We have posted a leaked notice that Ontario's Appeal will be rejected. This somehow surprises everyone.

On Tuesday Aug. 8, 2006, we had a few people who were in the courtroom at the time when the Judge brought down his ruling. I can clearly remember the report I recieved that the Judge recommended the ending of negotiations, not ordering them to end. I questioned my source and he repeated the fact that the Judge only recommended the ending of negotiations.

I became frustrated when the MSM (Main Stream Media) started reporting the whole story as somehow the Judge ordered the negotiations to stop. It appears that the MSM cares little for accuracy and a lot for big headlines or they are just too lazy to research the story.

The Ontario Government Appeal never surprised me because once you understand that everything in modern Politics is done to win the Media War you soon understand every step politicians make.

The Judge made 3 rulings/suggestions and the Ontario Government was faced with a media nightmare. So it was brilliant how the Ontario Government quickly launched an Appeal which they knew would cause all the Media to focus on one part of the Judge's rulings and completely forget about anything else.

How many stories how you read out of the MSM, especially Toronto, covering the Appeal and how many have you read covering the real ruling by Judge Marshall.

In the past week I have spent about 10 hours on the phone with various media outlets responding to their questions and trying to get them to understand the Appeal is nothing - focus on the Judge's real ruling. I didn't hold my breath that the media would pickup the real story.

This Tuesday the Ontario Appeal Court will turn down the Appeal and maybe the MSM will finally start reporting on the Court Order to remove the Natives.

I find it hard to believe that my wife & I are smarter than the people at the Attorney General's Office and if we can figure out that the Judge never order an end to the negotiations then so can they. It was all a PR move to control the MSM which worked quite well.

Judge Marshall stated the following:

The negotiations are important to the native people and everyone else and I appreciate that reality, but land claim negotiations by their very nature tend to be protracted. It is trite that justice delayed is justice denied.

It is fundamental in our society that all members of the public -- including the various levels of government should respect the lawful orders of the court.

Certainly government officials should not act deliberately in a way that would ignore the court's orders and hence depreciate the court and the rule of law in our society. To act otherwise, will be seen as acting in defiance of the court's order.

For that important reason, the government agents involved in these negotiations should, in deference to the court order, withdraw from these negotiations until the court's orders are respected and the rule of law returned and the barricades removed.

Sorry MSM you really missed on this one - McGuinty played you like a fiddle and most of you followed quite blindly.

The OPP had been arguing for months that they are primarily to keep the peace and have a lot of discretion in deciding when and who to arrest. The Attorney General had been arguing that the Rule of Law should be understood in a broad term which includes Native traditions, etc.

Both lawyers had also tried to B.S. the court into believing the OPP were upholding the laws and arrests were being made. Furthermore, McGuinty's willing attempts to Subvert our Legal System by attempting to bypass the court and to make Judge Marshall impotent is Criminal in my opinion. McGuinty first created the moratorium on construction on DCE land. Then McGuinty bought out Henco Inc. and claimed to Judge Marshall that his injuction wasn't needed. [Full Story]

The Judge ended all the subversive activities of McGunity by ruling that regardless who owns the land his original Criminal Comtempt Order stands. In fact he states it is automatically transferred to the new owners. If that was not the case the Judge argued that all injunctions could easily be nullified by transferring ownership to someone else.

Judge Marshall stated, "The second point I wish to make is that the sale of the property to the crown or the Government of Ontario for the same reasons I gave above should have no effect on the court continuing with the criminal contempt. Surely the injunction continues with the property till the court dissolves it - if the law were otherwise – an injunction could be defeated by transferring ownership. In my view, the injunction here will bind the new owner with notice – as here until it is finally dissolved." [full transcripts of Aug. 8 hearing]

Furthermore, the Criminal Comtempt Order is for any protestor on the property after March 22, 2006. Like any other crime, once the crime is committed then charges are to be laid. The Judge didn't rule that now the protesters are commiting a Criminal offense, he is stating they have been committing a criminal act since March 22nd and each and everyone of the protesters are to be arrested. [See Original Order]

Original Order was, "THIS COURT FURTHER ORDERS THAT any persons present at Douglas Creek Estates, as of and after Wednesday, March 22, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. in contravention of the Order of Mr. Justice Matheson dated March 3, 2006 are subject to arrest pursuant to the Warrants of Arrest issued in accordance with paragraph 6 of this order."

Aug. 8th, Judge Marshall stated, "Those still blockading the property and those who advise them should take note of the Criminal Code Section 127(1). It provides: "Everyone who without lawful excuse disobeys a lawful order made by a court….. is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable for imprisonment……" This court has no intention to abandon this matter. This court will remain patient but seized of the matter until it is resolved for the reasons I have given.

Therefore, this Court's order is; that the matter of the contempt is referred to the Attorney General for carriage. In the court's view, after much deliberation, there should be no further negotiations till the blockades are lifted and the occupation is ended. Then the negotiations should be pursued in earnest."

The Judge's final words, "I am ordering that a copy of these reasons be sent directly to the Attorney General who has responsibility for enforcing the Criminal Law." bring an end to the OPP legal argument and that of the Attorney General.

Judge Marshall stated the following:

"It is a rule of general application. Whenever it is broken – even in a small way, we say there is injustice. We see the unfairness. It is a rule that is woven into every part of our social contract to live peacefully together. Even a small tear in the cloth of our justice system spoils the whole fabric of society.

Who is responsible for upholding the Rule of Law? The answer, of course is, each of us. I and each of my neighbours are equally responsible.

But the courts have a central role. It is the courts who are the arbiters. The crown and the police play a role – but the courts have the difficult role of applying equally to everyone the laws passed by our elected representatives.

Should the court defer to the government its role as arbiter of the Rule of Law? No indeed, but that has been submitted in this court in this case. The counsel for the crown said here, and I quote: "Almost everyone you've heard from has asked that you (the court) leave the matter with those that are responsible for dealing with the rule of law", meaning leaving that to the crown and the police.

With respect, that submission could hardly be further from the mark. The Superior Courts, of which this court is a part, are the custodians of the Rule of Law.

Consider this statement by the Chief Justice of Canada's Supreme Court: "In the constitutional arrangements passed on to us by the British and recognized by the preamble to the Constitution Act 1867, the provincial superior courts are the foundation of the rule of law itself"ⁱ