we at a.l.m ministrys stand against anyone causing harm 

 Sinatra Doctrine doing it ' my way" warsaw?

The Brezhnev Doctrine was a Soviet foreign policy that proclaimed any threat to socialist rule in any state of the Soviet bloc in Central and Eastern Europe was a threat to them all, and therefore justified the intervention of fellow socialist states

#the fall of the Iron Curtain  #renounced the use of force, dictatorship falls when the people rise

notice to all public service providers please honor the people and understand your position.you have no right to self interest when dealing with the public. you will be held personally privately liable in a court of law.

A.L.M security liens available!!!

brief history (what really happen) 

Role of professor Henry Louis Gates # into Africa

#Jeremy Isaac's Ed millennium 1300-1400 #John snow & ekow eshun# living on the line

#Sinatra way # the last libraries of Timbuktu Black family still owns library's by:

Hunwick & Boye Mediterranean north to region of Guinea Ghana #Moctar Sidi yahia Al wangari

#The Ahmad bans institute Timbuktu 1970 during the colonial period France burned the books

#1894 France conquer Timbuktu? #West Africa history  Abdurrahman Al Sadi, tarikh Al Sudan,1656 land of black.

Ancient Ghana 10th 11th  century ruled Senegal, Gambia, Mauritania, Guinea, Mali two river Senegal river & neches  river

The Arab conquest against North Africa( 639-708 ad) they were black people

King most popular in the world By: ibn khaldun the philosophy of history 1394 The original north African is black.

Due to the great migrations?

#Dahia Al Kahina queen fought and died? Islamic took over African history ibn haukai, Surat Al,-ard 951

Sanjana desert nomads 1100ad Sahara Africa, tropical Africa, Mediterranean Africa.( Now Arab north Africa)

Mali  the mandingas Miami 1240 sundiata Keith's conquer ancient ghana #1312 1337 Mansa Musa

#1400c black death ?

Songhai empire 1464 1492 Sunni Ali ber Ruled wickedly purge north africa?

Askiya dynasty 1493 1591 Benefits period go slaves Djenne Islamic

Leo Africanus 1526 father of African history. Books made more money than all..

david.lametti@parl.gc.ca BY JANUARY 15, 2022. Lametti is the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada.


the law 

the municipality has no such rights upon its streets. It holds them as trustee for the public. The streets remain subject to the right of the public to " pass and repass ";

#To borrow the expression of Lord Halsbury in Lowery v. Walker (

not a trespasser in the sense in which that word is strictly and technically used in law

The point has already been raised and discussed in several cases in the provincial courts (amongst others: Etter v. City of Saskatoon[2] ; Sercombe v. Township of Vaughan[3] ; Godfrey v. Cooper[4] ; Boyer v. Moillet[5] ; Halpin v. Smith[6] ; Walker v. British Columbia Electric Ry.[7] ; Waldron v. Rural Municipality of Elfros[8] ; James v. City of Toronto[9] ) ;

As for the Motor-vehicle Act, it does not pretend to deal with the liability for actionable negligence. The obvious purpose of the statute is to regulate the user of the highway for the protection of the public. Its object is not to disturb the ordinary rights of individuals or persons as between themselves

At common law and as a member of the public, any individual has the right to the user of the highway under the protection of the law; and the liability of the municipality exists towards every member of the public so using the highway. This well established principle should not be taken to have been altered in the Motor-vehicle Act, except by express words or by necessary intendment. The whole scope of the Act is to prescribe certain requirements for those using the highway with motor vehicles, and to impose certain penalties upon the offenders, but nothing more.

Trespass is an area of criminal law or tort law broadly divided into three groups: trespass to the person, trespass to chattels, and trespass to land.apprehension of battery";[2] battery, 

wrongful interference with one's possessory rights in [real] property".[12][13] Generally, it is not necessary to prove harm to a possessor's legally protected interest; liability for unintentional trespass varies by jurisdiction. "[A]t common law, every unauthorized entry upon the soil of another was a trespasser                                              #Battery

Battery is "any intentional and unpermitted contact with the plaintiff's person or anything attached to it and practically identified with it". The elements of battery common law varies by jurisdiction.

Restatement of Torts 29 § 13

An act which, directly or indirectly, is the legal cause of a harmful contact with another's person makes the actor liable to the other, if:

(a) the act is done with the intention of bringing about a harmful or offensive contact or an apprehension thereof to the other or a third person, and

(b) contact is not consented to by the other or the other's consent thereto is procured by fraud or duress, and

(c) the contact is not otherwise privileged.

Directness, Intentional Act, Bodily Contact, Consent.?

You have no rights to administer my property without consent.Consent

Kelly v Hazlett (1976) 75 DLR (3d) 536 (Ont HC

Indigenous treaties in Canada are constitutionally recognized agreements between the Crown and Indigenous peoples. Most of these agreements describe exchanges where Indigenous nations agree to share some of their interests in their ancestral lands in return for various payments and promises. On a deeper level, treaties are sometimes understood, particularly by Indigenous people, as sacred covenants between nations that establish a relationship between those for whom Canada is an ancient homeland and those whose family roots lie in other countries. Treaties therefore form the constitutional and moral basis of alliance between Indigenous peoples and Canada.

(This is the full-length entry about Treaties with Indigenous Peoples In Canada. For a plain language summary, please see Treaties with Indigenous Peoples in Canada (Plain Language Summary).

Treaty Medals

Both sides of a commemorative coin, Chiefs Medal, presented to commemorate Treaties 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

(courtesy Library and Archives Canada, 1986-79-1638/Wikimedia CC)

Introduction: Treaties Have Different Meanings for Different People

For Indigenous peoples, the sacred and binding character of treaties is not found primarily in the documents’ legalistic language. Instead, the true force of treaties is rooted in what was actually said, often in Indigenous languages, at the time of the negotiations. In addition, treaty deliberations were frequently accompanied by ceremonial conventions such as the smoking of sacred pipes (calumet) or an exchange of symbolically significant presents (e.g., wampum belts.) Accordingly, many Indigenous peoples look to their elders who are schooled in oral histories as the highest authorities on the spirit and intent of the treaties.

For the Crown, the principles for treaty making with Indigenous peoples were articulated by King George III in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which established the constitutional foundations of Canada after the government of France withdrew its claims to North America. The constitutional character of treaties between Indigenous peoples and the Crown was renewed in the Constitution Act, 1982, which describes itself as “the supreme law of Canada.” Section 35 of that document both recognizes and affirms “existing Indigenous and treaty rights” (see Rights of Indigenous Peoples.)

Court rulings since then have continued to shape treaty relations between the federal government and Indigenous peoples. For example, in the Sioui case (1990), the Supreme Court of Canada determined that “treaties and statutes relating to Indians should be liberally construed and uncertainties resolved in favour of the Indians.” In that case, the court introduced a principle adopted from a ruling in the United States in 1899 that treaties “must therefore be construed, not according to the technical meaning of its words to learned lawyers, but in the sense in which they would naturally be understood by the Indians.”

In spite of the constitutional character of treaties, the non-Indigenous peoples who made and implemented them tended to see them as self-serving deals rather than sacred pacts between independent nations. Historically, non-Indigenous treaty negotiators believed treaties were inexpensive and convenient ways to strip Aboriginal title (i.e., ownership) from most of the lands in Canada so that resources could be used by settlers (see Indigenous Territory.) Even in modern times, the federal and provincial governments tend to interpret treaties in legalistic terms, contending that Indigenous peoples “ceded, surrendered, and yielded” their ancestral rights and titles through treaties. In other words, treaties can be seen as real estate deals by which the Crown purchased Indigenous lands and provided them with reserves and one-time or continual payments in return (see Treaty Day.)

This narrow view of treaties has produced a huge divide between the Canadian government’s perspective and that of Indigenous peoples. On the one hand is the government’s view of treaties as legal instruments that surrendered Indigenous rights. On the other is the Indigenous view of treaties as instruments of relationships between autonomous peoples who agree to share the lands and resources of Canada. Seen from the Indigenous perspective, treaties do not surrender rights; rather, they confirm Indigenous rights. Treaties recognize that Indigenous peoples have the capacity to self-govern. Bridging the gap between these two views of treaties poses a huge challenge to people and lawmakers in Canada.

The complex history of treaty making in Canada can be explored by examining four significant eras: early treaties made before the Conquest, those signed between 1763 and Confederation, treaties made between 1867 and the first modern treaty in 1975, and those negotiated from 1975 to the present. A close look at treaties in the context of constitutional and international law also reveals much about the place of treaties in Canada’s domestic and international affairs.

Indigenous treaties across Canada.

(courtesy Native Land Digital / Native-Land.ca)

Treaties with the French and British, 1676 to 1763

Treaties in Canada date back to the time when Europeans first arrived to North America. Europeans sought to make alliances with Indigenous peoples as a way of maintaining the peace, providing access to natural resources and gaining alliances in trade and colonial wars. This first era of treaty making starts roughly from the time of the Covenant Chain in the 16th century and extends until the Royal Proclamation in 1763.

The Covenant Chain

The conventions and protocols of treaty making in Canada can be traced to their origins in the Covenant Chain. This refers to an elaborate diplomatic relationship started between the Dutch and Indigenous peoples in the earlier part of the 17th century. Known later as the “Covenant Chain” by the English, several Anglo-American colonies and various Indigenous nations in northeastern North America engaged in this partnership after 1676. At the council grounds near Albany, officials from the colony of New York regularly negotiated with representatives of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois), otherwise known as the Longhouse League or the Five Nations, and later, Six Nations Confederacy. By developing treaty relationships to maintain peace and for mutual economic and defence benefits, Crown officials set their eyes on more and more Indigenous land.

Treaties and Wampum

Wampum Belt

Wampum was used by Indigenous people to record treaties and settle disputes

(courtesy Canadian Museum of History/575-620)


Crown officials and their Indigenous allies spoke of renewing their relationships as “polishing the links of the Covenant Chain.” It would be almost unthinkable for those Indigenous and non-Indigenous diplomats schooled in the Covenant Chain tradition to make treaties without signifying their major features on wampum belts composed of shell beads woven into appropriate symbolic representations. To accept a wampum belt in formal council was to agree to adhere to the principles embodied in its woven design. The wampum thereafter served to help perpetuate the memory of the treaty. The use of wampum as an instrument of treaty relationships spread widely throughout eastern North America in the 17th, 18th and early 19th centuries.

Peace and Friendship Treaties, 1725 to 1752

Peace and Friendship Treaties.

(courtesy Native Land Digital / Native-Land.ca)

There is another tradition of treaty relations which has also been described as the Covenant Chain. This tradition links the British Crown to Mi’kmaq, Passamaquoddy andWolastoqiyik (Maliseet) peoples, whose ancestral lands cover most of the Maritimes, as well as parts of the Gaspé Peninsula. Unlike treaties made after the Royal Proclamation, the Maritime treaties do not focus on the question of land ownership. Instead, these agreements, whose keystones include the Boston Treaty of 1725–26 and the Halifax Treaty of 1752, were primarily mutual promises of peace and friendship. The agreements also guarantee the Indigenous right to trade without hindrance and the right to fish and hunt in their customary manner. They also pledge regular supplies of food, provisions and ammunition from the Crown.

In this era, the Mi’kmaq and Wolastoqiyik were overwhelmingly Roman Catholic. They commonly had very close relationships to their priests, as well as to their French-speaking Acadian neighbours, with whom they intermarried (see Acadia.) As a result, often they opposed the British, but this stance was modified somewhat through the treaty-making process.

In 1985, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the continuing force of the Halifax Treaty of 1752 by reversing a conviction for hunting out of season against James Simon of the Shubenacadie reserve. In spite of the Simon case, provincial governments in the Maritimes, like elsewhere in Canada, have had difficulty accepting that treaties between the Crown and Indigenous peoples limit provincial jurisdiction in Crown lands.

Today, Treaty Day in Nova Scotia commemorates the special relationship between the Mi’kmaq and the Crown. Celebrated annually on 1 October since 1986 (the year after the Simon case), this day honours the signing of the 1752 treaty.

Treaties and the Seven Years’ War in North America, 1754 to 1763

The Seven Years’ War (also known as the French and Indian War) was a time of violence in North America, first between the French and British, and later between the British and the Americans. In all of these conflicts, Indigenous nations wielded considerable influence because of their skilful diplomacy and because their fighting forces could effectively battle in conditions that were often extremely difficult for European and North American soldiers.

In the years leading up to the war, the British knew that their enemies, the French, had already made strong alliances with Indigenous peoples. They too wanted to forge strategic bonds with First Nations. Therefore, in 1755, the British imperial government in London took over the responsibility of treaty making from the colonies. A northern branch and southern branch of the British Imperial Indian Department, roughly separated by the Potomac and Ohio Rivers, were created as extensions of the military and placed directly under the king’s authority. The northern branch, with Covenant Chain expert Sir William Johnson at its head, was a source of further government growth and development for English-speaking Canada. There is a direct line of administrative continuity between Johnson’s department, which polished and extended the old Covenant Chain, and Canada’s modern-day Ministry of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada.

Through a series of treaties, Sir William Johnson, with the help of his Mohawk consort and adviser, Molly Brant, successfully neutralized the old French-Indigenous alliance during the Seven Years’ War. These treaties guaranteed the protection of Indigenous lands from Anglo-American colonists looking to take over lands north of the border. After the British victory over the French on the Plains of Abraham, Johnson made agreements with the Seven Nations of Canada (comprising of Mohawk, Abenaki, Anishinaabeg, Huron and Onondaga peoples) who inhabited Catholic missions near Lake Ontario and along the St. Lawrence Valley (see St. Lawrence River), to provide security with regards to their lands, trade and religion. One of these treaties was the Treaty of Oswegatchie in 1760. Another, in the same year, was the Murray Treaty of Longueuil, a peace treaty signed by General James Murray that was designed to provide the Huron with military protection and other freedoms and rights after the French retreated. The Sioui case in May 1990 tested the durability of this treaty. In that year, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in a groundbreaking decision that the Québec and Canadian governments had infringed on the Huron’s rights to their traditional territory, as established by the Murray Treaty of Longueuil. The court ruled that the occupation of the territory in question by the Crown was subject to the rights and customs of the Huron.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763

Once the French army had been defeated in North America, the British government faced the question of how to conduct relations with the Indigenous peoples who still dominated most of Canada. An emerging loose confederacy of Indigenous nations, spearheaded by the Odawa leader Obwandiyag, also known as Pontiac, opposed British rule in what became known as Pontiac’s War (1763–66.) The confederacy captured nine British posts in Canada in the spring of 1763 and made the matter of establishing peace with Indigenous peoples even more pressing for the British.

Sir William Johnson was an active supporter of the Royal Proclamation of 1763 (precipitated by Pontiac’s War) which, in theory, created clear borders for the new British province of Québec and for the 13 Anglo-American colonies, and reserved the vast territory beyond the Appalachian Mountains for Indigenous peoples. He was also central in the signing of the part of the treaty that was ratified in Niagara in 1764.

The proclamation laid out a procedure for the future opening of portions of Indigenous territory for colonization and settlement by the Crown’s non-Indigenous subjects. Through the proclamation, the Crown claimed “dominion” and “sovereignty” over Indigenous territories and that only the Crown could make treaties with Indigenous peoples. Therefore, on the one hand, the proclamation seemingly protected Indigenous territories from encroachment by outsiders, but on the other hand, it left the possibility for just such encroachment by the Crown. The king decreed that no individual person or colony could purchase territory from Indigenous peoples; instead, the British Crown was to be the essential actor in negotiating treaties.

Affirmed by Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, the Royal Proclamation forms the constitutional basis for Crown-Indigenous treaties in Canada. These principles are still being applied in the making of modern-day Indigenous treaties.

Treaty Making in British North America, 1764 to 1867

From the time of the Conquest to Confederation, British and Indigenous peoples made various alliances to secure against the Americans during the American Revolution and the War of 1812. The arrangements also provided the British with access to traditional territories for the purposes of white settlement and development. It was during this time period that the colonial government began pushing Indigenous peoples off of their homelands and onto reserves. While the earliest reserve in Canada (Sillery) dates to 1637, it was not until the mid-1800s that most reserves in Canada were created.

The Treaty of Fort Stanwix, 1768

The first Treaty of Fort Stanwix (another by the same name was signed in 1784) was the first major agreement negotiated according to the terms of the Royal Proclamation. When the dominant fur-trade companies of Pennsylvania made claims against the British government for damages incurred during the Seven Year’s War and Pontiac’s War, Indian Department officials tried to compensate them through a major land transfer. The Treaty of Fort Stanwix moved the border between Indigenous territory and the Anglo-American colonies significantly westward to the banks of the Ohio River.

The lands ceded in the treaty — most of modern-day Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Maryland and western Pennsylvania — were the ancestral homes of the Shawnee, Delaware, Cherokee, Seneca-Cayuga, Miami, Potawatomi, Mingo, Odawa and Wyandot. This led to the emergence of hardline leaders in the debate among the Indigenous peoples of the Great Lakes-Ohio Valley area about who was authorized to cede land in treaties.

Sir William Johnson, who was a land speculator, hoped that the Fort Stanwix Treaty would satisfy the entrepreneurial wants of the business community in both the Thirteen Colonies and in Britain. However, the deal only fed the land speculators’ greed. Some of those speculators, whose political representatives included Benjamin Franklin in Pennsylvania and Lord Shelburne in Great Britain, attempted to counter the Royal Proclamation by insisting that Indigenous nations could make land-ceding treaties directly with private colonization companies. Just when it seemed that these powerful business interests were about to prevail, the British government introduced the Québec Act in 1774 which favoured the fur-trade interests of Montréal over the land-speculation interests of Philadelphia, and treaty agreements made with Indigenous peoples over the expansionistic aspirations of Anglo-American settlers. This act was a major factor in the outbreak of the American Revolution in 1776 (see American Revolution – Invasion of Canada.)

The American Revolution and the Haldimand Grant, 1776 to 1784

While many Indigenous peoples tried to avoid involving themselves in the American Revolution, many others believed that a British victory would be the least threatening outcome. After all, it was the proponents of western expansionism who had driven the American Revolution forward. Mohawk leader Joseph Brant led many of his people, who had been especially active allies of the British, into battle. However, in spite of Indigenous peoples’ important role in the war, the diplomats who redrew the map of North America after the revolution paid no heed to the heritage of Crown treaties with Indigenous peoples. In the Treaty of Paris, 1783, a new international border was created along the Great Lakes that ignored both the Covenant Chain and the Treaty of Fort Stanwix. Indigenous nations were not invited to the Paris negotiations even though it was their lands that were traded back and forth.

Many Indigenous peoples, together with officials of the British army in North America, were thunderstruck at this betrayal. To address the resulting crisis, Québec Governor Frederick Haldimand made treaties in 1784 with the Mississauga north of Lake Ontario to open land for those Six Nations people who opted to migrate rather than live under the jurisdiction of the United States and New York state (see Haldimand Proclamation.)

Haldimand Grant.

(courtesy Native Land Digital / Native-Land.ca)

In the years ahead, Brant chose to sell individual parcels of his people’s Grand River lands, which were part of Haldimand’s land grant. Brant based this right to sell lands directly (at full market value) to non-Indigenous buyers on the claim that his community was not limited by the Royal Proclamation, which prohibited transfers of Indigenous territory to anyone but the British sovereign.

Haldimand also prevailed in the decision of the British to retain possession of the military posts south of the Great Lakes, despite the fact that the posts were promised to the United States after the signing of the Treaty of Paris. This was to support the Montréal-based fur trade, whose hinterland continued to include the northern Mississippi Valley. Similarly, retention of the southernmost posts of greater Canada signalled to the Indigenous peoples west of the Ohio River continued imperial support for resistance to the American government’s agenda of westward expansion (see Manifest Destiny.)

The system of treaty alliance between the Crown and the Indigenous peoples of Canada briefly recovered from the diplomatic setback of 1783. Indeed, on the commercial level, the alliance expanded and flourished as never before. This expansion was marked in the growth and prosperity of Montréal, whose leading entrepreneurs organized the North-West Company (NWC.) Not only did the NWC hold and develop its trade network throughout the northern Mississippi Valley, and thereby strengthen the Crown’s alliances with Indigenous peoples there, the NWC’s agents were also led by Indigenous guides to the West Coast and the northwesterly reaches of present-day Canada.

In so doing, these NWC geographers, traders and diplomats, including Peter Pond, Alexander Mackenzie and David Thompson, expanded the influence of British imperialism and Canadian commerce over wider expanses of Indigenous territory. They competed against the Hudson’s Bay Company (HBC), who since 1670 had developed an extensive commercial presence among the Indigenous peoples of what was then called Rupert’s Land and the North-West Territories. Elaborate protocols of diplomatic and economic relations developed between Indigenous peoples and HBC officials. These relations also came into play later in the 19th century when Crown officials negotiated the Numbered Treaties to facilitate the expansion of the Dominion of Canada.

Ohio Valley Disputes and Jay’s Treaty, 1790 to 1794

Indigenous peoples refused to accept the new international boundary created by the Treaty of Paris that cut through their ancestral territory, or that their lands south of the new border now belonged to the United States. Officers of the British Imperial Indian Department, many of whom had Indigenous ancestors, wives and mixed-ancestry children, tended to share this sentiment. Under their urging, the British government refused to cede to the United States the lands north of the Ohio River and south of the Great Lakes. All that had been transferred was the British sovereign’s exclusive right to purchase land from Indigenous peoples through treaties, according to the principles outlined in the Royal Proclamation.

Not surprisingly, the United States government resisted this interpretation. In 1790 and 1791, they deployed to the area a small and ill-organized army which was twice defeated by the well-armed fighting forces of a growing Indigenous confederacy, also known as Miami Chief Little Turtle’s Illiniwek Confederacy.

Indigenous victories over the American army prompted the British government to adopt a new and ambitious strategy with regards to treaty alliances between the Crown and Indigenous peoples. The imperial government planned to encourage the confederacy to the point where it could assert international sovereignty over the lands between the Ohio River and the Great Lakes. The envisioned country was also known as the Indian Buffer State.

In the eyes of British imperialists, this sovereign Indigenous nation-state would have shielded what remained of British North America from the expansionistic designs of the new American republic, whose most aggressive advocates increasingly viewed North America through the lens of Manifest Destiny and imagined that the entire continent was the United States’ God-given inheritance.

The prospects for creating the new Indigenous nation-state dimmed when Little Turtle’s confederacy suffered defeat at the Battle of Fallen Timbers in 1794. This battle was lost in large part because the British failed to support Indigenous troops. As a result of the defeat, British officials agreed to abandon the posts south of the Great Lakes. The terms of this 1794 agreement, known as Jay’s Treaty, also stipulated that Indigenous peoples could freely cross the international border. This stipulation was included largely so that the Montréal fur-trade would not be cut off from its commercial relations with Indigenous peoples in the northern Mississippi Valley.

Although Jay’s Treaty is not technically an Indigenous treaty, its terms have had important ramifications. The United States government has honoured the agreement to the extent that Status Indians from Canada have been able to live and work in the United States without restriction. The treaty is not, however, recognized as binding by Canada — a position that is periodically challenged, especially by those Indigenous nations such as the Six Nations, whose lands are divided by the border.

Treaties and the War of 1812

The prospects of a sovereign nation-state for Indigenous peoples re-emerged in the first decade of the 19th century, as relations between Great Britain and the United States deteriorated. At the movement’s heart were two Shawnee men — Tecumseh and his brother Tenskwatawa (the Prophet) — who urged Indigenous unity in order to defend their dwindling lands.

At first, the religious visionary Tenskwatawa was the more influential of the siblings. When he related his prophetic revelations about delivering his people from outsiders, Algonquian-speakers of several nationalities flocked to his side, creating the new community of Prophetstown, south of Lake Michigan.

However, it was Tecumseh who gave the movement political direction. As war between the United States and Britain became imminent, Tecumseh advocated coordinated action. He aimed to elevate Indigenous treaty-making authority above the level of domestic contract to the level of full-fledged international relations. To assert this degree of sovereignty, Tecumseh’s confederacy would need a central government, a strong fighting force and a powerful ally. Great Britain could be that ally, though it fell primarily on Indigenous peoples to generate the unity that was needed to counter the American plan to absorb Indigenous territory.

The Shawnee strategists’ independence was compromised in 1811 after General William Henry Harrison’s American forces overran the confederacy’s capital at Tippecanoe (see Battle of Tippecanoe.) This forced Tecumseh to form closer links with the British Imperial Indian Department.

When trade embargoes and conflicts at sea finally sparked the War of 1812, the rapid mobilization of the confederacy’s fighting forces were a deciding factor in the early course of the conflict. Especially decisive was the role of Indigenous peoples in the British takeover of Michillimackinac and Detroit (see First Nations and Métis Peoples in the War of 1812.) The events of 1812, therefore, vindicated, for the British, the utility of the treaty system because it allowed military alliances to be formed.

For those on the Indigenous side of the alliance, the outcome was more tragic. After Tecumseh was killed in battle in 1813, the confederacy largely disintegrated. In the years that followed, many Indigenous people whose territories lay east of the Mississippi were forced to move west. Others, however, migrated from south of the Great Lakes across the border that was established in 1783 but not solidified until 1814, when the Treaty of Ghent ended the War of 1812.

Selkirk Treaty, 1817

While treaty making only really reached Indigenous peoples in western Canada after Confederation, an important treaty was made in 1817 by the Earl of Selkirk in what is now Manitoba. The Selkirk Treaty surrendered Indigenous title in areas “adjacent to [the] Red River and Assiniboine River.” The tract also extended into the United States as far as the Great Forks (also known as Grand Forks.) In exchange for their lands, the Ojibwa (Chippawa or Saulteaux) and Cree peoples were each awarded 100 pounds of tobacco annually. Five chiefs signed the treaty with drawings that represented an important aspect of their identity.

The Selkirk Treaty was the first treaty with Indigenous peoples in western Canada, in conformity with the Royal Proclamation of 1763. It was also therefore the beginning of the official relationship between Indigenous people in the West and the Crown.

Upper Canada Land Surrenders

Upper Canada Treaties.

(courtesy Native Land Digital / Native-Land.ca)

Also known as the Upper Canada Treaties, these agreements constitute an estimated number of 30-35 treaties covering much of what is now southwestern Ontario. Likely the first of these was Michilimackinac Island, No. 1, signed in 1781, and presumably the last was the Manitoulin Island Treaty, signed in 1862.

These surrenders initially provided Loyalists with lands on which to settle after the American Revolution. The Indigenous signatories, including many Anishinaabe peoples, the Huron-Wyandot, and other First Nations, received cash payments and other goods in return for title to the land.

In later years, many descendants of treaty signatories argued that their lands were unjustly taken. For example, the Mississauga argued that the Toronto Purchase, originally negotiated in 1787, covered unceded territory. Disputes over the accuracy of land allotments led to re-assessments and a revised treaty in 1805. However, the agreement ultimately still favoured the British because it expanded the Crown’s claim over the area and paid a measly 10 shillings for 250,880 acres of land. Moreover, this location was also chosen because of its strategic value, allowing access to waterways that facilitated the transfer of goods.

Indigenous peoples also claim that the signatories did not understand the terms of the treaty and that they never accepted the 1805 boundaries. It was only in 2010 that the Mississauga and the Government of Canada reached a settlement. As part of the deal, the Mississauga received $145 million in compensation.

Other well-known and controversial Upper Canada Land Surrenders are those that deal with Manitoulin Island and the Saugeen Peninsula, also called the Bond Head Treaties. In 1836, Lieutenant-Governor Sir Francis Bond Head shifted Indigenous policy by ceasing to encourage Indigenous peoples to become Christian farmers. Instead, he wanted to move them to Manitoulin Island on Lake Huron and the Saugeen Peninsula north of Owen Sound. There, they could hunt and fish without encroachment from settlers. This plan also spoke to the stereotype of “noble savagery” — a view held by the lieutenant-governor and many of his contemporaries. By the terms of these two 1836 treaties (one for each region), both areas of land had been reserved for Indigenous peoples.

The plan was not only to displace Indigenous agriculturalists from Upper Canada, but also the expected Indigenous refugees from south of the Great Lakes, whose lands the American government now claimed. Bond Head was met with international criticism for his plan because some argued that it was apartheid (racial segregation).

In 1854 and 1862, new treaties were drawn up for the Saugeen Peninsula and Manitoulin Island, respectively. The agreements stipulated that the Indigenous peoples involved would be paid regular interest on funds from all Crown sales of the ceded (surrendered) territories. This promise failed to win the participation of an entire community of Roman Catholic Odawa people on the eastern portion of Manitoulin Island. They were uninterested in part because hunting and fishing still supplied their needs. With support from their Jesuit missionaries, these Odawa people successfully resisted signing the Manitoulin treaty. To this day, Wikwemikong, Ontario, remains an unceded Indigenous reserve.

By the mid-1830s, treaties covered most of the arable lands in Upper Canada. These treaties involved an initial distribution of goods and money with promises of small annual payments. Only gradually did the principle develop that agreements should include allocation of reserves.

The Robinson Treaties, 1850

The Robinson Treaties.

(courtesy Native Land Digital / Native-Land.ca)

The concept of reserves was advanced in 1850, when Crown representative William Benjamin Robinson secured agreement from Indigenous leaders to “cede, grant, and convey unto Her Majesty” about 50,000 square miles (129,500 km2) north of the upper Great Lakes. These transactions, known as the Robinson-Huron and Robinson-Superior treaties, provided for the creation of 24 new reserves, each to be held by the Crown for the “use and benefit” of the nations whose leaders’ names and marks were on the agreements. Also included in the bargain were initial payments worth £4,000, plus “perpetual” annuities valued at about £1,100.

Governor General Lord Elgin and Chief Shinguakouce pressured Canadian officials to authorize treaty negotiations. In a relatively minor 1849 confrontation, referred to as the Michipicoten War or the Mica Bay Uprising, a resistance movement made up of Indigenous peoples and Métis people asserted their uncompromised interest in the Precambrian Shield, where Canadians had already begun minor mining operations. This war precipitated the treaty agreements.

In the Robinson Treaties, the Crown promised that Indigenous peoples could hunt and fish throughout the ceded territory “as they have heretofore been in the habit of doing.” This promise, the first of its kind in an Indigenous treaty, was made, Robinson explained, so that Indigenous peoples could not make future claims in return for the loss of their usual means of support. The Robinson Treaties became important models for the treaty negotiators of the Numbered Treaties that followed in the late 19th century and into the 20th century.

The Vancouver Island Treaties (Douglas Treaties), 1850 to 1854

Douglas Treaties.

(courtesy Native Land Digital / Native-Land.ca)

While treaty making up until 1850 was only conducted in the Maritimes, Manitoba and Upper Canada, the Douglas Treaties (named after Governor James Douglas) were signed between 1850 and 1854 with 14 First Nations on Vancouver Island. Also known as the Vancouver Island Treaties, First Nations exchanged approximately 930 km2 of traditional territory for clothing, cash and other goods. They were told they would still be able to live, hunt and fish on the surrendered lands. With the influx of white settlers, however, Indigenous peoples were increasingly pushed off of these territories and onto reserves.

Descendants of the Indigenous signatories have questioned the legitimacy of the treaty proceedings. As non-English speakers, the chiefs were unable to verify on paper the terms of the agreement, which were communicated verbally. Signing the bottom of the treaty pages with an X, chiefs believed they were agreeing to share — not to cede — their lands. Their descendants have also argued that colonial officials inserted new clauses onto blank pages of the treaties that had already been signed without the consent of Indigenous peoples.

Elders and researchers at the University of Victoria have since translated the Douglas Treaties into the languages of the Sencoten and Lekwungen First Nations for the first time. For the Indigenous signatories of the Douglas Treaties, this was a step towards reconciliation.

Post-Confederation Treaties, 1867 to 1975

The years immediately following Confederation were characterized by the Canadian government’s desire to expand westward and northward as a means of securing the nation’s economic future. This led to the signing of various treaties between the government and Indigenous nations in the Prairies and parts of the North, British Columbia and northern Ontario. These treaties include the Numbered Treaties and the Williams Treaties.

The Numbered Treaties, 1871 to 1921

The Numbered Treaties.

(courtesy Native Land Digital / Native-Land.ca)

The 11 Numbered Treaties were negotiated between 1871 and 1921 as the Canadian government sought to extend its sovereignty over western, and portions of northern, Canada. Confederation in 1867 set the stage for Canada’s purchase from the Hudson’s Bay Company of Rupert’s Land and the North-Western Territory. As a result of the transfer, the Canadian government legally assumed responsibility for the “protection” and “well-being” of the region’s Indigenous peoples.

The duty of compensating Indigenous peoples for their interest in their traditional territories also fell to Canada. Therefore, the treaty-making system that had evolved in Upper Canada in the years before Confederation was exported westward and northward. Further development of the treaty system was based more on economic practicality than it was on any conception of Indigenous rights. During the 1870s, the United States government spent over $20 million fighting Plains peoples. This amount was larger than the entire budget of Canada, and so federal officials relied on treaties to ensure relatively peaceful consent to Euro-Canadian settlement from the territory’s approximately 35,000 Indigenous inhabitants.

The newly formed 

What is Jay’s Treaty?

Jay's Treaty (named for John Jay, the Chief Justice of the United States and signatory to the document) is an agreement between the United States and Britain. The treaty was fully ratified on 28 October 1795, and proclaimed on 29 February 1796.

Jay’s Treaty is a primarily commercial agreement intended to settle unresolved issues that threatened war, such as Britain’s retention of frontier posts in American territory after the Treaty of Paris (1783), American-Indigenous disputes over the Ohio Valley, and American anger over British seizure of shipping.

Did You Know?

Jay’s Treaty is formerly known as the Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation, between His Britannick Majesty; and the United States of America, by their President, with the Advice and Consent of their Senate.

Treaty Terms

The treaty stipulated that Britain would evacuate western posts by 1 June 1796, and that merchants from both the United States and British North America would have free access to lands on either side of the border. This included Indigenous peoples, who were allowed to freely cross the international border — a provision that was included so that Montreal fur trade companies’ ties to Indigenous peoples in the northern Mississippi Valley would not be severed.

The treaty also stipulated that the Mississippi River would be open to both countries, that a commission to settle debts to Britain since the start of the American Revolution would be established, and that American shipping would not be hindered in trade with British possessions.

Jay’s Treaty also excludes Indigenous people from paying duty on goods carried across the border. The negotiations and final agreement mark the revival of arbitration in international relations, since commissioners were appointed to settle outstanding boundary problems caused by the peace of 1783.

You Are on Indian Land by Mort Ransen, National Film Board of Canada

Contemporary Issues

Jay’s Treaty has important modern-day implications for Indigenous rights. The United States government has established that Indigenous people from Canada with “50% American Indian blood” may live and work in the United States without restriction. The provision is not recognized as binding by Canada.

The position of the government, in particular with regards to the payment of duty on goods, has periodically been challenged. In 1968, Mike Mitchell, a leader in the Kanyen'kehà:ka (Mohawk) community of Akwesasne, near Cornwall, Ontario, was arrested for failing to pay duty on a number of household items he had brought across the border. A blockade of the international bridge through the reserve followed in February 1969, after which Ottawa agreed to recognize the right to duty-free passage. The debate was reopened in 1988 when Mitchell again brought goods across the border and refused when asked to pay duty. In 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the right to cross the border without paying duty is not an established Indigenous right.

In 2009, the Canadian Border Services Agency abandoned their station on reserve land before they were to be issued firearms as a result of new policy. Akwesasne groups had warned that armed agents would not be tolerated on reserve land, and despite calls from multiple authorities for negotiation the federal government ignored the issue. The border station remains abandoned, a reminder of the contentious nature of enforcing a border that cuts through Indigenous territory.

alm ministrys

 public notice to all agents and principals

I am really confident you cannot answer any of these questions truthfully. Therefore, I will not be attending any of your court proceedings via summons, invitations, or other method of notifications until you can properly understand your allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the second.

I am pretty sure the bible states the same thing. Yahuwah gave us dominion over the whole earth in Genesis 1:26-31 and Psalms 8:1.9. But, he also said in Deuteronomy 4:1-2; 12:32 that man shall not have dominion over other man, we are equal under the supreme Law of God. Also, Peter and the other apostles say in Acts “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

12. Publican Definition

If you chose to assume you have authority over me, I am here to tell you otherwise, and if you chose to try and intimidate me or threaten me under your false oath. This goes for anyone who has sworn an oath to her Majesty to uphold her law (Judges, attorneys, police enforcement agents, officer’s of the court), any and all, I will file a private information in your private capacity and you alone will face the charges brought against you and your de facto government will not defend you, because there will be a conflict of interest. You will have to pay out of your pocket for your defence. I assure you, with all the facts I will provide in my notice to you, it will be really hard to deny. That is why I am coming to you in your private capacity to let you know beforehand. You should really read Matthew 18:15-17 because it has significant meaning to what God wants us to do when it comes to those who seek to cause us harm. The verses state:

if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. (Matthew 18:15-17)

I was stumped on the word publican. So, I went to the dictionary to discover the definition. It stated that a publican is an in antiquity, publicans were public contractors, in which role they often supplied the Roman legions and military, managed the collection of port duties, and oversaw public building projects. In addition, they served as tax collectors for the Republic (and later the Roman Empire), bidding on contracts (from the Senate in Rome) for the collection of various types of taxes. Importantly, this role as tax collector was not emphasized until late into the history of the Republic (c. 1st century BC). The publicans were usually of the class of equities. Tax collector, how much more clearly does God have to be? Heathen man and a publican, tax collector.

13. Closing Remarks

I am coming to you the private man/woman asking you these simple requests to respect my faith and beliefs and not be prejudice or discriminate against me for standing up for what I believe are my rights to follow the laws of God. My questions to you: are you a heathen man or woman and a publican or are you my brother or sister? Will you allow me to follow my faith and beliefs in Gods Laws and separate myself from the false God Government with mans Laws (dead law)? I truly hope to gain a brother or sister. I will be posting a video copy of this notice so you can see the flesh and blood man, minister Jason-James-Donald: Savoy, speaking the words out of my mouth and you can see and feel my energy and know that I am sincere and speaking out of peace and love.

Upon receiving this ecclesiastical notice, you will have ten days to respond with solid proof that you have authority to command me to follow your false God laws and have authority to stop me from practicing my faith, beliefs, and stop me from enjoying the gifts my father in heaven has so freely given to me.

Much love to you, in hopes that I have helped you find your way back to the path of Yahuwah, his laws, and eternity with him in heaven rather than the laws of man and eternal damnation. This is my best and last attempt to notify you the private man/woman and it all comes from the bottom my heart with love and the light of the spirit with my sincerest effort to help you understand my faith and beliefs. I hope you will not be a nuisance in my effort to minister Yahuwah’s words. Peace and love of Yahuwah be with you all.

All rights reserved under God’s Law – Matthew 6:24


(n.d.). King James Bible. Great Britain: Collins’ Clear Type Press

Government of Canada (n.d.). Canadian charter of right and freedoms [Data file]. Retrieved from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Government of Canada (n.d.). The coronation oath of 1953 [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.oremus.org/liturgy/coronation/cor1953b.html and http://www.royal.gov.uk/ImagesandBroadcasts/Historic%20speeches%20and%20broadcasts/CoronationOath2June1953.aspx

Government of Canada (n.d.). Criminal code of Canada [Data file]. Retrieved from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/

Government of Canada (n.d.). Laws of justice [Data file]. Retrieved from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/index.html

Government of Canada (n.d.). Oath of allegiance act [Data file]. Retrieved from http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/O-1/page-1.html

alm ministrys fiction or fact story?

Our Constitution, a LIVING DOCUMENT and the Key to Regaining our Sovereignty!

In 1959 our Constitution was subverted, substituted in an act of Treason. Political parties funded by a global

criminal cartel and led by their controlled entity the United Nations, falsely declared authority over the

Governor General and Commander-in-Chief thereby removing all Crown authority from all Commonwealth


They proceeded to create by deceit, a parallel nation, an illusion upon which they then built their own fake

Commonwealth of Australia. They replaced Common Law with corporate Maritime Law then used this

framework to control all monies, taxes, police, military and judiciary, stealing people’s rights and enforcing

their will using their own corporate police and judicial systems.

In 1965, just six years later, all States and Governors joined their illusionary Commonwealth and created a

counterfeit currency, the Australian Dollar, issued and managed by yet another illusion, the Rothschild’s

owned Reserve Bank of Australia.

In 1972 the public faces of the Cartel in another act of deception, gained huge popularity by announcing an

end to the Vietnam War, the same war they created in 1962, which saw the Labor Party winning the

[s]election by a landslide.

Gough Whitlam and Lance Barnard sworn in by a falsely appointed Governor General, Paul Hasluck formed a

Duumvirate, a ‘government’ of just two people. Now controlling 27 Portfolios, they produced a counterfeit

Constitution removing any reference to the Crown and Queen, registered the copyright of their document

under their new Corporate, legal construct and quietly adopted it as a replacement for our formal


The Australian people were none the wiser, were never informed and nor was the required referendum ever

conducted to gain the lawful consent of the Australian people. These acts of treason, lies and subterfuge

were hidden and even promoted by a complicit, corrupt and lying media.

These criminal corporate entities and everyone involved at every level have willingly continued this illusion

of government ever since. They have collected unlawful taxes, enforced control of unlawful Acts and slowly

over time impoverished a once prosperous, happy and growing nation. Their treachery has seen them over

time slowly pass ownership and control of our country to the United Nations, more recently through the

Cartel owned World Economic Forum.

What they chose to ignore and hoped we’d never find out, is that our lawful Constitution remains current

and Common Law remains our rightful basis of Justice. Everything we’ve been conditioned to accept and the

rules we’ve lived by are an ILLUSION, fake, a cruel joke.

It’s now time to reclaim our country, our freedoms and our rightful system of Common Law Justice by loudly

proclaiming the existence of our Constitution as a Living Document and declaring it the rule of law!

It’s up to each one of us to ENFORCE IT! Read it...Embrace it...Apply it to every aspect of your life...Quote it to

ANYONE or ANY corporate entity posing as government or its agent. They have NO authority and NO

Jurisdiction. Constantly challenge ANYONE who attempts to speak or act outside of it.

Our Constitution IS THE LAW! Everything else is FRAUD.

nothing said in this story is proven to be true, just and opinion

all rights reserved without prejudice

The Cestui Que Vie Act 1707

1707 CHAPTER 72 6 Ann


An Act for the more effectual Discovery of the Death of Persons pretended to be alive

to the Prejudice of those who claim Estates after their Deaths.

Reasons for passing this Act. Reversions, &c. expectant upon Determination of Life Estate,

upon Affidavit of Belief of Death of Infant or other Tenant for Life as herein mentioned,

and that such Death is concealed by Guardian, &c. may yearly move for and obtain an

Order in Chancery for the Production of such Tenant for Life; and upon Refusal, &c. to

produce such Tenant for Life, taken to be dead

Whereas divers Persons as Guardians and Trustees for Infants and Husbands in Right of their

Wives and other Persons having Estates or Interests determinable upon a Life or Lives have

continued to receive the Rents and Profits of such Lands after the Determination of their said

particular Estates or Interests And whereas the Proof of the Death of the Persons on whose Lives

such particular Estates or Interests depended is very difficult and several Persons have been and

may be thereby defrauded For Remedy whereof and for preventing such fraudulent Practices

any person or Persons who hath or shall have any Claim or Demand in or to any Remainder

Reversion or Expectancy in or to any Estate after the Death of any Person within Age Married

Woman or any other Person whatsoever upon Affidavit made in the High Court of Chancery by

the Persons so claiming such Estate of his or her Title and that he or she hath cause to believe

that such Minor Married Woman or other Person is dead and that his or her Death is concealed

by such Guardian Trustee Husband or any other Person shall and may Once a Year if the Person

agrieved shall think fit move the Lord Chancellor Keeper or Commissioners for the Custody of

the Great Seal of Great Britain for the Time being to order [

X2and they are hereby authorized

and required to order] such Guardian Trustee Husband or other Person concealing or suspected

to conceal such Person at such Time and Place as the said Court shall direct on Personal or other

due Service of such Order to produce and shew to such Person and Persons (not exceeding Two)

as shall in such Order be named by the Party or Parties prosecuting such Order such Minor

Married Woman or other Persons aforesaid And if such Guardian Trustee Husband or such

other Person as aforesaid shall refuse or neglect to produce or shew such Infant Married Woman

or such other Person on whose Life any such Estate doth depend according to the Directions

of the said Order that then the Court of Chancery is hereby authorized and required to order

such Guardian Trustee Husband or other Person to produce such Minor Married Woman or

other Person concealed in the said Court of Chancery or otherwise before Commissioners to

2 The Cestui Que Vie Act 1707 (c. 72)

Document Generated: 2017-07-21

Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects

for the The Cestui Que Vie Act 1707. (See end of Document for details)

be appointed by the said Court at such Time and Place as the Court shall direct Two of which

Commissioners shall be nominated by the Party or Parties prosecuting such Order at his her

or their Costs and Charges [

X3And in case such Guardian Trustee Husband or other Person]

shall refuse or neglect to produce such Infant Married Woman or other Person so concealed in

the Court of Chancery or before such Commissioners whereof Return shall be made by such

Commissioners and that Return filed in the Petty Bag Office in either or any of the said Cases

the said Minor Married Woman or such other Person so concealed shall be taken to be dead and

it shall be lawful for any Person claiming any Right Title or Interest in Remainder or Reversion

or otherwise after the Death of such Infant married Woman or such other Persons so concealed

as aforesaid to enter upon such Lands Tenements and Hereditaments as if such Infant Married

Woman or other Person so concealed were actually dead


Editorial Information

X1 This Act is Chapter XVIII. 6 Ann in the Common printed Editions

X2 interlined on the Roll.

X3 interlined on the Roll.

Modifications etc. (not altering text)

C1 Short title “The Cestui que Vie Act 1707” given by Short Titles Act 1896 (c. 14)

C2 Jurisdiction of High Court of Chancery now exercisable by High Court of Justice: Supreme Court of

Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925 (c. 49), s. 18

C3 Certain words of enactment repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1888 (c. 2) and remainder omitted

under authority of Statute Law Revision Act 1948 (c. 62), s. 3

C4 By Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (c. 4), Sch. 4 para. 6 it is provided (3.4.2006) that any reference to

the Lord Chancellor and keeper or commissioners for the custody of the great seal of Great Britain for

the time being in section 1 of the Cestui que Vie Act 1707 is to be construed as a reference to a judge

of the Chancery Division of the High Court

II If such Infant, &c. Tenant for Life,appear to be in some Place beyond Sea, Party

prosecuting such Order may send over to view such Infant, and if Guardian,

&c. will not produce such Tenant for Life, then he or she to be taken as dead.

AND if it shall appear to the said Court by Affidavit that such Minor Married Woman

or other Person for such Life such Estate is holden is or lately was at some certain

Place beyond the Seas in the said Affidavit to be mentioned it shall and may be lawful

for the Party or Parties prosecuting such Order as aforesaid at his her or their Costs and

Charges to send over one or both the said Persons appointed by the said Order to view

such Minor Married woman or other Person for whose Life any such Estate is holden

and in case such Guardian Trustee Husband or other Person concealing or suspected

to conceal such Persons as aforesaid shall refuse or neglect to produce or procure to be

produced to such Person or Persons a personal View of such Infant Married Woman

or other Person for whose Life any such Estate is holden that then and in such Case

such Person or Persons are hereby required to make a true Return of such Refusal or

Neglect to the Court of Chancery which Return shall be filed in the Petty Bag Office

and thereupon such Minor Married Woman or other Person for whose Life any such

Estate is holden shall be taken to be dead and it shall be lawful for any Person claiming

any Right Title or Interest in Remainder Reversion or otherwise after the Death ofsuch

Infant Married Woman or other Person for whose Life any such Estate is holden to

enter upon such Lands Tenements and Hereditaments asifsuch Infant Married Woman

or other Person for whose Life any such Estate is holden were actually dead

The Cestui Que Vie Act 1707 (c. 72)

Document Generated: 2017-07-21


Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects

for the The Cestui Que Vie Act 1707. (See end of Document for details)

III If it appear afterwards in any Action to be brought that such Tenant for Life

was alive at the Time of the Order made, then he or she may re-enter, and have

Action for Rent, &c.

PROVIDED always That if it shall afterwards appear upon Proof in any Action to be

brought that such Infant Married Woman or other Person for whose Life any such

Estate is holden were alive at the Time of such Order made that then it shall be lawful

for such Infant Married Woman Guardian or Trustee or other Person having any Estate

or Interest determinable upon such Life to re-enter upon the said Lands Tenements or

Hereditaments and for such Infant Married Woman or other Person having any Estate

or Interest determinable upon such Life their Executors Administrators or Assigns

to maintain an Action against those who since the said Order received the Profits

of such Lands Tenements or Hereditaments or their Executors or Administrators

and therein to recover full Damages for the Profits of the same received from the

Time that such Infant Married Woman or other Person having any Estate or Interest

determinable upon such Life were ousted of the Possession of such Lands Tenements

or Hereditaments

IV Proviso for Guardian, &c. who shall make it appear that due Endeavour has

been used to procure the Appearance of such Infant and Tenant for Life.

X4provided always That if any such Guardian Trustee Husband or other Person or

Persons holding or having any Estate or Interest determinable upon the Life or Lives

of any other Person or Persons shall by Affidavit or otherwise to the Satisfaction of

the said Court of Chancery make appear that he she or they have used his her or their

utmost Endeavours to procure such Infant Married Woman or other Person or Persons

on whose Life or Lives such Estate or Interest doth depend to appear in the said Court

of Chancery or elsewhere according to the Order of the said Court in that Behalf made

and that he she or they cannot procure or compel such Infant Married Woman or other

Person or Persons so to appear and that such Infant Married Woman or other Person

or Persons on whose Life or Lives such Estate or Interest doth depend is are or were

Living at the Time of such Return made and filed as aforesaid then it shall be lawful

for such Person or Persons to continue in the Possession of such Estate and receive

the Rents and Profits thereof for and during the Infancy of such Infant and the Life

or Lives of such Married Woman or other Person or Persons on whose Life or Lives

such Estate or Interest doth or shall depend as fully as he she or they might have done

if this Act had not been made


Editorial Information

X4 annexed to the Original Act in Two separate Schedules.

V Guardians, Trustees, &c. holding over without consent of Remainder Man,

&c. deemed Trespassers. Damages.

AND every Person who as Guardian or Trustee for any Infant and every Husband

seised in Right of his Wife only and every other Person having any Estate determinable

upon any Life or Lives who after the Determination of such particular Estates or

Interests without the express Consent of him her or them who are or shall be next

and immediately entitled upon and after the Determination of such particular Estates

or Interests shall hold over and continue in Possession of any Manors Messuages

4 The Cestui Que Vie Act 1707 (c. 72)

Document Generated: 2017-07-21

Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects

for the The Cestui Que Vie Act 1707. (See end of Document for details)

Lands Tenements or Hereditamentsshall be and are hereby adjudged to be Trespassers

and that every Person and Persons his her and their Executors and Administrators

who are or shall be entitled to any such Manors Messuages Lands Tenements and

Hereditaments upon or after the Determination of such particular Estates or Interests

shall and may recover in Damages against every such Person or Persons so holding

over as aforesaid and against his her or their Executors or Administrators the full Value

of the Profits received during such Wrongful Possession as aforesaid.