullius [Romanus Pontifex and Inter Caetera] and the Anglican Church / Government of England’s Supremacy Acts.           These church laws, as 
enforced through military authority, specifically continue since the 14th century to direct the Monarchs of Europe to enforce a policy of hatred to indigenous peoples of other nations who are not Christian by faith; and, further, enforce a corporate dictum which enshrines the inhumane policy that a non-Christian is a non-human; and, therein, not competent to possess assets of real estate or resources; and, further, is not competent to govern.
In Canada the testimonies before “Royal Commissions” on aboriginal issues which speak to the inhumane and criminal travesties by Elizabeth II- Queen and her Assignee Canada against the traditions and customs of indigenous peoples of Turtle Island North; and, the discriminatory compensatory Residential Schools Victims settlements are witness -, in conjunction to prevailing legislation creating the refugee camps called Indian Reserves – to the prevailing, hostile assimilation policies and practices of this rogue regime Canada.
The consequent arrest and conviction / imprisonment of the three parties Grand Chief Kaneekaneet and his associates Robert Agecoutay and Chester Girard represents the continued execution of policies contrary to the human rights as provided for through the United Nations against the traditions of these said indigenous peoples of the Anishinabe Nation of North Turtle Island.
There is no factum or allegation presented by the Crown in the Appeal application; nor, within the original trial and conviction before the Saskatchewan Queen’s Bench of an organized criminal network association connection or intent to conspire with these elements that are contrary to good public policy either within indigenous peoples jurisdiction; nor, within the context of the claimed state-nation Canada.
The Crown Elizabeth II- Queen and her Assignee Canada have purported to establish certain Treaties with indigenous peoples of Turtle Island North; wherein, it is entrenched that custom and tradition may be retained and practised by these indigenous peoples, including those peoples of the territory named as Treaty 4 – which has claimed to include the peoples of Grand Chief Kaneekaneet and his associates accused, convicted and imprisoned. This said “Treaty 4” – although, without merit - included a recognition doctrine providing for the protection and preservation of the rights of indigenous peoples of the region identified as “Treaty 4” to enjoy its maintenance and practises of their medicine chests.
Points At Issue
Section One : Jurisdiction
1.     Nation-to-Nation Jurisdictions of Law : Issue Of Treaties
(A)   Elizabeth II- Queen and her Assignee Canada enforce a nation-to-nation relationship with the customary indigenous governing bodies within her claimed territory
(B)   Elizabeth II- Queen and her Assignee Canada have claimed through subterfuge and criminal conspiracies of known acts contrary to human rights [including the specific disenfranchisement of indigenous peoples of the instituting provincial regimes by private enterprises beyond their Admiralty Orders] to the establishment of provincial regimes
(C)   Elizabeth II- Queen and her Assignee Canada have disregarded their United Nations Charter obligations by failing to register any “Treaty” with indigenous peoples. In consequence it is reasonable to conclude that no “Treaties” exist; and, therefore, no jurisdiction of state-nationhood has been negotiated from indigenous peoples.
2.     Admiralty Law v. Common Law
(A)   Elizabeth II- Queen and her Assignee Canada, in arresting, trying, convicting, and imprisoning the Accused parties, supra, have not identified on the face of the record whether they are proclaiming a trial by Admiralty Law or by Common Law
(B)   In failing to proclaim the chosen jurisdiction of law, the Crown Canada has prevented the Accused and their Counsel from determining the best course of response to these charges of contrariness to the Criminal Code of Canada
3.     International Law v. Common Law
(A)   International Law provides for the jurisdiction of the Geneva Convention; which establishes rules for the respectful treatment of prisoners
(B)   Lawrence Agecoutay / Grand Chief Kaneekaneet has suffered broken bones; biological invasion of scabies; and, forced medications contrary to his health interests while within remand and prison. This is contrary to the Geneva Convention provisions; and, constitutes a war crime
(C)   The Accused / Convicted / Imprisoned persons claim entitlements under international law; i.e., being residents of legitimate state-nations which have been invaded upon and occupied by hostile foreign corporate forces
(D) Canadian common law jurisdiction is rejected; being the product of a nefarious rogue regime, which has acquired recognition through the efforts of deceit and malfeasance
4.     Indigenous Law v. Canada Statutory Law
(A)   Indigenous law is paramount to the claimed Canadian statutory laws. Each province, including Saskatchewan are constructs through a regime of fraud and corruption originating through the Hudson’s Bay Company
(B)   Elizabeth II – Queen and her Assignee Canada have executed these claims of provincial incorporation and subsequent national confederation by disenfranchisement of indigenous peoples by chemical warfare [passing out to indigenous peoples of plague infested and contaminated blankets and shirts] in an effort to reduce prevailing indigenous populations
(C)   Indigenous peoples have never abandoned their traditional territories in favour of these criminal regimes; nor, have they acquiesced to releasing their allodial land title rights in favour of the claim of the Monarch and the Assignee Canada
(D) Indigenous state-nation governance within Turtle Island North is accredited since more than 8000 years BCE; and, these governing bodies have historically provided a respect for the healing capabilities of the Creator through herbs and other natural products. Grand Chief Kaneekaneet is a direct ancestor of chiefs who attended and considered the applications of the Hudson’s Bay Company representatives – and, he is a survivor of the infamous Residential Schools. He is a sacred pipe carrier; who regularly consults with his indigenous Elders for guidance in applying the wisdom offered to him through the Creator
(E)    The claimed laws of Canada are, in many ways, contrary to the laws of Grand Chief Kaneekaneet’s. And, Grand Chief Kaneekaneet and his associate accused and convicted parties Mister Robert Agecoutay and Chester Girard do not accept the proffered Indian Act of Canada as possessing jurisdiction to establish “reserves” for “Indians”; and, therein to occupy through governance.
Section Two : Intent of Accused / Convicted and Imprisoned
1.     Grand Chief Kaneekaneet and the co-accused and convicted, supra, have not offered forward apologies to the Courts or Parole Boards due to their continued allegiance to the fundamental principles of medicinal healing that they advocate through the hemp products
2.     The traditional healing nature of hemp is recognized within the medical communities for the successful alleviation of levels of progressive Alzheimer’s. Additionally, Kaneekaneet argues that the healing capabilities for heart, cancer and diabetes are within the medicinal realms of hemp products.
3.     There is no submission into factum of any allegations that there has been any attempt by these accused men to cause harm to any person, indigenous or non-indigenous; nor any youth through their chosen business of producing commerce and trade through hemp production
4.     There was no submission by the Crown in the Trial before Queen’s Bench that the claimed THC quotient exceeding three kilograms existed at the time of seizure at the production site greenhouses. Further, there was no submission on the record from Health Canada that the seized plants do not continue to mature after the initial harvesting by police
Section Three : Trial At Queens Bench :
Section Four : Appeal Applications To Appeal Court Saskatchewan
1.     Accused / Conviction Petition For Release
2.     Crown / Public Prosecution Service Of Canada
Facts : For Reference : Transcripts of Pages 1 – 212 were not provided to the Accused
1.     Crown Canada, The Judge: Mr. Justice Gerein / Court : 21st Day Of April : 2008 claimed to commence a “Court” into the Hearing of Charges upon Mister Lawrence Agecoutay, Mister Chester Girard and Mister Robert Agecoutay
2.     The jurisdiction of the “Court” was not provided for even when it was challenged by the Accused Parties “A”; Judge Gerein received the objections and rejected them without providing a good and just cause
3.     Motions By the Accused Parties “A”
(a)   P. 5: Court : will not hear matter of calling back jury candidates due to expense
(b) P. 5: Mr. Mulligan / counsel has not seen filed documentation
(c)   P.12: Court : not addressing jurisdictions of warrants, searches or seizures
(d) P.13: Court : not considering whether or not treaties are legal or illegal
(e)   P.13: Kaneekaneet / Agecoutay identifies sovereign Soto Nation – RCMP refused to
(f)     P.16: Court : refuses to hear any more concerning “Court” jurisdiction
(g) P.16: Kaneekaneet / Agecoutay raises issue of “cestqua trust” : duty of care upon            
             Judge Gerein
(h)   P.16: Absence of evident potential for prejudice in composure of jury to be
              selected; namely, no evident capacity to consider international law matters – 
              especially since Judge Gerein will not raise these points to the jury
(i)     P.16: Kaneekaneet / Agecoutay raises issue of international law jurisdiction; and, 
             M.J. Gerein refuses to consider these matters by avoidance and redirection
(j)     P.19: Court / M.J. Gerein : “… I have read them [filed papers by Accused regarding                                              
              crimes against humanity; war crimes and genocide]
(k)   P.19-20: Kaneekaneet / Agecoutay clearly identifies himself to the Court as
                   “Kitchiostewkaneekanagosh—ickokimowwaconkaneekaneekaneet” : 7th
                   generation traditional and spiritual chief, and plenipotentiary for the
                   sovereign Soto Nation; and seventh generation traditional and head
                   spiritual chief of the Anishinabe Federation of Sovereign Nations”
(l)     P.20: Kaneekaneet / Agecoutay to Court / M.J. Gerein: “ if you don’t oppose then it
                   is taken that you know everything in that document and you agree with it”. 
                   M.J. Gerein responded : “Okay. That’s good, thank you”
(m)P.21: Chester “Girard” called the Court’s attention to his rejection of identity
              documents [birth certificate, et cetera]. Chester willed everything to Her
(n)   P.23: Court / M.J. Gerein agreed to recognize that “Girard” is not Chester’s name.
(o) P.24: Chester submits that it is the corporate party “ Chester Girard” charged by the
              Crown; not, the individual person Chester; and, that “Chester” is not charged
              [argument here is that Chester never knowingly accepted the duty of the
              corporate entity created by the Crown upon him in order to establish debt
              upon the name]. Editor’s note: Probable cause of this issue is one of antedate against the
                 charges – removing the empowerment of the state-nation over the individual
(p) P.27: Matter is raised between Chester and Court / M.J. Gerein of disclosure and jurisdiction. M.J. Gerein : “there is no matter of jurisdiction”. Chester then states that he should “…just walk out …”
(q) P.28: Court / M.J. Gerein : “No … you try to walk out and there may be some
               consequences”. Court / M.J. Gerein continues to reject dealing with issue of
(r)     P.28: Court / M.J. Gerein : regarding disclosure and jurisdiction : “ … it may very
               well be a valid argument, in time, yes”
(s)   P.28: Chester: asks : “if my name is not on those court documents [charges] , am I
               obligated to be here ?” Court / M.J. Gerein : “ Yes, I understand that question”
(t)     P.29: Court / M.J. Gerein refuses to deal with issue of disclosure
(u)   P.29: Mulligan / counsel for accused : “… it does sound to me as if these gentlemen [Accused] are truly not capable of defending what is before the court, and I wish to raise at this point the concern about counsel … it’s been a problem getting counsel … because counsel have heard some of what your Lordship heard this morning, and it hasn’t been possible to communicate. And, I’m just concerned that we are about to embark on what is likely to be an awkward and probably unfair trial, given what we’ve heard today?” Court / M.J. Gerein remarks that he is concerned that the Accused will not find counsel. Mulligan’s concerns are noted for the record.
(v)   P.30: Kaneekaneet / Agecoutay to Court / M.J. Gerein: counsel interviewed refused to “…go into the … Charter argument, they backed off”.
(w)P.31: Kaneekaneet / Agecoutay to Court / M.J. Gerein: No lawyer due to expense: legal aid inadequate; basic cost for constitutional challenge would be $50,000 v. Legal aid provisions of circa $125-150/ hour
(x)   P.31: Court / M.J. Gerein refuses to any further considerations about counsel being
              appointed [editor’s note: question now of duty of care for a fair and complete
              hearing may rest upon shoulders of M.J. Gerein]
(y)   P.32: Court / M.J. Gerein refuses to provide funds for legal counsel
(z)   P.33: Court / M.J. Gerein : Recognizes native ancestry of accused; the claim by the
              Accused for a fair and complete hearing before qualified jury. Both points are
             rejected. Court / M.J. Gerein rejects change of venue.
(Z.1) P.34: Court / M.J. Gerein rejects issue of court’s jurisdiction not being
                  established; and, fails to recognize nation-to-nation status of issues. And, the
                  matter of name [Chester v. Chester Girard] is rejected. M.J. Gerein claims
                  jurisdiction to hear charges with jury
(Z.2) P.37: Kaneekaneet / Agecoutay to Court / M.J. Gerein: “… because of the
             overwhelming criminal acts that have been portrayed on our [Soto] nation,
             that now is the time to call in the provost martial (marshal). This is an act of
             citing a right to be recognized and protected as a prisoner of war; and,
             therein, to be protected by relevant international provisions for the safe
             custody of such declared prisoners. M.J. Gerein was negligent as an officer of
             the “Court” in not acceding to this human right in this conflict of paramountcy
             between claimed state-nations. The UN provides avenues of retribution for
             such lapses in the good administration of justice
(Z.3) P.37: Court / M.J. Gerein rejects issue of calling in the provost “martial” nee
                 marshal: “… I will not do so …”
               : Editor’s note : Provost Marshal: Canadian Forces Provost Marshal is head of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service. In the British Armed Forces this marshal is the head of military police; as it is in the United States Armed Forces. In the United Nations, the Provost Marshal is established as head of military policing
4.     Elizabeth II –Queen and her Assignees / Department Of Justice and the Saskatchewan Queens Bench abdicated their international duties in law regarding disputes between state-nations. And, again, the record establishes the Soto Nation as credible in law before the claim by the rogue corporate body Canada – a commercial entity with a public record of hatred for “Indians”; with prevailing assimilation policies that continue to administer refugee camps of more than 2 million Original Peoples; who generally live in abject poverty and environmental malaise of polluted social amenities. And, where children are specifically abandoned by the principal party Elizabeth II- Queen, the wardship holder with responsibilities to children; and, who continues to reject the Children’s Charter of Human Rights at the United Nations; and, who has been cited for negligence at the UN’s 2009 Human Rights Commission convention in Geneva
5.     The matter of a Constitutional challenge was not accepted by the “Court”. This decision by M.J. Gerein demonstrates his incompetence in these matters of fundamental rights of law; and, it further underlines his penchant for failing to grasp the substantive issues of international law that applied in these charges
6.     These said Charges – as named to be contraventions of the Canada Criminal Code in the matter of producing and trafficking of cannabis marijuana per S.7(1) : Controlled Drugs and Substances Act; and, a matter of possession of prohibited weapons – are without merit where jurisdiction is not established. The Accused have offered reasonable man accounts of explanations for the misconceptions of these issues. The jury was not adequately instructed by the negligent M.J. Gerein; who continued to maintain an obvious bias on the record against the Accused
The Records of the “Court” of M.J. Gerein have failed to establish the fundamentals of a fair hearing in a matter of quest between international law and the claimed Crown law of Canada.
The Accused were subjected to a series of denials that resulted in the “Court” of Mister Justice Gerein failing to provide fundamental human rights to the Accused: namely,
(A)   To clearly know the charges and their jurisdiction upon the Accused
(B)    To hold the “Court” before the Accused with competent counsel for the Accused
(C)   To hold the “Court” in an atmosphere that provided the clear provisions of a hearing not in a hostile environment perceived to be biased against the Accused
(D)   To hold the “Court” as a common law matter public law matter within the internal jurisdiction only of the Crown Canada; whereas, the Accused cited rights of privilege to be accorded the protection of the United Nations and international treaty law regarding the safety of “prisoners of war” when Kaneekaneet / Agecoutay applied to Court / M.J. Gerein for Provost Marshal provisions; and, was subsequently refused
(E)    To hold a “Court” with balanced judgments considering its competence and jurisdictions within the context of issues clearly within the realms of international law; and, in particular, not to create the question of bias on matters as raised regarding points of human rights, genocide and alleged war crimes within reason as established within the known public record
(F)    To hold a “Court” as an officer of the law within the obligations of a charter member of the United Nations; and, having accepted the obligations of the membership Charter therein
(G)   To have a UN Provost Marshal attend the “Court” when petitioned to do so by the Accused – as in a petition for a legal counsel and protection against further physical abuse while under arrest – as has been alleged by Grand Chief Kannekaneet
(H) The records of the trial before M.J. Gerein did not establish any clear evidence that the harvested crop from the sovereign lands of Soto contained any cannabis marijuana that would contravene the Canada Criminal Code
(I)      The records of the “Treaty Four” that relates to the Pasqua and Soto Nations provide clearly for the protection and preservations for the “Indians” of their traditional medicine chests. Contrary testimony before the Gerein hearing did not clearly contradict the Accused’s submissions on these points of right within tradition. The matter of the jurisdiction of the proposed Treaty Four is clouded by the historical Records, which speak to dissatisfaction by attending “Indians”; the failure of the translators on site; the corruption of the Hudson’s Bay Company in misrepresenting its claimed rights to lands of the Soto / Pasqua regions. The records clearly report that there is doubt in the matter of authority by attending parties to be considered to possess fundamental knowledge of contract law; and, the “Indians” were regarded by the Terms and Conditions of the Papal Bulls Romanus Pontifex and Inter Caetera and the English Supremacy Acts as not being recognized by Order Of Punishment By Death To The Monarch where non-Christians claimed property and resource rights: that non-Christians were by the church and state laws to be considered as being “non-human” –  and, therefore, not possessing any realm of competence to enter into any contractual obligation, to consider or endorse any document or treaty; to sign peace agreements or rights of passage what-so-ever. These said church laws are still prevailing since 1453
 (J)      No “Court” is competent to consider these matters of charge where they do not establish fundamental 
          knowledge with the Accused of their claimed jurisdiction and duty to fulfill the dictates of state-nation statutes.
          And, clearly the “Court” did hear and recognize and respond to questions on these matters of fundamental
          rights from the Accused, supra. In fact, a Court which proceeds to hold a “trial” under such conditions and
          therein commits these Accused to imprisonment where they have clearly sustained their ignorance of the law,
          creates a vector of significant abuse of authority exercised by the state-nation against the Accused, supra.
Section “A” – Jurisdiction by Crown Canada was not established against the protestations
                    of the prisoners of war, Accused, supra
Section “B” – The Accused were not provided with any clear definition of jurisdiction by
                    the presiding jurist M.J. Gerein in Saskatchewan
Section “C” – The Accused were involved in a commercial enterprise which is
                    fundamentally endorsed as a humanitarian project to protect the
                    environment; provide new traditional and contemporary holistic healing
                    which is endorsed by the science studies in the contemporary medical
Section “D” – no contention was submitted and no evidence existed individually or as a
                    conjunctive group that the Accused were in a criminal conspiracy that the
                    general public community would reject if they were sufficiently informed of
                    the comprehensive business plan in electric power generation; building
                    materials, tonics, lotions, clothing, and a coterie of ancillary commercial
                    venues for hemp-based products. The only matter of misfortune on record is
                    that they were under-funded in enterprises that would create labour-
                    intensive employment and training to “Indians” and other non-natives
                    through the growth factors in an industry that was the founding commercial
                    enterprise for the United States of America; and, was the major global
                    industry before the corrupt conspiracies of the plastics industry to lobby to
                    governments world-wide to create statutory laws of criminality around this
                    industry that is fundamentally capable of replacing fossil fuels as a source of
                    energy. Ignorance is not bliss in this case – for either of the Parties.
Section “E”    The Record failed to establish any agenda by the Accused that would cause
                     naïve youth to be drawn into a world of addictions. On the contrary, these
                     business people –and, in particular, the record showed Kaneekaneet /
                     Agecoutay to be a concerned parent, who was struggling, as with his
                     brother Robert, with the ravishes of the legacies of Residential Schools and
                     policies of assimilation that deprived peoples of their customs, traditions,
                     languages, historical hunting practices, resources and territories to the
                     extent that they suffer regular malnutrition, and early demise from diseases
                     of heart, cancer and diabetes, suicide; and, fundamental loneliness caused
                     by substantial social hatred generated through a federal policy of continued
                     genocide. While Chester [a.k.a. Girard] is generally portrayed in the Records
                     as non-native; there is reference in the documents to his Metis heritage – 
                     which causes him abandonment and bias from both groups: “Indians” and
                     non-natives; and, which is compounded by the evident bias of M.J. Gerein in
                     the Record.
Application For Relief To The Accused, supra
Section One : Release of the Accused, supra
·        Crown Canada shall exercise constitutional Governor-In-Council Prerogative Privilege Forthwith; and, order the immediate release of the prisoners Accused, supra, to the safe custody and protection of the Joint Cooperation Council of the International Red Cross Association and Amnesty International; or, some other similar body as supervised through the United Nations Human Rights Commission
Section Two : Protection of the Accused, supra
·        Crown Canada will comply with international standards of justice in law; and, will, forthwith comply with United Nations instructions for safe passage of the Accused prisoners to their home base
Section Three : Non-Interference of the Accused, supra
·        Crown Canada will comply with United Nations instructions regarding the non-interference with the Accused, supra, their properties, families, associates, friends or colleagues in any manner of revengeful policies or practices; whether evident or covert
Section Four : Compensation & Return Of Assets With Damages To The Accused, supra
·        Crown Canada will participate in a UN-supervised compensation for damages resolution to the Accused, supra; including any third parties adversely affected by the hostile actions of Crown Canada in these matters
Section Five : Expunge the Record of the Accused, supra
·        Crown Canada and Saskatchewan will expunge all records regarding the integrity of the Accused, supra; especially, in matters of any criminal wrong-doing arising from the charges that have led to these incarcerations
Section Six : Consequences for Crown Canada By the United Nations For Hostile Invasion
·        Crown Canada will voluntarily sponsor the legal counsel expenses and reasonable costs to these Accused, supra, for a Petition for Resolution before the United Nations International Court Of Justice in the Hague on these matters of paramountcy between “Indians” and non-natives in Turtle Island North / Canada
Section Seven : Public Apology To The Accused, supra, by Elizabeth II – Queen and her
                        Assignee Canada and the province of Saskatchewan
·        Elizabeth II-Queen and her Assignee Crown Canada will provide an adequate and complete Public Press Release Apology on these matters of the release of the Accused, supra; and, will cooperate with the United Nations Human Rights Commission – with the assistance of the International Red Cross Association and Amnesty International - in the context of this said Apology.
CANADA claims membership in UNITED NATIONS. The membership is not warranted. There is no credibility to this claimed membership in the prevailing absence of clear constituency endorsement by Original Peoples / Indigenous To Turtle Island North
In the first trial, Justice Gerin established evident and perverted bias in denying the Accused a clear understanding of the source of authority to hold “COURT”.
The CROWN produced a failed attempt to discredit the ACCUSED
The ACCUSED pronounced objections to the conduct of the COURT
The COURT failed to demonstrate absence of BIAS
The COURT perversely influenced the decision-making of the JURY in failing to recuse himself or to establish the fundamental RULES of the COURT
The ACCUSED suffered conditions consistent with war crimes preceding the TRIAL; and, at TRIAL did not witness FAIRNESS
The entitlement of the ACCUSED to the presence of a PROVOST MARSHAL is undeniable
Any state nation as a member of the UNITED NATIONS desiring to conduct COURT shall provide FUNAMENTAL FAIRNESS; and, shall originally establish a JURISDICTION to hold COURT; otherwise, this COURT fails to establish INTEGRITY and its decisions shall be subject to RIDICULE.
The prevailing high ratio of penal institutionalization of indigenous persons in Canada demonstrates that the LAW fails them as citizens’ or, rather, the LAW fails to establish a fundamental jurisdiction in their lives by the history of perverse government policies and practices which traditionally and contemporariously fails to provide equity and fairness.
The DREYFUSS trials of 1894 demonstrated an event where the STATE failed to provide FUNDAMENTAL JUSTICE; and, therefore, the citizenry rose up in alarm to disclaim the jurisdiction of the COURT.
It is not the Original Duty of the ACCUSED to establish a role of compliance to Canadian law; rather, it is the DUTY of the STATE to provide a clear and unequivocal protocol that each citizen may know, understand and choose to comply with as a state citizen. Canada, clearly does not possess a history
The ACCUSED are not Enemies of the STATE / CROWN. Their business format was one of seeking to provide an acceptable source of healing; and, they are no more naïve in these matters than is the STATE / CROWN
Failure To Comply By Elizabeth II- Queen and her Assignee Canada / Saskatchewan
·        The Accused will petition the United Nations to proceed with providing a Special Forces Unit to cause the release of the Accused, supra through such Security Council actions as sanctions and specific combat provisions as necessary to achieve the release and security of these Accused, supra
As Submitted in Truth
The Accused, supra
·        Speaker : Grand Chief Kitchi-Ostew-Kaneekanagoshick-Okimow-Wacon-Kaneekaneet [Lawrence Agecoutay]; Robert Agecoutay; and, Chester Girard / or, in names as they have made known to the “Court”.
Submission Prepared By
Ralph Charles Goodwin / Yuxwule’tun
Touchstone Committee Law Services Institute
5795 Church Road, Duncan, British Columbia , Canada V9L 5M3 / Turtle Island North
Oct 31st, 2008
Notice Is Hereby Served By
The Touchstone Committee Law Services CLT On Behalf Of The Client
Elizabeth II – Queen of Canada in England
Governor General In Council Canada and the Supreme Court Of Canada
Copied Forward To The Attention And Response Of
The United Nations General Assembly Member States
And The
International Court Of Justice ; and, the  UN Human Rights Commission
Subject Matter
The Supreme Court Of Canada Shall Cease and Desist From Further Consideration And / Or Rendering Of Decisions In Law Of Any Matter Until Such Time As The United Nations Credentials Committee Has Received And Considered In A Fair And Complete Manner The Touchstone Committee Proposed Injunction To Deny Canada A State Nation Status Until The UN International Court Of Justice Has Considered The Touchstone Committee Advocacy On Behalf Of Allodial Titled Original Persons Of North Turtle Island That Paramountcy In Governance Of These Said Lands Has Not Been Abandoned By Original Peoples In Favour Of Any Third Party; Namely, And In Particular, To That Of The Claimed Regime Of The Monarchy Of England / United Kingdom; As Represented By Elizabeth II Queen Of The United Kingdom Incorporated As Queen Of Canada.
It is apparent by examination of the assembly of the prevailing historical documents of exploration admiralty warrants / occupation / claim / and subsequent governance by parties and persons commonly known as being within the proclaimed corporate body of the monarch of England and / or the United Kingdom that an elaborate corporate and individual fraud has been executed upon the Original Peoples of North Turtle Island and the world community.
This factum and evidentiary accumulated record to date serves to support a petition to the Member States of the United Nations that a War Crimes Tribunal shall forthwith be constructed to hear and consider in a fair and complete manner claims as shall be submitted by Touchstone Committee and others that the Monarchy of England / United Kingdom, et al, in collaboration with specific commercial enterprises have established a preponderance of harm upon these said Original Peoples of North Turtle Island in the past and present in a manner that in general and particular constitute hateful actions based upon race; and, are the legitimate concern of the United Nations in the matters of what constitutes a state nation and therein, an entitlement to UN membership or of sanctions upon a group or claimed nation state for actions contrary to the betterment of humanity.
This Notice Of Injunction To Cease Any Further Declaration Or Consideration As A Court is , herein, served upon the Supreme Court Of Canada and its parent authorities, and, is to be respected forthwith and until such time as the United Nations hears and responds in decision to the said Touchstone Committee Petition of Claim , as above.
Signed In Truth : Ralph Charles Goodwin, Chairperson
cc: Client Applicant

__________________________________________________________________________________________ establishes parochial, closed-loop green energy 30,000 population survival villages


LifeOnEarth Humanity Gardens

Established in 1960 via GEL; Updated Copyright GWE 2019 / Heading Toward XXII Century

Return To For Profit Humanitarian Institute : Return To Gaia Centre Institute

_______________________ CLOCKS _______________________




Powered By : PLUS-1 NEWS CENTRAL : Powered By




 WITHOUT PREJUDICE ______________________________________ ERRORS AND OMISSIONS EXCEPTED

- 30 -