Thread by @OrcaCedarbough

#Nuchatlaht case resumes after break with BC Gov lawyer Echols talking about how “the question at hand is about evidence, not law. The Aboriginal must prove substantial connection to the land under claim.” Then refers to #Delgamuukw case

Referring Marshall & Bernard, brings up not only substantial connection to the land, also “continuity” of connection, & the colonial legal requirement to show that the rights of title flows from inhabitants/rights holders then & now having continuity from date of sovereignty.

Experts from BC gov: 1) Morley Eldridge (3 response reports to Jacob Earnshaw and John Dewhurst and Dr. Chelsea Armstrong. Also 2) Joan Lovisek (spelling?) (with 5 original & response reports to Earnshaw, Dewhurst, Armstrong) & 3) Dr David Lin (of the Global Footprint Network)

Also 1) Blair Smith land surveyor with one report in response to David Scosith (spelling?) 2) Dr. Dorothy Kennedy (anthropologist) (with 2 reports on genealogy of Nuchatlaht)

Justice Myers stopping Echols and asks if their are any objections of which the Nuchatlaht have objections to all of the experts B.C. is brining forward and their reports.

Also called to testify for the province is Robert Gowan (mapping) and Jessica Ruston and Paula Thor it from the Royal B.C. Museum as well as a representative from the ministry of FLNRORD (unidentified)

Now Echols turns to trying to tigger conflict between Mowachaht/Muchalaht about potential overlapping territory in the claim area - despite Nuchatlaht already making sure their were none, have the blessing of neighbouring nations for this claim area. Pretty divisive move by BC

Justice Myers again frustrated with Echols referring to an abuse of process, says we need to proceed here (in this #Nuchatlaht case) as relative to the #Ahousaht case. BC’s lawyer trying to play one NuuChahNulth legal case against the other. (This guy has no shame, geez)

Echols really reaching for some sort of version of overlapping territory, trying to find reasons to problematize exclusive title with a an “adverse inference” that “other” indigenous people might have had use of the land as well as #Nuchatlaht

A declaration of aboriginal title should not be issued if their are other groups that has rights over the land, it doesn’t even need to be title, Echols argues. Despite other groups/nations not having objections…. #Nuchatlaht

“Sounds to me you’re trying to prove someone’s case who doesn’t want their case to be pursued.” Justice Myers scolds Echols.

Remember: #Nuchatlaht is seeking no remedy from WFP or the Province. They aren’t seeking damages ($) from the profound destruction the province and WFP has caused, or an injunction, or any other legal remedy. They just want their land back in simple terms.

The Provinces stance is that Nuchatlaht can’t define the scope of the evidence, relief, and pleadings for the case…..

Echols dives into the myriad of changes that can take place in court proceedings based on how evidence is rolled out. Like, yea, bro. Why are you Lawsplaining the obvious to a Supreme Court Judge. Stop wasting everyone’s time and stop wasting taxpayers money on your salary. 🙄

Echols continues on with talking about how they will problematize boundaries, overlapping use of areas, and evidence that has been produced by Nuchatlaht. Echols, working in lockstep coordination with WFP lawyer expresses support for WFPs pleadings for amendments requested.

Echols and the BC government continue trying to draw more and more “particulars” and evidence into court proceedings as a vague attempt to muddy the water of Aboriginal title and draw out legal proceedings even longer.

Echols outlining and naming that all lands under water, no foreshore, no private land and no Indian reserves are part of the claim…

Now Echols is trying to say that the Nuchatlaht might not have been the collective title holder at the date of 1846, and that the #Nuchatlaht sovereignty is only a “theory” of aboriginal title. 🤬

Echols is saying that the plaintiff needs to prove they were the only collective title holder at the time (obviously) but that if they weren’t, then the plaintiff would need to argue a position counter to what their community knows of their inherent rights and identity.

Now Echols is even troubleshooting which date of British Sovereignty could be interpreted as early as 1790 not 1846. (Am I hearing this right!? Is this lone wolf BC Lawyer literally trying to rewrite North American history and the relevance of the god damn Oregon Treaty!?)

The Province now teasing about the legal distinction between displacement & extinguishment of indigenous people citing the kʷikʷəƛ̓əm case regarding displacement (Justice Affleck) arguing they are separate concepts.

Echols “In conclusion, the resolution of aboriginal rights claims through adversarial litigation is not the crowns preferred approach”….. blah blah blah

Woodward for Nuchatlaht announcing that they will now be seeking to remove/withdraw the Federal Government as well as Western Forest Products from the case altogether!

Also Woodward looking to introduce British Columbia’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People Act #DRIPA arguments - which in my best knowledge might be one of the first time that law has been tested in court. (Maybe there has been one or two others?)

Watching lawyers like Echols representing, ostensibly the BC general public, and the BC Government push harmful legal arguments that are counter to reconciliation and actual political aspirations of respect makes me wonder, how many other lawyers rep BC going rogue like this?

(Also thanks for bearing with my spelling and rapid-thumb-typos 😜)