Enskat Kenraken Ronkwe

Because they welcome vistors from allied Nations, in the same way I cross the border into Buffalo... no problemo.

Because the agreement represented by The Two Row Wampum states, that the monies paid by the Crown to provide upkeep is in effect a lease of the land, as well with the stipulation that each Nation would stay in their own canoes - meaning they would totally stay out of eachothers way and possibly behave as allies in times of trouble. Which the Native side has lived up to past and present. So i suppose it could be argued that if this lease stops being paid, someone is moving.... I think I already at least partially answered the two above questions with my initial remarks. But on the issue of payouts etc. Im going to have to say that the books are going to have to be balanced and it will be more difficult the longer these things drag on. In a lot of these cases we hear about a lease or bill of sale being produced which are all totally legal. Although... One stumbling block is the issue of payment for these sales and leases, proof of payment must be provided to validate any of these land agreements. Im still looking for any actual information on the payment end of this debate - so i welcome any links anyone can provide. Determining who indeed is squatting is the crux of this whole situation in Caledonia. The fact that the judge issuing these orders has a clear conflict of interest in this case aside ( he owns acreage within the Haldimand Tract ) The province has purchased the land in question and is holding the land in trust for Six Nations. It is my understanding that the land will be returned when the current negotiations conclude. So it kind of makes logical sense the judge would try to stall these negotiations,( he ordered negotiations to be halted ) further drawing out the jurisdictional grey area, and try to get his 2nd order of removal enforced. To be honest the judge seems to be acting like his ego has been wounded and is doing everything in his power to extract some measure of satisfaction for himself. ( On a side note the Provincial Government has opposed his ruling and has clearly stated the negotiations will continue later this month, also CHCH-TV a local television station has received a letter from Minister of Indian Affairs David Ramsay expressing his dissapointment with the biased reporting from the media there. ) When the title is returned, in effect saying that the land should never have been illegally sold... this makes the basis of the court order invalid, unless hes going to start evicting people their own properties. If the order is enforced and the people are removed, then later on down the road the land reverts back - will the orders of the judge be actionable by Six Nations? I would think so - especailly taking into account the violence that will take place in that removal.

OH please educate me! - Professor V!! Maybe some links to these source documents would be an excellent start.... In your online class regarding Land Claim issues will it include references and proof of payment on leases or sales of land? A basic concept in contract law is ' consideration ' - meaning, that a contract is null and void if you cannot prove you paid for the sale or lease of property. Also, Will there be mention of the ' in trust ' monies lost through the mismanagement of The Grand River Navigation Company?

Hi Geoffrey I know you already know this...... The Crown/Government made an agreement to share the land in exchange for perpetual upkeep, and a stipulation of this agreement was that both parties follow the relationship outlined in The Two Row Wampum. Both parties agreed to Honour the deal and peacefully co-exist together. If you take a serious look into the actual benefits received, they are not that great or a road to a Pot 'O' Gold as some posters on here may think.

You are too funny Riv - lol You complain about using the word " genocide " to describe the events that happened in recorded Canadian history - but then act like a hypocrit using your own inflammatory words in rebuttal ( apartheid, extremists or terrorists and more in previous posts )- very lame. Your personal view suggesting that Natives want to eliminate Canada is totally contrary to what is represented by The Two Row Wampum - if you read and digested any of the links myself and others have posted you would realise this. The reality of the situation is that it is Canada that has been trying to erase Native culture, not the other way round. In regards to a fair solution - you beleive that Natives should just accept whatever scraps you would throw their way. If the Crown honoured agreements made and behaved in a " fair and balanced " manner the land issue would not be in question today. Irregardless of the time frame any person, entity or Nation who has any notion of what Honour is lives by the agreements they sign, and honour their own ancestors by maintaining these agreements. This is something totally alien to River - he is either spouting that a signed agreement shouldnt be honoured or it will cost too much money to implement a solution. It is a fact that a lot of money is owed to many Native Bands, and the longer it takes to reach a settlement the more interest keeps accumulating.... Even using 1700's land values then adding approprite interest still puts the debt owed in the hundreds of billions - maybe into the trillions by now. Did you do any research on your own with the links i provided about the Grand River Navigation Company who squandered additional funds being held in trust for Six Nations? ... didnt think so. I have to reiterate once more for your benefit River that the treaties the Crown entered into were between two parties based on a land transaction. The Crown knew the terms of the agreement and agreed to them - opening the doors to share the land. Race isnt a factor - just so happens the parties to the agreement are of different races. River, I know somwhere deep down in your twisted logic that you actually beleive that the Crown or the government is somehow the victim in all this.... take a deep breath man! All that is sought is written in the agreements - return the land or compensate for; the loss of use, resources taken, and tax revenue generated.

Unlike your example of the Turks and Caicos - Canada did enter into an agreement, and they are legitimate - and are considered so by the majority of Canadians. ( the ones that beleive honouring a contract ) I guess this majority of people who beleive contracts should be honoured and respected otherwise your word becomes worthless. Funny you should mention not being allowed to vote.... did you read that section of the Indian Act? Still think the Act is preferential towards Natives? The agreement about Self Government was made at the same instant the europeans were made welcome to share the land. The Two Row Wampum. Anyone who thinks the punishments dealt out in those institutions is a total numbskull. At no time were actions like that acceptable. Did your dad kick you in the chest with a riding boot for raising your voice River? It would explain much of what you spew on here. Oh and legitamacy - You feel taking those measures against speaking ones own language were legitamate? Any Francophones like to comment? - What if French speaking kids were rounded up and subjected to corporal punishment when they used their native tongue? And the only thing that is being asked is that the agreements be honoured. Honouring your word has always been a standard of behaviour in any time frame. J J Fortin - About what Id like to see happen - The perfect situation would be that control over development within the Haldimabnd Tract would be given to Six Nations. Property Taxes from same area should go to Six Nations, as well as taxes obtained through use of resources within the tract. Id like to see the whole tract of land become a new municipality. IN regards to land owners already within the tract, they shouldnt have their land taken from them but Six Nations should be further compensated for these lands. If the land owner does not wish to remain in the new municipality the government should buy them out and combine the deed back into the lands specified int The Haldimand Deed. Oh and some sort of repayment scheme should be set up to compensate for the monies lost while being held in trust by the Grand River Navigation Company. So there you have it - One Mans idea of a good start to a possible solution. I would not use term unethical - illegitimate by today's standards is a better description. For example, periodically people talk about Canada taking over the Turks and Calicos. If this happened Canada would never negotiate a deal that included special rights in-perpetuity for the descendants of the existing residents of those islands. Nor would Canada accept a deal that allowed the residents of those islands to prevent other Canadians from moving to the islands or denied them the right to vote for the territorial gov't if they lived there. Canada would be willing to negotiate a self-government deal that allowed the residents to protect their unique culture and language.There are many things the gov't has done in the past that are not acceptable by today's standards. For example, the forms of discipline used at residential schools are considered abuse today and natives feel they deserve compensation for that abuse even though those forms of discipline were acceptable at the time and many non-native children experienced the same kind of discipline at regular schools (i.e. the strap, punishment for using languages other than English, et. al.). It is not reasonable to selectively apply today's standards to events in past. If we as a society are expected to pay compensation for past actions that are only wrong by today's standards then we as society are also entitled to demand that deals and treaties with provisions that are wrong by today's standards be torn up and replaced by deals and treaties that do meet today's standards.

Unethical grounds ? What a crock! Firstly, Native peoples agreed to live in peace sharing the land with the new arrivals from Europe in exchange for the support they stil receive today as well as abiding by the relationship outlined by The Two Row Wampum. Non-interference in each others affairs. Same basic situation with The Six Nations - they were granted the land in exchange for Loyalty to the crown. A few posters on here keep saying the lands were granted becasue of race - the people who granted the land contradict that statement! I have a feeling that if history had changed - and lets say the French managed to colonise the land fully then came the english - both European countries hammered out a deal to share the land - a bet that deal would still stand wouldnt it? You speak of equality - do you also consider the Indian Act race based preferential treatment? The Act facilitated the erasure of another culture because some people find past agreements entered into inconvenient. The entire intent of the act was to assimilate people who did not want to be assimilated. Students were not enrolled in residential schools!, they were legislated into attendance - either forcibly or legal action against the parents. Id like to see some supporting facts that the government can just remove themselves from a contract ( treaty ) signed? Countries who do not live up to agreements made with other nations find themselves with a shrinking number of trading partners. What is unethical is not living up to your word, and that includes contracts.

Thank You for your post Rue Ive been thinking of ways to answer some of the previous posts politely and diplomatically. ( started a few times... ) I appreciate your insight.

Assimilation aka Cultural Extermination never was, and never will be acceptable. It will always " sound bad " to people who value true equality. " Correct this inequality " what crap! The Indian Act was brought in to erase the Native culture in 1876. The Anti-Potlatch amendment of 1884 banned all cermonies tied to Native Culture. In 1918, Duncan Campbell Scott amended the Act in order to make illegal any Aboriginal Dances, ceremonies or institutions, these bans remained in effect until 1951 when the act was revised. In 1924 the hostile removal of The Traditional Government facilitated by The Indian Act.What impotant to note that the Indian Act is a document of restriction and racism, it singles out a race to restrict their lives and development. It is absolutely unbeleivable that anyone in their right mind would think that this document written to intentionally impede any progess that could have been made by Native peoples was a positive or well intentioned step. Only those who agree with laws singling out one section of society would support that assumption. ( look up the definition of fascism ) In regard to Rivers comments on " false memory syndrome ". That argument is so flimsy that you insult your own intelligence by stating it. The reason they were economically disadvantaged is because all the land granted to them in order to provide that support back to the community was taken away in 1792. And as River has said in another post the land they were left to live on had minimal resources. So how do you expect anyone to thrive when all the resources granted to them have been arbitrarily taken away?. If the lands and resources granted by Gov. Haldimand stayed in the proper hands then maybe the outcome may have been different. News Flash River - They didnt NEED, ask, or want help from the Europeans. They had a fully functioning society for centuries before the Europeans showed up. Do you remeber who invented Democracy? Ill give you a hint... not any of the Europeans Another wake up call for you Riv - Natives had a rich culture before the arrival of the europeans - they had farming far advanced to that of the europeans, woodworking, leatherworking, art, stone working, bowyer/fletching, silver and coppersmithing - this is by no means a complete list! Just a few examples to illustrate how little you actually know River. Being that metalsmithing is my trade ive studied the metallurgical histories in school. In reference to Iron Working specifically - the same skills are used to fashion items of silver or copper - the difficulty with iron/steel is that its melting and working temperature are so much higher - the problem is obtaining a fuel to use in a kiln in order to smelt the ore, they had access to all the necessary components - but necessity is the mother of invention. The reason i bring all of this up is your assertion that Native peoples were in the stone age and the implications you make springing from the statement- educate yourself. A History of The Native People of Canada - 1000 BC to 500 AD Modern Skills and Development of Native Peoples The second link may scare people like River Way to go Riv! youve managed to put your special point of view on GC'c statement. He stated that Canada had conducted their own holocaust. Do you need the definistion of Holocaust as well? " Holocaust has a secure place in the language when it refers to the massive destruction of humans by other humans " Do a search on just the word holocaust alone - youll get hits from all over the world. In closing i just want to touch on the fact that the treaty agreements are legal and binding. The first thing i hear form the anti-Native Rights wing on this forum is that the documents are ancient history.... im not responsible for the sins of the father... etc etc. When is the line drawn as to the date of a signed legal agreement being too old to honour? The Indian Act was instated in 1876 but its still law - its more than 120 years long enough?

The link i provided from Indian and Northern Affairs in my previous post is hardly second hand. GC is correct. And as he suggested you should research for yourself. DO a search cross referencing the Indian Act with ; residiential schools, Band council, Confederacy Chiefs, sterilisation and language. Here is a link to some text from the Indian Act - more along the lines of what you were refering to. As GC alluded to - the acts commited against the Native People may not necessarily be legislated in the act - but it was used as authority to administer them. Indian Act - text

In regards to Language - Historical Overview - Aboriginal Culture and Language Indian and Northern Affairs Canada - Residential School System Indian Act - ( inherently racist legislation ) Notes on the Indian Act All sounds like a plot to me.

Betsy, Just a quick point about whom the Douglas Creek lands are being held for. Weve agreed that Henco has sold the property, leaving only the Provincial Government and Six Nations. The government would not use the term " in trust " for a purchase they intend to retain the deed on, they would simply state they purchesed the property. So, logically the third party would be the group the land is being held in trust for. I glad you are taking the time to do a little research on your own regarding the Plank Road land claim, and the larger Haldimand Treaty of 1784. Im going to repost some articles from this thread as well as previous threads : Two Row Wampum Belt The Two Row Wampum Belt outlines the relationship agreed upon by The Six Nations Confederacy and The British Crown. One purple row of beads represents the path of the natives' canoe which contains their customs and laws. The other row represents the path of the Whiteman's vessel, the sailing ship, which contains his customs and laws. The meaning of the parallel paths is that neither boat should out pace the other, and the paths should remain separate and parallel forever, that is, as long as the grass grows, the rivers flow, the sun shines, and will be everlasting, and they shall always renew their treaties. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 - basicially states that all Native lands must be sold directly to the Crown, and recorded publicly in the form of treaties. Then the Crown sells/grants the land to third parties. The Haldimand Deed of 1784 - a tract of land 6 miles from both sides of the Grand River from source to termination. ( approx 950,000 acres ) After the American Revolutionary War, the Nations could not return to their homeland - now on American soil. In Honour of their military service and loyalty to the Crown - they were granted this new tract of land. The Hamilton Port Dover Plank Road Agreement of 1841 - the agreement outlines a lease of land to allows a road to be built from Hamilton to Port Dover to facilitate shipping between Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. The land covered in the lease was the road from Hamilton to Port Dover, running one half mile from either side of the road. The terms of the lease were 21 years, renewed every 7 years. It is important to note that no payment was ever received on this lease, and the fact that the Crown sold lands adjacent to this tract, when they had no legal right to these lands. Here are some supporting lnks : Two Row Wampum Belt ---> http://www.hometown.aol.com/miketben/miketben.htm Royal Proclamation of 1763 ---> http://www.bloorstreet.com/200block/rp1763.htm Background of the Haldimand Deed ---> http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/nr/prs/j-a2006/snjsbk_e.html Map of lands granted in the Haldimand Deed ---> http://www.reclamationinfo.com/images/hald...tract%20map.jpg Background of the Plank Road Agreement ---> http://www.sixnations.ca/Plank%20Road.pdf ( note : PDF ) Further, In 1987 this Plank Road Tract was officially placed as a land claim by the Six Nations. link ---> http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/3219/1/32 Heres another link stating the facts since Betsy mistrusts the Marxists http://ocap.ca/1stnations/sixnations/courtorder - third article from the top - this one from OCAP - Socialists and another ---> http://mostlywater.org/node/4486 and another ---> https://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/mobglob-d...ril/001698.html The short paragraph i wrote, and the links to articles about the Plank Road agreement - as well the link to the map of the lands outlined in the Haldimand Tract - should answer the first half of your question above. The second half regarding the band council isnt really as straightforward as you might think. Consider that the band council was forceably put into power in 1924 by the RCMP using the Indian Act as justification. They violently removed The Confederacy system and replaced it with one of their own making. A lot of Native people do not vote ( municipal, provincial and federal levels) because they consider that a breach of the agreement specified in The Two Row Wampum, therefore the elected coucil does not represent the majority of the people. THE SIX NATIONS: A NEGLECTED ASPECT OF CANADIAN HISTORY ( note : PDF ) This article above goes over the subject in good detail. 1995 Court case Six Natins VS Government - Outline of case brought before the courts in 1995 In the above article - Item one also refers to the lands illegally revoked my Simcoe. Also Lord Simcoe did not follow the Royal Proclomation of 1763 which outlines the law in regards to buying and leasing lands. A couple of questions to be researched : (1) What authority did Lord Simcoe have to arbitrarily reduce the lands granted to Six Nations in the Haldimand agreement? (2) Where is the money held " in trust " for Six Nations via the Grand River Navigation Company? In closing i just have to amke a statement about HeeHawkS post - lol You started off great with section one, it all goes downhill from there. All your talk about how they did this to themsleves and they " deserve " it is absolutely amazing. It was the crown and governmental wrangling that left them with 5% of the lands outlined in the Haldimand deed - since i dont think youve read any of the history involved - click a few if the links ive provided above. Also heres one about the Indian Act - read all the restrictions in this document, the hostile takeover of the traditional government, and the kidnapping of children so they can fall victim to sexual abuse and other assaults to their person and culture. Do a search on the Indian Act im sure youll come accross some useful information. The Indian Act - Serious Internal Error: Discontinue use BACKGROUNDER - Residential School System

You see Betsy - I have agreed to disagree with you on the defintion of " in trust " and to whom it is being held in trust for. Doenst make sense to me that Henco would accept payment for the land, plus further compensation for loss of profit, and they still hold the deed to the land. And as you reiterated, ive said the lands are in limbo, ( whats misleading? ) so our difference of opinion on this one is directly whom the land is in trust for. You cannot sell property and still have the deed to the property held in trust for you - that is contradictory. The one fact that we should be able to agree upon is that Henco no longer owns the property since theyve accepted payment on it. However, the federal government is still holding monies and land held " in trust " to Six Nations which they have not received from the Grand River Navigation Company. So well see how their provincial counterparts live up to agreements made. Backgrounder on the Claims of Six Nations - see Grand River Navigation Company reference At at least three seperate occasions, ive stated the Declaration of Indigenous rights does not directly correlate to the situation at Douglas Creek. It has to do with the bigger issue of Indigenous Rights worldwide. And the growing worldwide support of Indigenous Rights. This was an attempt to move the discussion forward.... which you missed. In regards to the legitamacy of the Land Claims - if they were not legit, the province wouldnt be negotiating for them would they? Another point myself and others have made is the fact that the case was before the courts, but the government requested the move to negotiations. In the legal arena that is like an admittance of responsibility, and the case has been moved to settle damages. Officailly obtained Land Claim status in 1987 ( read it all Betsy, but dont miss the fourth paragraph ) Of note is that when a property is recognised as a land claim, it is usually restricted from sale and development - Land Claim Staus was received 1987 - Henco purchased the land in 1991. Regarding the judges order - I beleive ive asked this question before - and you ignored it. If the judges order for the " removal " is carried out, THEN the land title is fully in control of Six Nations - recognising that the Haldimand Deed was indeed correct, and the title of the land never legally left Six Nations. Shouldnt the people removed by force be entitled to legal action, since the Haldimand Deed confirms it was their land all along? You probably wont respond to the above question or recognise any possibility of new discussions brought up - only question is how many points made by other posters are you going to dredge up in order for us to rehash those issues again - let it go! Im beginning to think youre more concerned with increasing your post count than any real discussion - i find myself answering 2 or 3 of your posts in one response - but hey GIVVER!!!!

I dont think so Betsy. Henco have already attempted to wash their hands of the property by accepting 12 million from the Provincial Governement. Since they are the " seller " the land is not being held in trust for them - the two situations contradict themsleves - and so do you. Im not sure if this will impact the sale of the land, but a second archaeological survey has been conducted by Willam C. Noble, B.A., Phd., Professor Emeritus of McMaster University. He has completed his report and forwarded it to the Premier. In the report he is quoted as saying : " I was appalled at the extent of the damage undertaken there as a result of heavy machines and questionable archaeological techniques" " indeed, in my 46 years in the profession, this was the worst ' Archaeological Rape Job ' Ive seen " " The number of artifacts found here shows it to be a large village, which was probably occupied for a long time " " it appears the entire tract was scraped clean well before any archaeological work was accomplished " The quotes are taken from an article by Jim Windle " Evidence suggests an archaeolagical coverup" found in the Tekawennake newspaper. The website www.tekanews.com is down so i couldnt provide a direct link. A search on Google may provide verification. Does anyone have a legal opinion as to Henco's rights being dimiinished because of the misrepresentation contained in the survey they originally submitted? ------------- Betsy - Are you now comfortable commenting on my post regarding the UN vote? I realise it is a switch in topic - but this thread has taken some twists an turns LOL - as you remeber it orginated as a discussion of peoples education of Native studies in schools. I had hoped to get an idea if there were varying levels of education on the subject, in different areas of the country. but that was short lived. This post of yours should truly astound any who read it : Despite all the information provided on this forum, i dont think you truly have digested any of the Native Rights or Land Claim issues. Further, you are displaying a lack of comprehension of resources provided. As clearly stated in my link to the UN vote - it passed 30 to 2 with 12 countries not present and 3 abstaining - brings my total to 47 countries. Not 5! LOL . The 47 Countries make up the new United Nations Human Rights Council, the total countries with UN membership totals 193. ( someone please correct me if this number is wrong ) Betsy - Ive tried to introduce new information to discuss. If you dont have anything new to bring to this topsy turvy thread then dont post. Thanks

If he is underage - community service with a retired veteran is an ideal solution.

As I indicated with the following statement : The article regarding the UN vote provided was on a new topic but to clarify, the delaration is for the rights of ALL Indigenous peoples worldwide - not just Six Nations. I guess you missed the introduction of new information......... The question was answered in my reply to Riverwind. Heres the defintion of " In Trust " since you missed the inference the first and second times. Thirds the charm eh? Your opinion regarding the UN quagmires you in a minority of global proportions. Which just doesnt surprise me *smirk* How many countries support the declaration? yeah only 30..... additionally 15 countries were not present for the vote so most liklely the actual count would be higher.

These charges really dont seem harsh enough. There is so much more to this act than mischief and indecency. As part of any sentence meted out to these people id like to see them doing community service in the form of helping retired veterans. Listening to the stories of these veterans may teach them something about the sacrifices they made and how we benefited from them.

Now you are resorting to using points Riverwind made weeks ago. Not sure if youre recylcing others posts, simply didnt read them, or forgot. Heres a link to my original response to Riverwinds original post.http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....ndpost&p=119122 Betsy - You are closing in on current events!, the post you shadowed from River was from June 24, 2006 This article is from June 30 ( Almost New! ) , but at least it adds to previous discussions regarding UN invlovement with Native Rights United Nations Human Rights Council overrides Canada and Russia to approve native peoples declaration One step closer for The Declaration to become law For those who may be new to the discussion, here are the links to the declaration : Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - full version Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - plain language

LOL - Oh Betsy! You really havnt been paying attention here! Youre asking questions to which anybody involved in this thread as you have been should already know the answers to. Im smelling troll here....*grinz* but ill trudge on.... The Citizens Allliance are the one and the same mentioned in the Turtle Island News. They do not, i repeat do not support the interests of Six Nations. At least not for the time being. They chose to go to the Toronto Legislature to put pressure on the provincial governement to make a decision on the land claim. In the assertion that the government should take action in regards to the claim - the Occupiers of the site and the CCA are in complete agreement. Their individual ideals of the end result of negotiations are opposed. Betsy - great post from June 21, 2006 - ( i had a wonderful Solidarity Day btw ) hopefully ive reduced the level of confusion you have.... in regards to the motives of the CCA visiting the legislature A visit to the premier does not constitute racism - saying a person of another race moving into a home would lower its value - IS. So how can this be about race again?

I guess i should have added " legal rights " in there. They have the same legal rights to speak as when Henco came in, which is to say none. I thought being allowed to be present at the negotiations, ( so as to directly inform the citizens near the development ) was a pretty nice thing for the Confederacy to agree to. Same as i have absolutley no say when they build a strip mall accross the road from my house, but i have the right to move. But Hey, if i disagree with the race of my new neighbours so much maybe it is time to move. And if you think property values go down becasue your new neighbours are a different race - That Sucks too

River - actually they dont, they are being included as a courtesy they are not in any stretch of the imagination a legal component of this minor slice of the land claim. But now they feel they are in a position to make demands in a negotiation they have no personal financial stake in. If they are ever in the position of being forced to deal with their own real estate because of the greater land claim - then im in full agreement they have a right to be at that table ( obviously ). I dont seriously think anybody will lose their homes over this, but maybe a buy-out procedure for those people who feel they need to move is another way to go. Maybe the negotiations will touch on this over the summer?

Re-read Temagami's last post - then do a search on " conflict of interest " You cant trespass on your own land Betsy - that was the point i was trying to make in the most basic way i could with the following statement - Clearly, the judge is in no position to make a fair decision concerning his own real estate holdings - he is never goign to rule against his own financial interest - he should have been removed from the case as soon it was relised he had a financial connection. Another hypothetical situation - the police physically remove everyone from Kahenhstaton - in the process people are going to be hurt - then the government completes negotiations and the lands are returned officially, now what? We most likely will have victims of this court order ( that was illegally issued because of the huge grey area because the government, judiciary and police are not on the same page) making claims for personal damages. The governement chose to take the matter out of the courts and into negotiation. Same as other land claims accross the country the land should have had an the immediate freeze on the development upheld, followed by a feeze on any prosecution directly or indirectly involved with the land dispute. I have nothing but respect for the OPP's decision to back off until the governement finalises the deal they are negotiating with The Confederacy. I think the OPP realise, even if the judge doesnt, that acting in haste ( ie April 20 ) is the wrong thing to do, and they will wait for a negotiated settlement before taking action with people on the site.

Link to previous post Land Talks Resume That quote is funny. How many people get to give their opinion in a negotiation which doesnt directly afftct them. Let alone sit in on them! Their names are not mentioned anywhere in regards to ownership or sale of the land. Im wondering who exactly is pulling their strings because outwardly they dont seem to be profiting from backing the Henco Bros. Remember way back when the bypass was blocked and all they said they wanted was the road open? Well they got what they wanted.....

Ive heard this particular judge owns property in haldimand county as well as cottage further north - both within 6 miles of the Grand River. In any other case this would be called a conflict of interest. When are they going to appoint a neutral judiciary to deal with the ever increasing number of land claims? preferrably from an international court. Backlog of unsolved land claims nears 800 as minister plans overhaul The basis of the removal order was that Six Nations people were tresspassing on the land, since it has been recognised that they indeed have a legitimate claim to the land in question - doesnt that make the order invalid? As you can clearly read from the article I linked to above, the land claims are legitimate. The problem is the time frame involved in solving the disputes. The government has acknowledged the claims, and is taking steps to expediate the settlements.The basis of the removal order was that Six Nations people were tresspassing on the land, since it has been recognised that they indeed have a legitimate claim to the land in question - doesnt that make the order invalid? Let me put it another way - Someone is charged with tresspassing - they later prove the land they are accused of tresspassing on is theirs - and they are still going to be charged???

Hear it from the horses mouth - yet another resource for information Call in Radio program about the Caledonia situation ( they take callers from both sides of the debate ) on CKRZ 100.3 FM starting 1 PM EST Monday to Friday LISTEN ONLINE - http://www.ckrz.com/player/Player.htm