Category Archives: E-Governance

We all eat out of the Dish – all of us unique peoples – but it only has one spoon.

Land Acknowledgement

“Toronto is in the ‘Dish With One Spoon Territory’. The Dish With One Spoon is a treaty between the Anishinaabe, Mississaugas and Haudenosaunee that bound them to share the territory and protect the land. Subsequent Indigenous nations and peoples, Europeans and all newcomers have been invited into this treaty in the spirit of peace, friendship and respect.”

“Toronto is in the ‘Dish With One Spoon Territory’. The Dish With One Spoon is a treaty between the Anishinaabe, Mississaugas and Haudenosaunee that bound them to share the territory and protect the land. Subsequent Indigenous nations and peoples, Europeans and all newcomers have been invited into this treaty in the spirit of peace, friendship and respect.”

To hereby be The “Dish” or sometimes it is called the “Bowl” represents what is now southern Ontario (from the Great Lake to Quebec and from Lake Simcoe into the U.S.). We all eat out of the Dish – all of us unique peoples – but it only has one spoon. That means we have to share and that we have responsibilities to make sure the dish is never empty (to take care of the land and the creatures we share it with). Importantly, there are no knives at the table. We must keep the peace. The dish is graphically represented by the wampum represented below:

file

file

This was a treaty made between the Anishinaabe and Haudenosaunee after the French and Indian War. Newcomers were then incorporated into it over the years, notably at 1764 (The Royal Proclamation/The Treaty of Niagara).

The purpose of the acknowledgement started in B.C., where there are no treaties at all. So people were actually living, working, meeting on stolen land. Its popularity has spread as an acknowledgment of presence and assertion of Indigenous sovereignty. 

Land Acknowledgement at Ryerson University:

CEASE and DESIST issued to CANADA and PROVINCES July 5th 2016 for promoting themselves as Turtle Island

CEASE and DESIST issued to CANADA and PROVINCES July 5th 2016.

The Government of Turtle Island, issues  CANADA and PROVINCES an order To Cease and Desist promoting themselves as Turtle Island, Kannada, affiliated or representative in any matters of The Great Turtle Island, or as Kannada aka Anishinabe Village .  Websites infringement on  Anishinabe Nation of Turtle Island copyright. CANADA AND THE PROVINCES face Litigation for promoting CANADA AND OR PROVINCES referring to Turtle Island, any Canadian entity is ordered to Cease  and Desist doing so immediately for violating UCC.

 

Canada and The Provinces of Canada, are SEC Corporate Entities, promoting themselves as a Sovereign Country, thus Canada and The Provinces are Ultra Vires.

Government entities created by a state are public corporations governed by municipal charters and other statutorily imposed grants of power. These grants of authority are analogous to a private corporation’s articles of incorporation. Historically, the Ultra Vires concept has been used to construe the powers of a government entity narrowly. Failure to observe the statutory limits has been characterized as ultra vires.

In the case of a private business entity, the act of an employee who is not authorized to act on the entity’s behalf may,nevertheless, bind the entity contractually if such an employee would normally be expected to have that authority. Withgovernment entity, however, to prevent a contract from being voided as Ultra Vires, it is normally necessary to prove that the employee actually had authority to act. Where a government employee exceeds her authority, the government entity may seek to rescind the contract based on an ultra vires claim.

CANADA and The PROVINCES are violating the CONVENTION AGAINST CORRUPTION RATIFIED BY 30TH STATE, ENTERED INTO FORCE 14 DECEMBER 2005.

CANADA and The PROVINCES are violating THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULAR RELATIONS AND OPTIONAL PROTOCOLS

CANADA AND THE PROVINCES have, and continue to commit Fraud against the Anishinabe Nation of Turtle Island.

The following sites promote dealing with SEC Companies that are Ultra Vires  by promoting dealing with CANADA AND THE PROVINCES promoting licensing and laws, on Indigenous Land, which create Fraudulent Contracts, which are Ultra Vires.

CANADA AND THE PROVINCES Companies involved in Massive Global Fraud, against All People and Nations of The Great Turtle Island.

http://www.turtleislandstaffing.info/

https://holisticassessment.gov.sk.ca/digitalstories/aski/

Home

Home

 

 

http://www.turtleisland.org/resources/resources.htm

 

http://turtleisland.ca/

 

Turtle Island – Staffing Services – Ottawa

The Anishinabe Nation of Turtle Island, caution the Corporation of CANADA and THE PROVINCES about their continual Copyright infringements.

Originally the Settlers came to live in Anishinabe Villages called Kannada, the Settlers were / are referred to as Aboriginals, meaning not Originals.

 

 

 

 

The Doctrine of Ultra Vires, if a corporation enters into a contract that is beyond the scope of its corporate powers, the contract is illegal.

Ultra Vires

Latin, Beyond the powers. The doctrine in the law of corporations that holds that if a corporation enters into a contract that is beyond the scope of its corporate powers, the contract is illegal.

The doctrine of ultra vires played an important role in the development of corporate powers. Though largely obsolete inmodern private corporation law, the doctrine remains in full force for government entities. An ultra vires act is one beyond the purposes or powers of a corporation. The earliest legal view was that such acts were void. Under this approachcorporation was formed only for limited purposes and could do only what it was authorized to do in its corporate charter.

This early view proved unworkable and unfair. It permitted a corporation to accept the benefits of a contract and then refuse to perform its obligations on the ground that the contract was ultra vires. The doctrine also impaired the security of title to property in fully executed transactions in which a corporation participated. Therefore, the courts adopted the view that such acts were Voidable rather than void and that the facts should dictate whether a corporate act should have effect.

Over time a body of principles developed that prevented the application of the ultra vires doctrine. These principles included the ability of shareholders to ratify an ultra vires transaction; the application of the doctrine of Estoppel, which prevented the defense of ultra vires when the transaction was fully performed by one party; and the prohibition against asserting ultravires when both parties had fully performed the contract. The law also held that if an agent of a corporation committed a tort within the scope of the agent’s employment, the corporation could not defend on the ground that the act was ultra vires.

Despite these principles the ultra vires doctrine was applied inconsistently and erratically. Accordingly, modern corporation law has sought to remove the possibility that ultra vires acts may occur. Most importantly, multiple purposes clauses and general clauses that permit corporations to engage in any lawful business are now included in the articles of incorporation. In addition, purposes clauses can now be easily amended if the corporation seeks to do business in new areas. For example,under traditional ultra vires doctrine, a corporation that had as its purpose the manufacturing of shoes could not, under its charter, manufacture motorcycles. Under modern corporate law, the purposes clause would either be so general as to allow the corporation to go into the motorcycle business, or the corporation would amend its purposes clause to reflect the new venture.

State laws in almost every jurisdiction have also sharply reduced the importance of the ultra vires doctrine. For example,section 3.04(a) of the Revised Model Business Corporation Act, drafted in 1984, states that “the validity of corporate action may not be challenged on the ground that the corporation lacks or lacked power to act.” There are three exceptions to this prohibition: it may be asserted by the corporation or its shareholders against the present or former officers or directors of the corporation for exceeding their authority, by the attorney general of the state in a proceeding to dissolve the corporation or to enjoin it from the transaction of unauthorized business, or by shareholders against the corporation to enjoin the commission of an ultra vires act or the ultra vires transfer of real or Personal Property.

Government entities created by a state are public corporations governed by municipal charters and other statutorily imposed grants of power. These grants of authority are analogous to a private corporation’s articles of incorporation. Historically, the ultra vires concept has been used to construe the powers of a government entity narrowly. Failure to observe the statutory limits has been characterized as ultra vires.

In the case of a private business entity, the act of an employee who is not authorized to act on the entity’s behalf may,nevertheless, bind the entity contractually if such an employee would normally be expected to have that authority. Withgovernment entity, however, to prevent a contract from being voided as ultra vires, it is normally necessary to prove that the employee actually had authority to act. Where a government employee exceeds her authority, the government entity may seek to rescind the contract based on an ultra vires claim.

Further readings

Greenfield, Kent. 2001. “Ultra Vires Lives? A Stakeholder Analysis of Corporate Illegality.” Virginia Law Review 87(November).

Snodgrass, Frank R. 1995. Dealing with Governmental Entities. New York: Practising Law Institute.

Tomonori, Mizushima. 2001. “The Individual as Beneficiary of State Immunity: Problems of the Attribution of Ultra Vires Conduct.” Denver Journal of International Law and Policy (summer-fall).

Cross-references

Scope of Employment.

West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

ultra vires

(uhl-trah veye-rehz) adj. Latin for “beyond powers,” in the law of corporations, referring to acts of a corporation and/or its officers outside the powers and/or authority allowed a corporation by law. Example: Directors of High fliers, Inc. operatesmall bank for its employees and friends, which corporate law does not permit without a bank charter, or sells shares of stock to the public before a permit is issued. (See: corporation)

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.

ultra vires

adjective illegitimate, unallowed, unchartered, unlicensed, unsanctioned, unwarranted
Associated concepts: ultra vires act, ultra vires doctrine

Burton’s Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

ultra vires

‘beyond the power’. An act is ultra vires if it is beyond the legal powers of the person doing it; thus an act by a company not expressly or impliedly permitted by its memorandum or articles is ultra vires. In the UK, the ultra vires doctrine has been radically changed by the Companies Act 1989 to the extent that persons doing business with companies without notice of the problem have little to fear. The doctrine still applies in relation to other bodies such as local authorities.

Collins Dictionary of Law © W.J. Stewart, 2006

Canada Day celebrations across the country, but CANADA has not paid The Anishinabe Government of Turtle Island the Rent For 150 YEARS!

  • Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.  Louis D. Brandeis
  • The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities. Lord Acton

Canada Day celebrations across the country, but CANADA has not paid The Anishinabe Government of Turtle Island the Rent For 150 YEARS!

Continue reading Canada Day celebrations across the country, but CANADA has not paid The Anishinabe Government of Turtle Island the Rent For 150 YEARS!

AEB Anishinabe Environmental Assessment Board to study the Aliso Canyon LNG Environmental Disaster

While Corporate Enterprises are looking at partnering up on Indigenous land, The Turtle Island Government is concerned with the potential for Large Scale Environmental Disasters, specifically in regards to Pipelines, LNG , Land Storage, Proposed LNG Barges, and the increasing in Fracking practices in the industry, to examine projects to determine what the environmental, social, economic and health implications may be.

The large-scale natural gas leak at Aliso Canyon – is of great concern to The Government of The Anishinabe Nation, the increase in the potential for man made Natural Gas Environmental Disasters. The AEB Anishinabe Environmental Assessment Board ESRD, is looking into the Aliso Canyon Gas Leak.

Anishinabe Nation of The Great Turtle Island Environmental Assessment – adheres to ISO 14001 requirements,

The boards include the Anishinabe Utilities Commission (AUC), the Anishinabe Energy Resources Department (AERD) and The Great Turtle Island Resources Conservation Office (GTINRCO).

Aliso Canyon gas leak From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Aliso Canyon gas leak
Aliso Canyon gas leak site, Dec. 14, 2015 (23389378449).jpg

Aliso Canyon leak site on December 14, 2015
Duration October 23, 2015 – February 18, 2016
Location Aliso Canyon Oil Field, Porter Ranch, Los Angeles, California
Coordinates 34°18′54″N 118°33′51″WCoordinates: 34°18′54″N 118°33′51″W
Also known as Porter Ranch gas leak / blowout
Type Gas leak Blowout (well drilling)

Aliso Canyon is located in the Los Angeles metropolitan area

Aliso Canyon
Aliso Canyon

Gas leak site shown within the Los Angeles metropolitan area

Aliso Canyon SS 25 wellhead, December 17, 2015. Note subsidence craters at center, apparently from the attempts to plug the leaking well.

The Aliso Canyon gas leak (also called Porter Ranch gas leak[1] and Porter Ranch gas blowout[2]) was a massive natural gasleak that was discovered by SoCalGas employees on October 23, 2015.[3] Gas was released from a well within the Aliso Canyon’sunderground storage facility in the Santa Susana Mountains near Porter Ranch, Los Angeles.[4] The second-largest gas storage facility of its kind in the United States, it belongs to the Southern California Gas Company, a subsidiary of Sempra Energy. On January 6, 2016, Governor Jerry Brown issued a state of emergency.[5] The Aliso gas leak carbon footprint is said to be larger than the Deepwater Horizon leak in the Gulf of Mexico. On February 11, 2016 the gas company reported that it had the leak under control.[6]

On February 18, 2016, state officials announced that the leak was permanently plugged. An estimated 97,100 tonnes (95,600 long tons; 107,000 short tons) of methane and 7,300 tonnes (7,200 long tons; 8,000 short tons) of ethane was released into the atmosphere,[7] making it the worst natural gas leak in U.S. history in terms of its environmental impact.[8][9][10]

Continue reading AEB Anishinabe Environmental Assessment Board to study the Aliso Canyon LNG Environmental Disaster

WORLD COUNCIL OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES

WORLD COUNCIL OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES

1. All human rights of indigenous people must be respected. No form of discrimination against indigenous people shall be allowed.

2. All indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of this right they can freely determine their political, economic, social, religious and cultural development, in agreement with the principles stated in this declaration.

3. Every nation-state within which indigenous peoples live shall recognize the population, territory and institutions belonging to said peoples.

4. The culture of indigenous peoples are part of mankind’s cultural patrimony.

5. The customs and usages of the indigenous peoples must be respected by the nation-states and recognized as a legitimate source of rights.

6. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine which person(s) or group(s) is (are) included in its population.

7. All indigenous peoples have the right to determine the form, structure and jurisdiction of their own institutions.

8. The institutions of indigenous peoples, like those of a nation-state, must conform to internationally recognized human rights, both individual and collective.

9. Indigenous peoples, and their individual members, have the right to participate in the political life of the nation-state in which they are located.

10. Indigenous peoples have inalienable rights over their traditional lands and resources. All lands and resources which have been usurped, or taken away without the free and knowledgeable consent of Indian peoples, shall be restored to them.

11. The rights of the indigenous peoples to their lands includes the soil, the subsoil, coastal economic zones all within the limits specified by international legislation.

12. All indigenous peoples have the right to freely use their natural wealth and resources in order to satisfy their needs, and, in agreement with principles 10 and 11 above.

13. No action or process shall be implemented which directly and/or indirectly would result in the destruction of land, air, water, glaciers, animal life, environment or natural resources, without the free and well informed consent of the affected indigenous peoples.

14. indigenous peoples will re-assume original rights over their material culture, including archeological zones, artifacts, designs and other artistic expressions.

15. All indigenous peoples have the right to be educated in their own language and to establish their own education institutions. Indian people’s languages shall be respected by nation-states in all dealings between them on the basis of equality and non-discrimination.

16. All treaties reached through agreement between indigenous peoples and representatives of the nation-states will have total validity before national and international law.

17. Indigenous peoples have the right, by virtue of their traditions, to freely travel across international boundaries, to conduct traditional activities and maintain family links.

18. Indigenous peoples and their designated authorities have the right to be consulted and to authorize the implementation of technological and scientific research conducted within their territories and the right to be informed about the results of such activities.

19. The aforementioned principles constitute the minimal rights to which indigenous peoples are entitled and must be complemented by all nation-states.”

http://www.nativevillage.org/

Environmental Protection & Enhancement Policy – EPEP regarding Water.

Under Review, please note: no current or historic compacts and treaties are recognized to supersede or govern Water on / or above The Anishinabe Nations of The Great Turtle Island.

All contracts made for import or export of Water must be authorized by the EPEP regarding Water.

If any contracts by sub-contracts or agencies of CANADA or THE PROVINCES, proof of the validity of such contracts must be provided to the EPEA of The Anishinabe Nations of The Great Turtle Island to comply with land and water use policies, as of Jan 2016 all inquiries for authorization to import or export water must be authorized by the Grand Council of The Anishinabe Nations. and the EPEP.

As of Jan 2016 no Companies or Agencies have applied or been authorized to import or export water by the EPEP  Environmental Protection & Enhancement  Policy Agency regarding Water.

If any companies or foreign agencies transport or export water, they are in violation of the EPEP law regulating water.  Any companies and entities currently exporting water are hereby notified to Cease & Desist immediately. Fines for such offenses of the sale or export of water from Anishinabe Nations carries a daily penalty of 1 Million Euros per day beginning as of March 31 2016.

The Great Turtle Island Resources Conservation Office (GTINRCO)

Anishinabe Nations of The Great Turtle Island Environmental Assessment – examines a project to determine what the environmental, social, economic and health implications may be; Public interest decision – the applicable AEB Board  decides whether it is in the public interest to let the project go ahead;

Approval with conditions – multiple regulators give formal approval to the project under various pieces of legislation. These approvals are in the Tribal Nations and People of The Tribal Nations interest, decision could be made by three potential boards, depending on the type of project.

The boards include the Anishinabe Utilities Commission (AUC), the Anishinabe Energy Resources Department (AERD) and The Great Turtle Island Resources Conservation Office (GTINRCO). set specific conditions under which the project can be constructed and operate; and Compliance – ensure that the project is operating within the specified approval conditions. All significant Resource and projects which affect or potentially effect the Environment will be required to go through the Anishinabe Environmental Assessment Process.

There are also environmental assessments conducted in Turtle Island which fall under the responsibility of ESRD and are mandated by EPEA regarding Water.

The Government of The Great Turtle Island, Individual Tribal Nations in the Federations, businesses and Bank institutions also undertake environmental assessment processes under their own laws and authority, for a variety of purposes.

EIA reports typically include:

• a detailed description of the project;

• the location and environmental setting for the project, and baseline environmental, social and culture information;

• the potential positive and negative environmental, health, social, economic and cultural effects of the proposed activity;

• plans to mitigate potential adverse effects and to respond to emergencies;

• information on public and (First Nations) Tribal consultation; and

• an assessment of cumulative effects .

Anishinabe Energy Resources Department (AERD)

Anishinabe Nations of The Great Turtle Island Environmental Assessment – examines a project to determine what the environmental, social, economic and health implications may be; Public interest decision – the applicable AEB Board  decides whether it is in the public interest to let the project go ahead;

Approval with conditions – multiple regulators give formal approval to the project under various pieces of legislation. These approvals are in the Tribal Nations and People of The Tribal Nations interest, decision could be made by three potential boards, depending on the type of project.

The boards include the Anishinabe Utilities Commission (AUC), the Anishinabe Energy Resources Department (AERD) and The Great Turtle Island Resources Conservation Office (GTINRCO). set specific conditions under which the project can be constructed and operate; and Compliance – ensure that the project is operating within the specified approval conditions. All significant Resource and projects which affect or potentially effect the Environment will be required to go through the Anishinabe Environmental Assessment Process.

There are also environmental assessments conducted in Turtle Island which fall under the responsibility of ESRD and are mandated by EPEA regarding Water.

The Government of The Great Turtle Island, Individual Tribal Nations in the Federations, businesses and Bank institutions also undertake environmental assessment processes under their own laws and authority, for a variety of purposes.

EIA reports typically include:

• a detailed description of the project;

• the location and environmental setting for the project, and baseline environmental, social and culture information;

• the potential positive and negative environmental, health, social, economic and cultural effects of the proposed activity;

• plans to mitigate potential adverse effects and to respond to emergencies;

• information on public and (First Nations) Tribal consultation; and

• an assessment of cumulative effects .

The Anishinabe Nations of The Great Turtle Island have adopted The ISO 14001 standard

 http://turtleislandgov.info/?p=135

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCAa7OWdjfo

The Anishinabe Nations of The Great Turtle Island have adopted the ISO 14001 as the preliminary foundation for the Anishinabe Environmental Assessment Authority.

The ISO 14001 standard specifies a process for the control and the continuous improvement of an organisation’s environmental performance. The management tool enables an organisation to identify and control the environmental impact of its activities, products and services; to continuously improve its environmental performance; and, to implement a systematic approach to set and achieve environmental objectives and targets.The ISO 14001 standard applies to those environmental aspects identified and controlled or influenced by the organisation.  The ISO 14001 standard does not specify environmental performance criteria but merely how to develop an EMS.

Currently within Anishinabe Tribal Nations the policy for the Environmental Assessment will be based on organisations certified to the highly recognizable ISO 14001 standard. At the end of December 2008 there were over 188,000 organisations globally that had been issued ISO 14001 certificates. A total of 155 countries had organisations participating in the scheme. The diagram below illustrates the ISO 2008 Survey results for ISO 14001:2004 standard.

ISO 14001 Standard - 2008 Survey ResultsThe ISO 14001 standard differs from ISO 14000. This is because ISO 14000 refers to the standards of the environmental management series developed by the International Standards Organisation while the ISO 14001 standard is the document containing specific EMS requirements.

The Anishinabe Nations of The Great Turtle Island have adopted the ISO 14001 as the preliminary foundation for the Anishinabe Environmental Assessment Authority.

cropped-182139_129765400521680_924900649_n2-1.jpg

Read about ISO 14001 benefits.