(0:00 - 1:33) Most of us view UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as a globalist plot to steal our lands and resources, and we're not wrong. However, one man, author and lawyer Glenn Bogue, believes that UNDRIP can be a double-edged sword, that we can use the fact that it has been entrenched in our constitution to our advantage, and furthermore prevent our First Nations, which are artificial corporations created by the Harper and Trudeau governments, from giving away our lands and resources. The argument is based upon several key court decisions and a few very important terms, among them Aboriginal, Indigenous, and First Nations. Most of us use these terms interchangeably, but in fact under the law they have different meanings. For example, if you were born in this country, you are lawfully Indigenous. This is a different thing from being Aboriginal, and a very different thing from being First Nations. The use of these words in both UNDRIP and our constitution can be used to deny the globalists the ability to steal our lands and resources from us. And more than that, there is something that every Indigenous person in this country can do to fight back against the UNDRIP agenda and protect our right to ownership of what is lawfully ours. Glenn, welcome to the show. (1:34 - 1:59) It's a pleasure to be here. And I've asked you to do this interview because some time ago you and your partner there, John, you approached me with some information on UNDRIP, and I have been reporting for some time now on just how bad UNDRIP is for Canada, but you gentlemen have found that it's quite possibly a double-edged sword. And I wanted to present that information to the viewers today because if there's any chance that we can use this to our advantage, we need to know about it. (2:00 - 4:13) And I think where we need to start this discussion is with three terms, Aboriginal, Indigenous, and First Nations, which get used interchangeably, but you've pointed out quite accurately these terms do not mean the same thing. So, and I think that the conversation is going to hinge on those terms, so please explain what they do mean. The confusion is either on purpose or because the people from Ottawa who are with Indigenous Affairs and they're communicating these terms to the chiefs who are not that well-educated in the First Nations bands, et cetera, and it is a method of grouping a large number of people in the tens of millions into a group that's about maybe a million people. And so when you use the three terms to describe different people of a much bigger group and you're trying to get it narrower to pay out less money, then you will lump these terms all into one kettle of fish. So when we say Indigenous, we are the Métis of Eastern Canada and of British Columbia. We're actually all across the country, our tribe. We define this as being somebody born on Turtle Island. Turtle Island is North America, Central America, South America, and the Caribbean, in effect, the Western Hemisphere. That's Indigenous. If you're born in Germany, you don't say I'm French. If you're born in Columbia, South America, you don't say I'm Argentinian. The second term is Aboriginal. Aboriginal generally refers to a culture. Okay, so you have Mohawk, you have Cree, you have Dene, you know, there's probably 60 tribes across the country which are cultures. And like the Greeks and like the French, like the German cultures, rather part of the European landmass, those cultures need to be protected. And there's no question about that. But the term Aboriginal is slippery. I'm a Latin scholar and ab in Latin means from somewhere else, away from. So somebody who is aboriginal follows the theory that, oh, well, you know, the Indigenous people come over the Bering Strait between Russia and Alaska. And of course, they're just immigrants, like the rest of us. They just got here a little earlier. (4:13 - 7:43) Well, modern DNA, which is my wheelhouse in my five book series, National Geographic has proven that all the races of the world come actually from Africa. And so there is an immigration aspect to it 200,000 years ago. But the term ab is meant to fool both the Canadian public and the leaders of these bands, councils, into thinking that they did come from somewhere else. And ab, if you think of abnormal, abnormal is not normal. So aboriginal, I'm not original. Now we come to the third and the worst offending when you mentioned double-edged sword. When they say First Nations, that refers to a sub-corporation of Canada. And this is a group that's already surrendered. They're status Indians, they get a status white card, and they get some benefits, most of which goes to the chief and to the chief's immediate family, and very little trickles down. And what happens, there's an agreement made between Ottawa's Indigenous Affairs and a handful of these mostly male chiefs and their families. And those leaders are not represented by Indigenous lawyers. There's almost always a bar member there who has a higher loyalty to the federal government than they do to their client. It's a little offensive, actually. And so these agreements, which are not, well, they're not treaties nation to nation. They are agreements with your pawns, Ottawa's pawns, TKX dollars, and switch them for the resources. And I hope to talk about that today at length. The resources of Canada, which are so vast, they're now doing the switcheroo that they've made an agreement to give up their resources on behalf of all Canadians who came late to the party, immigrants, and switch them up within a couple of years. This crown thing, and I call it a thing, because Canadians and lawyers really have a hard time defining the crown thing. And so that's the real slippery slope, or double-edged sword is the First Nations term. Just refers to a handful of Indigenous people, Aboriginal people, people of culture, of that culture who have chosen to surrender. And the Métis that I belong to are not surrendered. And here's an unusual term, well, we are not conquered. And we'll talk about that today because the Supreme Court twice has said that the Indigenous people are not conquered. And that huge impact on international and national law. And we'll go into that in this interview. Right. And we are going to get into conquered and consent, but first I want to really clarify these terms. So based on what you've told me, and do correct me if I'm getting some of this wrong, Indigenous just means born here. So would that not, now it muddies the water a little bit in that I also am Métis, although not officially, I'd never taken Métis stats, but my great-grandmother is a Mi'kmaq. You and I are the same. (7:43 - 8:33) But I was born in this country. So am I not, by that definition, Indigenous? Correct. Because what the Supreme Court did in the Daniels decision, they actually did a racial slur. They lumped the Métis, which I am as well. My father is from Ireland, but his mother is Kanyo, which is in Quebec City, tied to the Indigenous people of South America. So we have one parent from Europe and we have one parent from the Western hemisphere. Sometimes they say just Canada, but so one from Europe, one from here, that's officially the Supreme Court definition of who is Métis. So we are Métis, which is a separate race of people than what we call Indians, which actually refers to India. Everyone knows that. (8:33 - 9:17) Yes. They lumped us into this categorization of being an Indian. When Champlain came, he said, we are going to bring the Eastern hemisphere, Europe, and bring it with the Indigenous people of North America. And now the two hemispheres are actually coming together in a grand union of people, which is, he said, Samuel Champlain said, a brand new people bringing everything together. And that should have trumped everything, that sentiment of shared 50-50. It's a huge country, Canada. We're so rich. There's lots here for everybody. We, of course, got abused by certain corporations transnationally. (9:17 - 10:50) Indigenous just means born here, doesn't matter what your ancestry is. The legal definition is you were born in this country. Wait, watch those terms because they switched them. Legal refers to statutes and the common law of England. Lawful refers to the Indigenous common law of the Western hemisphere and international law. So keep legal, statutes, England, and law separate. So if you're born in it's on Turtle Island and you come to Toronto or Calgary, right? You're still Indigenous. You're still Indigenous. Okay. So the original now means what we would used to call native or before that was called Indian. It's an incorrect term. We all know that it was not India. That was a mistake that was made by Christopher Columbus. Well, you're very, very accurate. Great observation. Native is the correct term. And then they kind of switched that to Aboriginal because Aborigine is how the House of Lords judges in England talked about the Aborigine and the outback of Australia. And somehow the sophisticated people of Montreal and Quebec city, right? And BC and everyone across the country who were here first, they got kind of tarred with this. Oh, they're just Aborigine. They are just partly subhuman. And there's a mixture of that in the term Aboriginal, whereas native has that pride of culture, which has to be preserved. (10:51 - 10:59) Right. So, and that's, once again, that is a lawful definition, right? Lawful, Indigenous. Aboriginal. (11:00 - 11:24) Aboriginal. That's how we determine it. I don't know what Ottawa is doing. They have their own basket of definitions, but our law is now the supreme law of the land. We'll get into that section 35. And so we determine who we are. We self-determine. The term self-determine, it's in the UN declaration. We all in Canada can self-determine exactly who we are. (11:25 - 11:57) And no one can say, no, that's a human right under the United Nations declarations, going back to 1947, right? Every group in the world can self-determine, Hungarian, Colombian, Taiwanese. They can all self-determine who they are and you have the absolute human right to do it. Right. So under those human rights, even though you and I are both genetically Métis, under the law, we're Métis because we say we are. Under the Indigenous law. Correct. (11:58 - 14:24) Right. Okay. And that's UNDRIP, the right to self-determine. Yes. And now we get to First Nations, which as far as I understand it from your explanation, and from what I've read of what you have written, is an artificial legal construct. Perfectly said. A person. You are a, you know, you're a human being, a man or a woman, that's article 44 of UNDRIP, strength. They identify that men and women, and it's not used anywhere in legislation in Canada, it's meant to be to, you are an artificial person subject to the taxes of the King. Go. Because they're First Nations. Because First Nations have surrendered to become citizens. And we can wander a bit into the term citizen that wasn't around for, since 1776 and the American revolution, or 1774 when the Quebec Act was forced onto the land of, around Quebec city. So this term citizen wasn't around until the 20th century. We got in the United States with driver's license. Now you need pride to become a citizen of the U.S. instead of a state national. And now in Canada, we should be provincial nationals or a federal citizen by choice, right? If you want to choose to become a federal citizen and pay taxes, fine. If you pay taxes in the U.S., you're part of the Washington, D.C. citizenship. You apply from Oklahoma as a state national, right? Born on the land, you can apply to be a citizen of Washington, D.C. And it's your choice. But when they weaken the state national rights, then you've got a problem. In Canada, we only ever had the right to be a Canadian or be a Canadian citizen. And so the first nations, now all of their documents, right? They have corporate structure and all of their requirements require them to become a citizen of that artificial corporation. So citizen is not something to be proud of. It's really a trap in my opinion. Choose it if you wish, but make sure it's an informed decision. So to recap very quickly then, indigenous just means you were born here. Aboriginal, we can think of as the term we used to use as native culture. (14:24 - 14:31) And first nation is a legal status. Corporation. It's a corporate standing. (14:31 - 15:57) Right. You belong to a corporation. They are you. The corporation owns you. Okay. So now that we've determined all of that, it's called UNDRIP, the United Nations Rights of Indigenous Peoples. So we've already explained what we mean by indigenous, except that when you read through it, they're talking about a whole lot more than just that. Yes. People say it's a loosely generalized. No, it's a very broad, very advanced, well-thought-out document because those elders over 25 years had to consider all the countries of the world, about 3 billion people, and they had to consider the 4 billion people on this planet who are not part of the UN. They're just loose change running around trying to make a living. And so it's in broad strokes, but it's really quite a comprehensive document once you get into it. Go ahead. Okay. So now the problem that we've discussed in many other interviews with UNDRIP that we're going to perhaps somewhat counter today with this whole concept of double-edged sword is that that legal entity, that first nation to which people sign up and then they belong to that corporation has the authority to make deals with our government and possibly has the authority to make deals with the United Nations to hand over our lands and resources to their control. (15:58 - 16:20) Without counsel. Without counsel. When you don't have independent counsel that is sworn one allegiance, and that's to will, if I was your representative of choice in an indigenous world, Article 18 of UNDRIP, and the Supreme Court of Canada has said this, if I represent will, you're my only concern. (16:20 - 18:03) Your best interests regarding UNDRIP are my concern. Too often, or almost 100% of the time, the grand chiefs and their counsel, their corporate board of directors only has a bar member, and the bar member can only go so far in advising them against the interest of the crown. So they're now moved over, their chess piece is over on the side of the crown. Once they surrender, you're on the crown side. If you don't surrender, then you are on the people's side. And the fight's going to be in UNDRIP who owns the resources. Is that helping? What we're really getting at so far, and we're going to get more into what you were just discussing, is this UNDRIP articles, they give authority to the First Nations Corporation, to hand over lands and resources to a foreign power, not Canada, a foreign power to control that. And as you say, without counsel, without a lawyer being present to represent their interests. Now, here's where it happened. And your phrase just now is the best and most succinct statement that I've heard. So kudos to you. When the Inuit in Northern Quebec made their deal, they owned 100% of the resources going in. And when they come out, well, what did they have? Hunting and fishing? Hunting and fishing? Oh, well, not nothing. Hunting and fishing, they got that back. And wait, they've got 2%. They got 2% when they had 100%. You know, Trump would say, President Trump would say, you know, bad deal. Right. (18:04 - 18:16) Nope. And so it's not an informed consent. And what they did without that counsel, they gave away the Canadian people's resources were in the trillion. (18:17 - 18:27) Okay. So we've established some very important terms. We've established the danger of UNDRIP, but you're here today to talk about how it could be used as a double-edged sword. (18:27 - 18:42) So please explain that. Okay. So that's why you were so good to open up the interview with this definition and these three definitions, because as you say, in the word UNDRIP is indigenous, there's no first nations there, there's no natives and there's no aboriginals in there. (18:42 - 19:15) So it's important, it hinges on, it's pivotal to determine what does this term indigenous mean in relation to the resources. And so the Canadian people have been psyops being that said, well, if I identify as indigenous, I'm really offending these people who've suffered over the centuries. Okay. Well, what if they say welcome? What if they say, you're welcome to use the term indigenous? Oh, everybody's kind of breathing a sigh of relief. I'm not offending you. Well, no, none of that means you're born here. (19:15 - 19:35) I asked people, where were you born? Toronto. Are you indigenous? No. And then they catch themselves. Well, and they go, well, kinda. You see that they don't have it spelled out the way you insisted we do at the start of this interview, that one, two, three, they mean different things. And we being the first people, so my family came here in 1635. (19:35 - 20:31) So we have the right being here that early. I have a world heritage site in Quebec city under the Gagnon, G-A-G-N-O-N. We were here in 1635. So we'll determine before Canada brought its legislation from England, we'll determine who is welcome here and who is indigenous. And we say it's everybody born here because that just makes sense. And it brings everybody into the pool of the discussion and doesn't slice the country. Actually 39 million on one side who were just disenfranchised and about 1 million first nation citizens who qualify, they get to give away our resources for trinkets. And I think there's something really important. We still have to clarify before we get into your argument is why do the first nations corporations exist? And once again, from your reading, correct me if I'm getting this wrong, that was Harper and Trudeau that did that. (20:31 - 21:13) And the reason they had to do it was because, and I'm going to use the term native here to be really clear, the natives in and of themselves didn't have the authority to give away the lands and resources. They had to create these artificial corporations and give them the legal authority to do it. Wait, well, you're hot on the topic. They had to create an artificial entity, a little box into which you could come along and surrender. And that's an extremely important point in your argument because if I'm understanding correctly, and I know I'm giving a little bit away here, if you signed on to be first nations, you just gave up your rights. Your rights. (21:13 - 21:28) You didn't. But if we mix all three terms together into one melting pot, that individual coming along and hopping into the artificial bin, he or she gave away Will's rights. Right. (21:28 - 21:35) Because you haven't got any. You're an immigrant. Because those rights that we with the United Nations were given to those first nations corporations. (21:36 - 21:46) That's correct. By our government who consciously did this. The UN, I've heard it said by good, good thinkers that the UN is really a group of corporations. (21:47 - 22:03) And so I don't, I haven't seen the proof of that yet, but let's just think about it. This is one of those 204 of them, 204 entities, they are under a charter and the term charter, they sometimes say it goes with a boat or a ship. No, the term charter is a corporate term. (22:04 - 22:11) Will doesn't charter anything in his daily life. He'll say to his wife, let's charter dinner. Let's charter the car. (22:11 - 22:18) We don't use those terms. You make an artificial entity called a charter. And these uninformed people went and jumped in. (22:18 - 22:21) No problem. Give up your individual rights. It's a free country. (22:22 - 22:33) Go ahead. But you're not giving away Will's rights without Will's consent. That's why UNDRIP is so, so very clear on the individual right of Will. (22:34 - 22:44) And a Calgary judge tried to go, it's a community right. Eh, we got them cold. Those not community and the nation, first nation corporation has surrendered. (22:44 - 22:54) So now it's all over. And the transnationals in Alberta, this is an Alberta case. Alberta now can run roughshod over Will and his friends. (22:54 - 23:07) Right. And so no, no, UNDRIP protects Will as the individual. Once he self-identifies that he is, you know, you're Metis, but if you're not, once he self-identifies as indigenous. (23:09 - 23:18) Right now he's got individual rights that UNDRIP protects. Okay. So, and this is also very important to the arguments that you're going to bring forth as to how we can turn this into a double-edged sword. (23:18 - 23:41) So I just want to make sure that the viewers understand that I, you as a Canadian citizen, whatever, as an indigenous person, we don't have the right to hand off our lands and resources to the United Nations. But these artificially constructed first nations corporations were given that right. Because a citizen is an artificial person. (23:41 - 23:56) We spoke about it earlier in courts of Canada. I cannot get the judge off the term person. It's always, sir, Mr. Person, sir, military, right? The crown corporation, whatever that thing is, we're going to get into that. (23:56 - 24:08) It has a military occupation of our resources. They have de facto control only. They don't have de jure, Latin, or lawful control. (24:08 - 24:31) They never had lawful control. They've got to get as many of these surrendered uninformed indigenous citizens to jump into the cop. So now that we understand how Harper and Trudeau's government set us up to create these first nations corporations that were given the legal right to hand over our lands and resources to a foreign power. (24:31 - 24:52) Now that we understand the definitions of those three terms, indigenous, aboriginal, first nation. Now I think we've got the foundation where you can explain how this could be turned around and used against them. Now, why are you agreeing to go into a prime minister? Harper and Trudeau goes to a very famous case called RV hate. (24:52 - 25:07) Hate was in July of 2007. Supreme court international law, right? Undrip of September 13, 2007, the whole world, the whole world will, uh, signed onto undrip to stop with the Vatican. I'm Catholic. (25:07 - 25:28) I can bash the Vatican. I'm not happy with the Vatican, my Vatican. But, uh, the, um, uh, the undrip was meant to, to, with term, uh, doctrine discovery, you know, when the Pope was in Calgary, uh, uh, you know, he said no more, uh, doctrine discovery of the, of the Aborigine subhuman, no problem, but hate talks in about many important things. (25:28 - 25:53) And once is the international law that is called the doctrine of adoption of an international principle. And that doctrine is undrip. It was a world accepted document inside Canada, inside the United States, unless Washington or Ottawa said absolutely no undrip here in this country. (25:53 - 26:13) And that's what should have happened on September 13, 2007, but the five eyes, you know, England, Australia, uh, New Zealand, United States, uh, and Canada, the let's call them the whiteys. Okay. The white supremacists, 1%, 2%, 5% decided they would delay undrip. (26:14 - 26:23) And they went to a doctrine called transformation. We'll slowly transform this. No, international law, hate paragraph 39. (26:23 - 26:53) Supreme court said no undrip applies in this country automatically unless Ottawa expressly said, we're not accepting undrip. They never did. It just kind of cowardly, uh, uh, shrumbled along until Justin Trudeau sent minister, uh, Bennett and a former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to the UN in New York in May of 2016. (26:53 - 27:12) And we'll get to what happened there, but let's go back to hate. Undrip was part of our country, part of our Canadian law on September 13, given the international principle of, um, the doctrine of automatic adoption, not slow transformation over, over eight decades. Okay. (27:12 - 27:31) That's what they want to do in order to rip off the Canadian people from their vast wealth until they're dead. And then the new group coming up out of colleges and law schools is only talking about citizens. And on that point, there's a case, uh, called, uh, Beckman versus little salmon Carmack. (27:31 - 28:05) It's 2011 Supreme court paragraph 33 clearly states that will can be a Canadian citizen. You can be a Calgary flames hockey player. You can be a Costco card member, and you can be indigenous because this is a democracy and will can wear four or six or as many hats on his head as he likes in that democracy, whichever one gives him as the individual, right? There's this case in the 1951, the first case of the Supreme court, when it got out of the house of Lords in England, they said nothing will nothing. (28:05 - 28:19) It's called a Lord Nelson hotel. Nothing surpasses the unlimited capacity of the individual. And that's where the assault began from 1951. (28:19 - 28:39) The assault began on the individual because no Canadian stood up or between the U S and the English. And we're kind of had this, um, loser mentality, right? We lost the revolutionary war or the British loss. They brought the Mohawk here from New York state and they lost and got kicked. (28:39 - 29:01) You know, Washington kicked them right the hell out of, out of the United States. So the losers came here and like any hockey team that's lost, like the leafs on the, how they're doing with their fan base so big, but if you've lost for 60 years, I know as an Olympic sprinter, you know, it affects you as a, as a part of many, many championship, great teams. And that's infectious. (29:01 - 29:16) You know, when you're trained that you're number one in the world and your, your captains are telling you you're number one in the world. It's infectious. When you're told that the United States and England are much stronger than you, it takes, you know, 155 years, I guess, to come out of the coma. (29:17 - 29:30) But now Canada is poised under international law and our domestic constitution. We'll get into that. Our constitution is now the most advanced constitution in the world. (29:31 - 29:39) Oh, quite the statement for Canadians. The lawyers haven't read the constitution folks. So don't, don't feel too, too out of it. (29:39 - 29:52) The lawyers are, and judges, lawyers become judges, of course, right out of it. They're right out of it. So, so hopefully the show will, you've been great so far of getting us down. (29:52 - 30:12) You're almost, your mind's almost like gears. And that's exactly right. This gear will turn this gear, Indigenous, who's Indigenous, turns this gear, turns this gear well, that it opens the vault to the resources of Canada, which are worth United States dollars, 700 trillion. (30:13 - 30:19) Why? Because we said so. We said so. Go ahead. (30:20 - 30:34) So now that we understand that this, this case happened in 2007, where the court legalized the first nation's right to deal with the United Nations and to hand over everything. Wait, here we go again. This is so important. (30:35 - 31:01) Lawful eyes, lawful eyes. Harvard started to pass acts, and so did Trudeau, limiting the effect of international law, international law, the law between nations globally, and the Indigenous common law of Canada. Okay, those are law, international law, the laws between the Mohawks and the Iroquois, the laws between the Mohawks and Will, and Will's family. (31:02 - 31:33) These are all, those are all international laws. We've allowed the parliaments of the different provinces and the federal government to allow, to hire lawyers to just lambaste the hell out of us in the way that very few people can follow legal terms. The legalization... That gets into the aboriginal industry, as discussed by Frances Widdowson in her book, Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry, and where all those billions of dollars are going. (31:33 - 31:55) But I think we can put that aside for this discussion. So what we're wanting to get to now is how do we, as Canadians, turn this undripped thing around and use it against them? Well, it's already been done. The case is called, and I don't want to go too far ahead of ourselves, is a case out of Quebec, and it is called the King versus White and Montour. (31:55 - 32:14) And the Montour family was from New York state. They're Mohawks who, again, trespassed into the south of Montreal. The Jesuits brought two-thirds of the nation from Lake Champlain, New York, trespassing onto our Métis land and set them up in there. (32:15 - 32:48) The Jesuits, of course, are tied to the power corporation, the Desmarais family in Montreal, who helps to put the Trudeaus and the Mulroonies and the Pierre Trudeaus into the prime ministership. And so the Mohawks brought so much tobacco into Quebec that the jury awarded $44 million in taxes that they owed. So their team of four lawyers lost. (32:48 - 33:07) They lost the jury award. And then, Will, they came up with their last gasp constitutional question. Was André entrenched in Section 35 of the Constitution? And the buggers won. (33:09 - 33:53) Justice Bork, who should be lionized as the epitome of a judge, interviewed the Mohawk chiefs for 90 days, more or less. It took 18 months to write her decision. She went back to May 10 of 2016, just three weeks after Daniels was decided, that said, A, watch now, A, there are status Indians here, right? Those white card holders that have jumped into the cup, but the crown took a knee and said, Will, there are also non-status nations, non-status tribes, non-status individuals here. (33:54 - 34:14) Justin Trudeau, you've got to deal with them. They never did, the liberals, yet. But then they recognized the fact that there are the individual Métis who are not subject to the community test that comes out of Winnipeg, Louis Royale's family. (34:14 - 34:20) You got to be related to Louis Royale. Well, Louis Royale's mom came from Quebec City. She's Métis. (34:20 - 34:32) So it's not just from Winnipeg West. Her mother came from Quebec City and the parents, grandparents came from, of course, France. So all this craziness has gone on. (34:33 - 35:06) So now in Daniels in April of 2016, we've got the fact that there are non-status individuals like Will. Now, what are their rights? Not determined yet at law. Three weeks later at the UN, they said, Minister Bennett, Canada's Minister of Indian Affairs said, we consent to UNDRIP going into section 35, which was an empty box at the time because nobody did anything, right? From 1982 to fill this box with anything. (35:06 - 35:15) Judges didn't touch it. It's sitting there empty. We agreed to UNDRIP to go in there as a what? A full box of rights. (35:15 - 35:22) Full. And we do this. That means to me, I'm a contractor by trade and being a lawyer on both tools. (35:22 - 35:56) It's tools that Will can use as an individual, right? And we do that without qualification. And Justice Bork held the government to its promise on consent. Watch now, because the HAPE case three weeks earlier, six weeks earlier than UNDRIP, six weeks earlier, well, the HAPE case at 43 says that the consent of Canada at the UN is a limit on the sovereignty over the individual will. (35:57 - 36:01) Okay. So it's a limit on sovereignty to tax you. Okay. (36:01 - 36:04) Well, break this down then. Yes. That's a lot said there. (36:04 - 36:10) Article 35. What does it say? Section 35 of the constitution. The articles are in UNDRIP. (36:11 - 36:15) And when I refer to sections, it's section 35. Okay. Section 35. (36:15 - 36:25) That the rights of the Métis, Indians, and Inuit are preserved. Now, what the hell does that mean? False. It was empty. (36:26 - 36:31) Okay. It's an empty box. They put UNDRIP into that box. (36:31 - 36:44) So then we got to this court case where they asked, is UNDRIP entrenched in section 35? Constitutional question. I would often assume the answer was no. The answer was yeah. (36:44 - 36:55) You just told us what section 35 said. I don't hear anything in there about UNDRIP. No, because what Trudeau's government did when they went to... Indigenous people put them into office in 2015. (36:56 - 37:03) Very good argument. And that was a swing vote when he went west with a headdress on. You know, I would never put a headdress on ever and I'm Métis. (37:03 - 37:11) It's a sacrilege. But he put it on, went out there, got their votes. And, you know, with a lot of bucks in the back rooms, trading back and forth. (37:11 - 37:32) Canada, whatever, they consented that the apple, what's called an apple, goes into section 35. Once you have consent, the Hape case says, Supreme Court, at paragraph 43, once a nation from the UN consents to something going into the constitution, it's all over. It's all over. (37:32 - 37:45) That consent limits their sovereignty. It handcuffs it. Now, Will can have a hope of having his individual rights and laws determined. (37:45 - 37:54) Right now, we have a handcuff on sovereignty. Otherwise, they can bitch-slap Will around all they want. And I confess I'm having a hard time following the argument. (37:54 - 38:15) Even with my Frederick article and reading all these notes, because it is somewhat complex. So that justice, when she looked at section 35. She went on the act of consenting to put something into the empty box. (38:15 - 38:20) That something happens to be UNDRIP. So focus on the consent. Okay. (38:20 - 38:34) So what that did, then, was it made UNDRIP subject to the consent of... No, not subject to. No, no. The apple's in there sitting there whole in section 35. (38:34 - 38:46) Now, watch this. She went to section 52 of the constitution, which states that section 35 is the supreme law of the land. That's the constitution. (38:46 - 39:04) The Charter of Rights, when Justin Trudeau pulled over those indigenous... I'm sorry, it was indigenous woman in the wheelchair. And those protesters who were just exercising their freedom of speech rights, as far as I can see. I'm not a pro-trucker or anti-trucker, but they're protesting there, and they're right to do that. (39:05 - 39:13) He can do that. And he said, I can do this. I can override your charter privileges. (39:13 - 39:35) The only privileges, right, because of section 33 of the constitution gives him the right to do that only regarding the charter rights, freedom of speech, et cetera. 35 is the first section after the charter ends at section 34. Now it's part, 35 is part of the rest of the constitution. (39:36 - 39:48) How do you get judges assigned? How do you divide the powers? Blah, blah, blah. 35 is part of the constitution. And that argument was made to her and Justice Bork said, I have to, I have to enforce the constitution. (39:49 - 40:10) UNDRIP is now entrenched in the constitution, section 35, and it is the supreme law of the land on a consent, on the consent of the federal government. Okay. So what I'm getting all of that is still the bad stuff, because she's just said that that means UNDRIP is now lawful. (40:10 - 40:15) I'm gonna use your term, lawful. Yes. And furthermore... And legal, and legal. (40:15 - 40:51) And legal. And that furthermore, the federal government through these first nations corporations that they've created have given to them the authority to hand over our lands and resources. If you, under the constitution, if the individuals in this country don't stand up for their individual rights, which are there, UNDRIP article one states that these rights are both collective, let's say of the first nations band, or of the Cree, and then, you know, Northern Alberta, right? But they're also individual. (40:52 - 40:58) That's why you were so good at the start. Well, who are these individuals? All of us. Okay. (40:59 - 41:11) When you were born, the first two weeks you were born, you didn't have a birth certificate. When you were born the first two weeks, you were indigenous. You plopped out in Calgary, you plopped out in Toronto, or St. John, Newfoundland. (41:11 - 41:19) But you plopped out of your mom's womb somewhere on the earth, okay? And now you're indigenous to the earth. Let's look at it in the bigger picture. You're indigenous to the earth. (41:20 - 41:36) Now, two weeks later, an invitation comes to your mother to apply for a birth certificate. And now your labor has been put under contract, under a bond, until you're 65 years old. Your mother chose to do that. (41:36 - 42:03) That wasn't Will, and Will was not given the chance at 18 years old, right? A right of passage, you've got your driver's license, and you should have with that your right to revoke the birth certificate and declare yourself an individual unconquered man or an unconquered woman. Now, those terms will kick, will go through the, unconquered so foreign to the Canadians, but it's there in the Supreme Court decisions. Right, so now let's look at the unconquered stuff. (42:03 - 42:47) But I'm still struggling to understand the issue of the consent and how it relates to UNDRIP. UNDRIP is now in the constitution, how it is going to be interpreted by the Canadian courts or by our indigenous tribunals, right? Because under UNDRIP, we have the right sections, three sections, 27, 34, and 40. Now, our indigenous tribunals are also entrenched part of the constitution and our tribunal orders are now either equal to the Supreme Court or they're higher than the Supreme Court. (42:47 - 43:06) The very good argument to made that ours are higher than the Supreme Court. And if we're going to go off the definitions that we determined at the beginning of this interview, when you talk about an indigenous tribunal, we're not talking about a native aboriginal tribunal. We're talking about an indigenous tribunal, which is the people who were born in this country. (43:07 - 43:11) I could cry. Well, I don't cry easily, but I cry at odd times. Here's this guy. (43:11 - 43:20) Well, I don't know you at all. How is this guy able to nail that statement so succinctly? That's exactly right. The answer is. (43:20 - 43:29) How broad is this indigenous tribunal? We say that, well, even if he hates the, what do we call them? The native. Let's say he actually hate the native. No problem. (43:29 - 43:48) He can still come to the indigenous. He can choose the court of King's Bench and its law bar members at 700 an hour, or he can come to the indigenous tribunal for $200. We don't allow lawyers in our tribunals for obvious reasons. (43:49 - 43:55) Now, and the answer to that. Now you have a choice. You have a choice to go to the King's Bench or go to the indigenous tribunal. (43:55 - 43:59) Go. I'm no lawyer, but I'm a journalist. And I was a technical writer when I was younger. (44:00 - 44:04) Words convey ideas. Absolutely. And if you use the wrong word, you get the wrong idea. (44:04 - 44:26) And this is why I was getting so sticky about defining these terms at the beginning of this interview, because if you don't understand the terms, you will not understand the conclusions from those terms. So when you said indigenous tribunal, I went, okay. So what this judge did was she gave, handed the consent right to indigenous tribunals. (44:26 - 44:31) She enforced the consent. She didn't make the consent. She enforced the consent. (44:31 - 44:44) It was Hape made her do it. The R.V. Hape, she answers to the Supreme Court of Canada that she's underneath that structure. Let's call the Supreme Court, let's call them Costco, right? Because it's a corporation. (44:44 - 44:56) I don't want to get into tonight, this afternoon, this interview, whether Canada is a corporation. I believe it's easily proven that it is a corporation. It has rules and regulations, and you can go to Costco, you can shop there, but you shop there under their rules. (44:56 - 45:23) When you're in the King's bench court, you shop there under the King's bench rules, right? They're ultimately handed down by an entity called Canada that sits in Ottawa, and Ottawa is on unceded indigenous land. It's an artificial structure plopped down on Canadians' heads since 1791. So we're used to it, but so that system is going on. (45:23 - 45:44) Will's got the right to go over into the indigenous tribunal and enforce his individual right under section 35 of the constitution, which is a supreme law of the land. Nobody can push Will around anymore. He's now fully empowered, as I said, to be a man with unlimited capacity. (45:45 - 46:01) So what all this comes down to, and once again, I need you to correct me if I get this wrong, Glenn, because I'm going to try to summarize the really important points you've just made. The judge made a rule on the constitution that has to do with consent. She enforced the consent. (46:02 - 46:12) Third time we're going to go at this. She licked the consent. She enforced the consent under the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Hape at paragraph 43. (46:12 - 46:17) She had to enforce the consent. I'm going to come back to that. I'm just laying that out as a groundwork. (46:18 - 46:32) Now, on the other side, we've got these artificial First Nations corporations, which were given the lawful authority to hand over our lands and resources, but... Legal authority. No, no, you're still mixing it up. They were given the legal authority by statute, by a statute. (46:33 - 46:42) Okay. They don't have indigenous lawful or international power. They only have a statute by Edmonton or by Ottawa. (46:42 - 46:44) Okay. That's all they have. There is debate. (46:44 - 47:00) Thank you for correcting that. So legal authority given to it by our government to hand over our lands and resources, but we go back to this judge's decision that says, wait a minute, not without the consent of the indigenous peoples. No, no, that's where you're getting mixed up. (47:00 - 47:10) The indigenous didn't... Okay, I'm still getting this backwards. Well, then you're kind of fabricating the indigenous consent. Indigenous weren't involved at all in the consent at the UN in New York. (47:10 - 47:15) Okay. But then you're talking about the indigenous tribunals. Well, no, that's a separate animal. (47:17 - 47:24) Okay. So we're still on the consent issue then. The consent was given in New York by a Canadian citizen. (47:24 - 47:37) She's a doctor, Carolyn Bennett, and she went there with her indigenous hat on. On behalf of a Canadian corporation, right? That's here to tax you and to take your resources. That's their goal. (47:38 - 48:06) And so that she went to New York and this, let's call her a bear, as I call it, taxes are a bear. And so this bear animal went to the UN and the bear consented, right? To applying UNDRIP, to entrenching UNDRIP into the constitution of Canada. It's that consent by the bear, by Minister Bennett, by this Canada corporation thing that went and consented to this. (48:07 - 48:38) Now they just handcuffed themselves and the rest of the Canadians, whether they want to identify citizens of that bear or they want to identify as indigenous men and women who are unconquered. Now you've got two different entities approaching Section 35, but they didn't require the, you seem to impose a consent by the status, a banned corporation. Their consent is not involved at all. (48:38 - 48:45) They do what they're told by Ottawa. Their consent is not involved at all in Section 35. Okay. (48:45 - 49:03) So then what we're getting down to is this bear, as you described her, went to New York, handed over our rights, but doesn't have the authority to do that. But she didn't hand over your rights. She can't speak for the rights of the indigenous peoples. (49:03 - 49:16) She can speak for those corporations that have surrendered to her bear ship. Those little cubs, those little bear cubs and a few little rabbits that jumped into the bear clan. Okay. (49:16 - 49:30) Then she consents on behalf of those bears. What about the rest of the people who didn't go to the UN? What about them? They didn't go to the UN to consent, right? Right. They're still unconquered. (49:32 - 49:43) And I'm looking for my notes on that, but that's where I'm wanting to go with this, because this is what the argument hinges on, unconquered versus consent. Correct. So let's get into that. (49:44 - 49:47) You've got it. They never consented. Will didn't consent. (49:47 - 49:52) I didn't consent. 8 million people in Vancouver area. They didn't consent. (49:53 - 50:11) And they're still unconquered. Let's go back to the start of Canada, 1759, the Plains of Abraham. Wolf and Montcalm killed each other, right? On your front lawn, you know, now you're going to have to clean up the mess, take your shit back to the boats and get the hell out of here, is what Will would have said if he was on the front lawn. (50:11 - 50:36) If these two idiots in uniforms were shooting at each other, you'd call the cops, right? So Canadians never were conquered at the Plains of Abraham. Okay. So what this comes down to then is that this first nation's corporation, legal right to hand over our lands and resources. (50:36 - 50:39) You've got it. Can't. Legal. (50:39 - 50:49) Be applied because they don't have the consent of unconquered people in this country. You've got it. You've got it. (50:49 - 50:55) I'm going to cry all over again. And, and here's something I was looking for. And this is in your, the notes from your article. (50:55 - 51:07) The Supreme court of Canada also stated in R versus Desautels 2023 that Indigenous peoples were never conquered. 2021. Yes. (51:07 - 51:10) I'm sorry. The smudge on my paper. It's okay. (51:11 - 51:24) And they said it in the Haida versus BC 2004 case at paragraph 25. It's important because here's a microcosm. The Haida matriarchs, you know, up near Prince Rupert, they're now in full revolt. (51:25 - 51:53) They have kicked out the banned corporate structure out of their long house and they've occupied it. They're now going as the matriarch unconquered women who never consented, right? To Canada, never consented in your argument to this whole business of having UNDRIP put into the constitution. And they're going into the Supreme court of Vancouver to, to, to, to assert their rights under international law. (51:54 - 52:18) Now this gets a little bit hairy. Let's go with the right arm is international law and the left arm is section 35 domestic law, right? We're talking about the constitution of a people, uh, of, of this area. We call it, we'll call Canada, right? So right arm is international law and the left arm is the domestic law of section 35. (52:19 - 52:29) And we're going to see this only happened in November of 2023. So it's, you know, it's just a year ago, this happened in Quebec. So, so day. (52:29 - 52:42) So tell you bring up is so perfect. What they said in there was that first indigenous people still have their laws. There are two systems in Canada is the legal, uh, let those statutes. (52:42 - 52:53) And now there's the law for the law of the indigenous individual. Now what they also said was, wait a minute, there's something called British imperial policy. It's progress 68. (52:53 - 53:22) And that policy will said that acts passed in London, England, this goes back to 1774 when the Quebec act, when the British came on to Quebec land and, and beat, I guess, beat the French, the French army from France from that period laws passed in England. Now watch now are not valid overseas here over the unconquered people. Bingo. (53:23 - 53:40) Right. You're pulled over by the police, the RCMP, there's a, as a traffic, uh, you know, a red light or a DUI or whatever you pull them over and you say to them, sorry, I'm unconquered individual days. So tell paragraph 68, you have no jurisdiction. (53:41 - 53:45) Right. So let me try to summarize this again, because I'm unconquered. I'm unconquered. (53:45 - 53:54) And I'm not part of any group that's tried to, tried to surrender my rights. Right. So let me see if I summarize this again. (53:54 - 53:56) Yeah, go. This is so important. Go. (53:56 - 54:31) Under our constitution and under the judgments that were made in the courts, Supreme court Montour, you can't name, give away somebody's lands and resources unless either a, you conquered them or B you have their consent. And the only people in this country from whom they have consent are those who jumped into the first nation's basket and gave away the rights. And, and, and a subgroup is those people who applied, applied, newly forced you applied for a citizenship passport in Ottawa from the federal government. (54:31 - 54:43) Now that, but they, that second subgroup, as I said, the Beckman case, 2011 says that they can be both a citizen and Costco has got great benefits in Ottawa for you. Right. We're saying Canada is the same as Costco. (54:43 - 54:48) You can go shop your fanny off and just have a great time. Right. That's a great country. (54:48 - 54:58) It's a great company. So that's where you are, but you will also has, because he's unlimited. He has the right to be indigenous, unconquered his laws. (55:00 - 55:06) He's got both. Now he's got both the domestic legislation. The Canada act was not passed in Canada. (55:07 - 55:15) It was passed in London, England. So therefore it's not valid here. Unless Will consents, his passport wasn't a consent. (55:15 - 55:20) He just agreed to get something to get to the airport to get to Seattle. Right. No problem. (55:20 - 55:26) That's not a declaration of international law. Shortly, we're going to have our own passports. Will can get his own passport. (55:27 - 55:37) He can print up his own passport in his basement. If we can get the U S government to change their opinion, that's coming in the future. So, but I'm getting at the power of the individual. (55:38 - 55:44) Will didn't consent. He's not conquered. And therefore he is free. (55:45 - 55:51) He's not a free man. They don't have the authority to give away my lands and resources. That's right. (55:51 - 55:55) I'm not conquered. I didn't consent. And that applies to the vast majority of the people in this country. (55:57 - 56:02) Then applies to all of them, except for the foolish, uh, first nations bands. Right. Exactly. (56:02 - 56:15) Those people who jumped into the first nations basket, they gave up their rights, but neither of us did. I might fly out there tonight and hug you and come back. I've never seen some, I've never seen, cause you're a trained journalist. (56:15 - 56:25) I've never seen somebody. I've been in front of 50 judges arguing this clue. They're all clueless because they're not trained to analyze the question. (56:25 - 56:37) And you've done a great job of, of, of being opposite me, right? We have different opinion when we started out. And then, so now, now you have, you have succinctly put it. So I'll invite you to repeat it again. (56:39 - 56:45) They do this, break it down to the simplest thing. Yeah. They don't have the right to give away my lands and resources because I'm not conquered. (56:45 - 56:49) And I didn't consent. And you're indigenous. And I'm indigenous. (56:50 - 56:55) So every person who was born in this country. Person, you're using it, you're using a legal term. Yes. (56:55 - 57:21) And everybody, everybody who's everybody, whose mother at two weeks old signed them up to be an artificial person that Trudeau and Harper can, uh, uh, send that bond that labor bond to Chase Bank in New York and borrow currency from the Rockefellers. That's why they needed the birth certificate. Your labor is bonded. (57:22 - 57:29) Rockefeller is not giving away cash to Will's family. Your labor is bonded until 65. That's your birth certificate. (57:29 - 57:36) It's a birth bond. There's no question about that. Your birth certificate is registered in New York. (57:36 - 57:42) I got mine from a friend of mine who worked for Mulroney. He went and got mine. Now what am I going to do? I'm a lawyer. (57:42 - 57:45) Here's the evidence. Glenn Bogue's birth certificate. My driver's license. (57:45 - 57:51) Will, my passport number. Turn your driver's license around, audience. Turn it around on the back. (57:51 - 57:59) There's a red bond number on the driver's license. All that's bonded in New York. It's not bonded in Ottawa. (57:59 - 58:16) It's not bonded in Victoria. It's not bonded in Edmonton. We're slaves to an international monetary system until we stand up under the law, the international law, that our Canada was passed on a foreign country. (58:16 - 58:29) It has no power here until Will consents and until we begin to reassert Indigenous laws that the Desautels case at 86. It's 68, British imperial policy, and 86. They're mirrors. (58:29 - 58:38) Happens. It's easy to remember. 86 says Will still has the right against that RCMP, whoever pulls you over in Alberta. (58:38 - 58:47) I don't know. He still has the right to quote Desautels 86. I'm driving this car under my Indigenous laws, Desautels 86, Supreme Court of Canada. (58:47 - 59:04) Then shut up and let the police figure it out. Got it? Now, but getting back specifically to UNDRIP, what we've come to here is that every Indigenous person in this country, born here. Indigenous individual or person? They're different. (59:05 - 59:11) Individual, I-I. Indigenous individual. I-I. (59:12 - 59:17) Right. Okay. Not an IP, an I-I individual. (59:18 - 59:27) Powerful, unlimited, and you got the IP, you surrender. Indigenous person has surrendered. Can't surrender Will's rights. (59:27 - 59:34) Cannot surrender Will's individual rights that are protected in the Constitution, Section 35. Right. Which was law. (59:35 - 1:00:07) But it was empty before, but then Justin Trudeau did us all a favor by consenting to entrenched Will's rights, and now Will's protected by Section 52 of the Constitution, which makes 35 the supreme law of the land. Domestically. Let's talk about, that applies now to the vast majority of Canadians, people who are Indigenous individuals, those born here, the Charter, the Constitution says that nobody can give away your land. (1:00:07 - 1:00:11) I know, I corrupted myself. I said the Constitution. Because nobody knows this. (1:00:11 - 1:00:26) The Charter goes from Section 1 to 34, draw a brick wall. A brick wall, 35 is the first section of the Constitution proper. So 52 says from 35 onward is the supreme law of the land. (1:00:26 - 1:00:40) And no Alberta law, okay, can stand against UNDRIP. There all are no force and effect. Now, what does Section 35 give Will? We can go into that shortly. (1:00:40 - 1:00:51) Right. And that's, we're going to get there next. So what we've determined is as an Indigenous individual, those of us who are Indigenous individuals in this country, and that's the majority. (1:00:51 - 1:01:04) And unconquered. And I'm getting there. We have the constitutional right to governance and ownership of our lands and resources. (1:01:05 - 1:01:32) And these court cases have determined, you can't give it away unless either A, we gave our consent or B, we are conquered. And they made this determination that the Indigenous peoples, and that's right there in that 2021 case I quoted earlier, that the Indigenous peoples are not conquered, never were. So every Indigenous individual in this country was never conquered. (1:01:33 - 1:01:46) So we've dealt with that. They sure as heck didn't ask our consent. And the only people who did give up their rights to be asked their consent are the ones who jumped into that first nations basket, which is a very small minority. (1:01:46 - 1:01:57) I call it a cup because it's not quite as big as a basket. Okay, a cup. So this, now we've got the foundation of the legal argument, the logic. (1:01:57 - 1:02:02) Careful, the lawful argument. Okay. I'm going to, I know you're going to be wrong, lawful argument. (1:02:02 - 1:02:15) No, the cup exists in the legal world. The Indigenous laws and the international law exist in the lawful world. The rule of law, Trudeau talks a lot about the rule of law. (1:02:15 - 1:02:28) The constitution opens up, we're under God, whatever that means, and the rule of law. It doesn't say the rule of legal, of being a legal person. That's been usurped by the law societies. (1:02:29 - 1:02:39) Right. So now that we've established though, the lawful logical argument, they don't have the authority to do this. Correct. (1:02:40 - 1:02:57) How do we now use that? If I apply to it, you go to it, you stand up like a man or woman over 18 years old, and you walk into an Indigenous tribunal and you make a claim. There's two of them in the country now I know of. It's the Alliance of Indigenous Nations. (1:02:57 - 1:03:06) We're an international tribunal. We established it right after what Justin Trudeau did. Let's go back a bit today. (1:03:06 - 1:03:27) April of 2021, two months later, June 21, Indigenous Day, Trudeau ratified UNDRIP as the federal law, nation to nation. Another handcuff on auto law. Now it's fully ratified in Canadian law. (1:03:28 - 1:03:41) So now you've got Desautels, you've got the Borke decision in Montour, entrenching it, and you've got ratification, which is the Human Rights Declaration 1947. They're all part of Canadian law. UNDRIP is part of Canadian law. (1:03:42 - 1:04:07) Don't let these corporations hire these lawyers to use these corporate-banned stooges to steal your stuff. You wouldn't let them come into your basement of your house and grab the goods, the gold bars that we know Will has under the floor mats in the basement. You wouldn't let them do that, right? But we are fooled by the lawyers and these artificial entities. (1:04:07 - 1:04:24) So now you go into UNDRIP, you go into section 35 of the constitution, you apply to a tribunal. The Alliance of Indigenous Nations now has been acknowledged by the federal government. Acknowledged. (1:04:24 - 1:04:31) 200 bucks, you can apply there, make your claim. It must be enforced. Now, we'll go into that in a second. (1:04:31 - 1:04:50) You go either there, the matriarchs of Haida have now established their own tribunal. They've got credibility because, as I mentioned, the Haida versus BC case, 2004, these are landmark cases, by the way. There they said at 32, the crown only ever had de facto control of the resources. (1:04:51 - 1:05:06) Well, so if the crown only had military control, who has the lawful control? The matriarchs here of the Haida. So we taught them that. And they established their own tribunal under international law. (1:05:06 - 1:05:26) And under Desautel 86, their laws still govern as long as they assert them. So Will can apply to the matriarchs of Haida and get his order and go into court and enforce it. Now, how does that happen? How do you get some goofball tribunal? That's what judges have been saying. (1:05:26 - 1:05:31) These are fictitious entities. Just a minute now. Okay. (1:05:32 - 1:05:53) Canada just acknowledged the Alliance of Indigenous Nations, the AIN treaty. It's a global treaty of non-UN member states, right? Well, the UN has 204 entities, right? There's 4 billion people on the planet just trying to scratch out a living who are indigenous. They're not part of the UN. (1:05:53 - 1:06:27) So our group, the AIN treaty, the Eagle and Condor Treaty of North and South America, we're now going all around the Americas and in the Pacific Rim, gathering up all these tribes who are not part of the UN. And the Supreme Court in the HAPE decision, again, there's HAPE, at paragraph 40 stated, non-UN member states have sovereign equality. That's the AIN. (1:06:28 - 1:06:44) And Canada just recognized it December 13, 2024. So now there's a case just before HAPE in 2006 called Pro Swing Golf. Kind of a crazy name, but it was a fight between golf courses in Toronto and in New York. (1:06:44 - 1:07:15) And in there, they laid down the international law that an order from Germany has to be enforced in downtown Alberta, if for money damages. That is without question the law. The question is, who are the two different nations? We just said HAPE 40 said non-UN member states have sovereign equality. (1:07:16 - 1:07:33) So under AIN treaty, we've got 60 nations, nations or tribes, we call them, differentiate from the UN. We've got 60 tribes whose orders for money damages must be enforced in Canadian courts. That's the Supreme Court. (1:07:33 - 1:07:46) And they can't go against it, but they are so far. So the action item that people watching this can take from it would be go spend the $200, join an indigenous tribunal. No, not join them. (1:07:46 - 1:07:50) No, it's a court. You file your claim. Okay. (1:07:50 - 1:08:11) File your claim. And so the question that that leads me to then would be, I think would be the final nail in the coffin here is what authority do these indigenous tribunals have? We just went through it. Pro swing Supreme Court stated any order nation to nation must be enforced, especially for money damages. (1:08:12 - 1:08:18) Okay. Other types of other types of other types of orders. They said in paragraph 18, don't have to be enforced. (1:08:18 - 1:08:50) Well, no, don't have to be enforced if they interfere with domestic law, but they can't in Canada because UNDRIP is entrenched in the domestic law of the constitution, making it the supreme law of the land. So Will can get his $20 million case enforced, his judgment, and he can get an injunction against the RCMP from pulling him over again. He can get that injunction enforced in Alberta in the King's bench court under the Supreme Court that binds them. (1:08:51 - 1:08:57) Will the judge do it? Well, we're in a period of flux. No, they won't. No, they won't. (1:08:57 - 1:09:10) But I think there's probably some confusion here with the use of the term nation, because we were talking about first nations before, which are these artificially constructed... Break point. That's why we refer to the word nation. I don't think you were using it in that sense. (1:09:11 - 1:09:29) Well, the first nations is called that to give it the luster of an independent nation. It's a trick by the lawyers. You are really, I mean it, you're so sharp in getting these terms clear. (1:09:29 - 1:09:45) So I can't get away from this trick they pulled calling these few families for a nation. They're not, they're sub-corporations and they should be called the Métis sub-corporation of Alberta. That's what they should be called. (1:09:45 - 1:09:57) But the lawyers put the lip gloss on it of calling them a nation. But it's important to point out that they're not part of first nations. Who? These sub-corporations you're talking about. (1:09:59 - 1:10:07) The Métis sub-corporation of Alberta is a sub-corporation of a corporation of Canada. It's not a nation. It's not a nation. (1:10:08 - 1:10:17) It's not part of this artificially constructed corporation that was handed the rights to hand over our lands and resources. This is something different. No, wait, wait. (1:10:17 - 1:10:31) The first, the Métis nation of Alberta, Justin Trudeau grabbed Alberta, Manitoba and the western side of Ontario and he made them all come out of Louis Riel's loins. They had to be descendants of Louis Riel. No problem. (1:10:32 - 1:10:42) The Daniels case said, Supreme Court said, no, that's one group of Métis. There's millions of them running around of Métis, billions of them. So, you know, let's start working with them. (1:10:42 - 1:10:54) And so we did. So the first nations Métis of Alberta is a sub-corporation of Ottawa. They call it first nations to give it some authority, but it's not a nation. (1:10:54 - 1:11:07) It's only a corporation. We use the word nations because the Supreme Court in the hate quoted the UN saying that non-UN member states. So maybe we should call them states. (1:11:07 - 1:11:22) Non-UN member states have sovereign equality with Canada. So our 60 nations who have signed on are tribes who have signed on to our UN treaty. This is the all UN treaty. (1:11:22 - 1:11:41) Those who have signed on and we're not governed just by UNDRIP. We have, you know, 10,000 year old indigenous common law on Will's side, right? You just don't have UNDRIP in 35. You've got international law and you've got in HAPE 86. (1:11:41 - 1:11:52) Sorry, Desautel 86. You've got the Supreme Court recognizing Will's ancient indigenous common law. And that right there is where Will being born in Alberta. (1:11:53 - 1:12:15) Is that right? You were born in Alberta? Actually, I was born in Ontario, but I lived in Alberta most of my life. Okay. So he's born, it doesn't matter, right? Where Will's born, your unassailable right is in Desautel paragraph 86, your indigenous laws, customs, and traditions are still valid here, but you've got to step up and claim them. (1:12:16 - 1:12:26) Okay. And I don't think a judge is going to help you. You go pay your $200 and you file your claim with one of the tribunals. (1:12:27 - 1:12:34) Well, we have our international tribunal that now has been recognized December 17. I sent you the document. Okay. (1:12:34 - 1:12:49) Canada recognized our international tribunal. So we're really the Hague, if you know the Hague and the Netherlands, the world's court that just convicted a BB there, Netanyahu, right? Those judges are now an international court. There's another one in Costa Rica. (1:12:49 - 1:13:13) And now there's a third one in Canada because a UN member state Canada has now recognized our international tribunal. So you can go to an international tribunal for $200, lay your claim, and we'll tell you how to enforce it in the Canadian courts. And if you provide me with the link to that, we'll put it directly beneath this interview so people can do that. (1:13:13 - 1:13:26) Just go to the alliance of indigenous nations.org. Okay. It's all there. Is there anything else you feel we need to cover so that the viewers will understand everything we've talked about today? Yes. (1:13:27 - 1:13:52) The critical part is making your stand as unconquered indigenous man or woman means that you own a share, an equal share of the Canadian resources. Those resources are valued at 700 trillion. UNDRIP four articles, 4, 20, 26, and 36. (1:13:53 - 1:14:30) Folks, you just get to learn this stuff as you repeat them. Those four articles will give every individual the right to have their own financial system and not be subject to the Swiss system that's coming out of New York Chase Bank from Switzerland. Now we have developed an indigenous system called TUMULT, the mother load trust, T-U-M-U-L-T dot C-A, where every single unconquered indigenous individual will get their own bank in their computer and a trust fund worth about US 18 million. (1:14:30 - 1:14:41) That's 700 trillion divided by roughly 40 million people. Everybody in Canada would get a trust fund of 18 million. That's a trust. (1:14:41 - 1:14:52) We have to work out the terms of the trust. But that, folks, is the second time in the world that's happened. If you were Norwegian, Will, you're part of the Norwegian sovereign fund worth $1.4 trillion. (1:14:53 - 1:15:13) And every Norwegian is worth 300,000 US. We'd like to have that in our pocket when we went through COVID. But now, UNDRIP being entrenched in the constitution, those four articles give us the right to have our own banking system backed by the resources of Canada in the ground. (1:15:13 - 1:15:21) And who told us to do that? Warren Buffett. The mother earth is the best fault. They can't steal it from me. (1:15:21 - 1:15:34) I don't have to hire brinks. I don't have to hire lawyers to chase it around in courts, right? It's safe. And so, we are, and an indigenous chief said this in BC, we're the Saudi royal family of the world. (1:15:34 - 1:16:03) Canada is the richest country in the world. And using that wealth, Will, I've been saying the motto, repeating it, because I'm the attorney general of the AIN, Canada's destiny, our destiny is to feed the world with our vast wealth, and we can do it with tumult, and to lead the world back to peace. Because the Canadians are known around the world as polite, intelligent, peaceful people. (1:16:04 - 1:16:22) And so, that's where we're going now with our indigenous unconquered movement. All right. Well, and thank you so much for your time, for this interview, for all the research that you've done into this, for the patience you're showing in getting myself and the viewers to the point where we could understand the argument and to know the action step that we can actually take. (1:16:22 - 1:16:26) Thank you so much. I look forward to round two. All right. (1:16:27 - 1:16:29) I'm certain there will be a round two.