Okwaho

The Crown is simply the word used in the Canadian constitution to describe the sovereign power of the state of Canada. The constitution is the highest law in this country and everything is subject to its terms. Furthermore, Canadians can change that constitution any time they want and the Queen is legally required to sign off on that change. The constitution explicitly states that the Queen may not veto constitutional changes even though she has the theoretical power to veto any other law. I really wish you would stop repeating this nonsense. Keep talking! You're reinforcing exactly what we're saying about Canadas relationship with the Crown!!!

As Tsi explained in another earlier post we already have an economy established. It is being discussed although it is not really necessary as currency is not tangible it is only promissory. The same one that we have had for over one thousand years. We already have them and they're recognized in 36 countries so far. We don't need to. We've already had ours established over one thousand years. I've never calculated the populations of all of our territories. I've never calculated the unemployment rate in all of our territories. We've had schools since 1877. We've had the same one we are still using for over one thousand years. The same one we've used for over one thousand years.

Are you making that comment because you believe that the Canadian courts will enforce what you perceive to be your rights? I wouldn't hold your breath. In prior judgements the SCC has placed many limits native land claims because of the potential impact on non-native society so it is unlikely that the SCC would rule that Six Nations would be entitled to a settlement that would have a negative impact on the economy as a whole (i.e. require huge tax increases to pay for). In the unlikely event that the SCC did rule in Six Nations favour you would see politicians lining up to make whatever constitutional change is necessary to limit the liability in the Six Nations case and any future cases that may be based on it. Furthermore, taking the issue to court is a risky move for Six Nations because there is always the chance that the SCC will dismiss the case entirely. So it is quite possible that Six Nations could get more from good faith negotiations now than it would from any court decision. Canadian Courts are neither mandated nor equipped to deal with our Crown agreements as they are limited to domestic doctrines! The agreements we have with the Crown are higher than domestic law. Canada connot exist without them in place. Therefore, break the agreements lose the country! Think I'm wrong? To enter into a treaty today requires the ceding or surrender of land to who? The Crown! The same as it is has always been under the Royal Proclamation through the Two Row and Silver Covenant Chain! The answers are in your history.

"Understand, its not a matter of wanting sovereignty...we ARE sovereign. Only sovereign and separate Nations enter into treaties. We do recognize Canadas sovereign which is the Crown". Sorry, just trying to understand here. Does not the UN stipupulate you cannot have a sovereignty within a sovereignty (1940's )? Thus if Canada is . . . .However, i thought it has been established that it is not. Your case as sovereign people is surely more against the authority of the GG taking on or superceding the role and agreements made between f/ns and British over your allied sovereignty in Canada but with Britain? Therefore, this relationship overcomes the problem of sovereignty within a sovereignty "You're not understanding the issue here. It's not a matter of winning or losing a case. It's a matter of correcting the injustices of the past to the present". Yes indeed! So much so that im beginning to think you need a British representative of sorts to thrash this through with the government of Canada before ALL else. It certainly would avoid the priviledge of 'ruling' in self interest in a legal dispute as the previous 'judge' did. Outrageous! Exactly! Hence Canada is not soveriegn unto itself but under the Crown. And all of our agreements with them are the Highest Law of the land!!!

The Iroquois had been exposed to the English for almost 200 years and the Six Nations were living on the Haldimand Tract for over 50 years when that document was prepared. In that 50+ years other land surrenders had been prepared and agreed upon by leaders such as Joseph Brant who were well versed in English processes and legalities. In the case of the Six Nations, at what point does oral tradition fall by the wayside and courts say "at this point your ancestors knew enough about what they were getting themselves into when they signed that document that the documentary evidence takes precedence over oral tradition". Picture this scenario: if there was an agreement reached and documented today with the Six Nations (and in these times they have access to lawyers, they speak english as a first language, there can be no claim of ignorance) will that also be subject to taking a backseat to oral tradition in 200 years when that agreement is contested? During the same 200 years and 50+ years Europeans were exposed to the languages of the Six Nations as well. How many Europeans could speak even one of them? The extent of Joseph Brant's "process and legal" knowledge was Nation to Nation.

Where do you get this Bullcrap? John Brant was not a lawyer and in fact he died in 1832 from Cholera so unless his ghost was present, I think not. His father Joseph was educated at Moor's Charity School and later at Eleazar Wheelock's school in Conneticut which is Dartmouth College not Harvard. I don't think there were many "fine" schools in North America in the 1700s! Wrong again Professor! It was all done at the hands the (1832-1844) Grand River Navigation Company. More appropriately the great Samual Jarvis, John Dunn rip-off.

The earliest known copies of the gospels were written hundreds of years after Christ died. The story of Christ's life was altered over years and years of retelling between the time the events happened and when they were written down. However, once the Catholic church decided it had a story it liked it then ensured that only that story was written down and retold over the centuries. The Mesianic (Hebrew and Aramaic) and the Septuagint (Greek) were written before the Latin Vulgate (Latin)which is what the early Catholics used. The first New Testament was written in Greek. They are all the same.

I doubt very much that you've read them. And of course, you've dismissed out of hand the gospel that was left out of the bible altogether. What did you call it? Ah yes...obsure. And yet, it is being studied by many and brings into question the orgins of the bible and what they chose to leave out. But enough fruitless discussions. Assert whatever you want. I don't why I bothered since it doesn't affect me one way or the other. Nor does it convince me of one thing or the other. You are free to doubt anything you wish to. I could care less if it convices you one way or another or one thing or the other. I simply rebutted a statement from and was having a discussion about it with River. You jumped into this voluntarily on your own!

Oh come on...is that the best you can come up with?

It's Harper's baby now. What's he doing about it? I believe he's up north asserting Canadas sovereignty preplexed as to how he is going to explain to Her Majesty that his predecessors commited treason by harming the Crowns allies.

PFFFTTTT! The National Enquirer of the internet?

That is not how I read it: This paragraph clearly states that it is the Indians who are under the protection of the crown and that the Indian territories are part of the Crown's domain. Once again the wording is quite clear: the Crown is sovereign power and the lands granted to the Indians belongs to the Crown's Dominion. No...It clearly states that being immediately after the French-Indian War that the Crown is claiming their sovereignty over their previous territories and those acquired in the defeat of the French. Why would the land need to be ceded to or purchased if it is sovereign Crown land? Why would they Crown have settlers removed from the Indian Territory if it was Crown land? You see…you need to read the entire Proclamation and stop taking parts of it out of context. This is also why it is important to know the historical aspects. Take a look at what the Americans have to say about it. It even has a map detailing the territories and boundries (that supposedly don't exsist) it referes to. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/proc63.htm Let’s look at the Jay Treaty of the American Revolutionary War. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/britain/jay.htm It is agreed that it shall at all Times be free to His Majesty's Subjects, and to the Citizens of the United States, and also to the Indians dwelling on either side of the said Boundary Line freely to pass and repass by Land, or Inland Navigation, into the respective Territories and Countries of the Two Parties on the Continent of America (the Country within the Limits of the Hudson's Bay Company only excepted) and to navigate all the Lakes, Rivers, and waters thereof, and freely to carry on trade and commerce with each other. Notice it say His Majesty’s Subjects, and to the Citizens of the United States, and also to the Indians dwelling on either side of the said Boundary Line. Three separate distinct sovereigns. What happened? I thought we were Crown sovereigns? The border was established to divide His Majesty’s Subjects and Citizens of the United States. It has no effect on us as we are neither.

Let's stay on the original course now...I believe the statements were; and You were saying?

Treaties are political documents that are always renegotiated if circumstances change. The US and Canada have no interest in renegotiating those treaties because the cost of trying to reopen them exceeds any possible benefit. The US, on the other hand, unilaterally broke the START treaty with Russia because it decided that cost of not having a missile defence program was greater than the cost of breaking the treaty. Honouring the Six Nations treaty to gives no benefits to Canadians today but could impose huge costs. For that reason it is not in the interest of Canada to honour the treaties and there is nothing Six Nations can do about it because, unlike the US, Six Nations has nothing to offer to Canada in return for honouring these treaties.Incidently, business contracts are also subject to renegotiation all of the time. In many cases, a finanically stronger party will pressure a weaker party into changing the terms of a negotiated contract even though the courts would likely side with the weaker party. This happens because the cost of fighting the change in court often exceeds the cost of agreeing to the change. We'll see!!!

You forgot to mention that I corrected you in that thread. The Proclamation was set to make any westward expansion of the colonies happen in an orderly fashion. It did not specify a permanent boundary. It simply indicated that any Indian land must first be ceded to agents of the Crown before it could be used by colonists. Nothing more, nothing less. Expansion was not forbidden, it was simply placed under guidelines. The influence of the Proclamation as one of the reasons for the American Revolution is questionable. There were significant Indian land surrenders after the Proclamation but before the start of the Revolution which opened up Kentucky and West Virginia to settlement, placating the colonists and reducing any tensions arising from the Proclamation. You might want to ask the Deleware, Mingo and Shawnee about that!

Do some research for f***'s sake. I have been...all for the benefit of those that required it when I've made a statement. If you don't like the posts then get off of the thread and quit your whining!!!!

Understand, its not a matter of wanting sovereignty...we ARE sovereign. Only sovereign and separate Nations enter into treaties. We do recognize Canadas sovereign which is the Crown. That is the party to our agreements. Get off of the race excuse. It has absolutley nothing to do with race! It is about Nation to Nation agreements not being upheld. The treaties that Canada has with the U.S. go back to 1783. That is the Treaty of Paris which established the border between Canada and the U.S. It is the argument of some that 300 year old treaties should be obsolete. Do you see how ridiculous that is? Go and tell the Americans (especially now) that the Treaty of Paris and the Treaty of Ghent are considered obsolete and that Canada wants the border removed. I don't have to ask you what the American response would be do I? The same goes for the amount of tax payers money that goes to the operation costs of the border. You're not understanding the issue here. It's not a matter of winning or losing a case. It's a matter of correcting the injustices of the past to the present.

You must have trouble reading, it specified a boundary but by the wording in the Proclamation, nothing about that boundary was permanent along the lines of "this is where the boundary will be now and forever". The Proclamation dictated guidelines under which the westward expansion of the colonies could occur (only through land surrenders to the Crown by the Indians). This is fact. There's nothing wrong with my reading. It must be your lack of command and comprehension of the english language. As I've said...it's quite clear what it is conveyed and the domestic court system knows it. The Protection clause is the Crown saying to their Subjects that its friends and allies are to be protected by the Crown from its Subjects! If the context was meant as you're attempting to twist it, the land surrenders to the Crown by the Indians wouldn't be an issue. If we were subjects the land would be Crown land.

That's right and then is now!!!

Wrong. By virtue of the wording in both the Haldimand Proclamation and the Simcoe Deed, which state that the Six Nations that are settling on the Haldimand Tract are under the protection of the Crown, the Six Nations are therefore subjects of the Crown. As a side note, the Royal Proclamation also extended the Crown's sovereignty over Indian lands. But don't take my word for it. Logan v. Styres, Ontario High Court 1959: Who are Proclamations addressed to, the Subects of the Crown or the Rotinonshonni?

You forgot to mention that I corrected you in that thread. The Proclamation was set to make any westward expansion of the colonies happen in an orderly fashion. It did not specify a permanent boundary. It simply indicated that any Indian land must first be ceded to agents of the Crown before it could be used by colonists. Nothing more, nothing less. Expansion was not forbidden, it was simply placed under guidelines. The influence of the Proclamation as one of the reasons for the American Revolution is questionable. There were significant Indian land surrenders after the Proclamation but before the start of the Revolution which opened up Kentucky and West Virginia to settlement, placating the colonists and reducing any tensions arising from the Proclamation. The boundries are set out and are in fact quite clear! You must be reading from a partial copy. It was considered the worst of the "Intolerable Acts".

Really? So there where no Six Nations in Southern Ontario huh? Baby Point's rich history dates back to the 1600's when it was a prosperous Seneca Nation village known as Teiaiagon. The Seneca people found Teiaiagon to be the perfect location for conducting their fur trading activities as this high peninsula of land located in a bend of the Humber River, was easily defended from attack. http://www.torontoneighbourhoods.net/regions/york/146.html In the Seneca village of Tinaouataoua on the portage between Burlington Bay and the Grand River, http://collections.ic.gc.ca/heirloom_serie...pter3/63-68.htm The Iroquois occupied the land around the Great Lakes from southern Canada through much of present-day New York State; yet through trade, hunting, and warfare, their influence spread from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mississippi River. At the end of the seventeenth century, there were perhaps 15,000 Iroquois living on one million square miles of territory. http://www.carnegiemuseums.org/cmnh/exhibi...uois/index.html The Seneca were the most numerous of the Six Nations of the Iroquois, and Lake Ontario was ringed with their villages. But in the summer of 1687, the French, trying to gain a foothold in the fur trade, razed all those villages in one swoop. They had guns. And cannonballs. http://www.jerryamernic.com/stararticle2.shtml Eries and Neutrals certainly were absorbed, they were captured as slaves by 5/6natiosn or fled for their lives. And no, the Hurons hate the 6nations. You need to watch what you say!!! Our Wendat brothers and sisters really wouldn't appreciate your misinformed comments such as this! Again you are incorrect it was Bultersburg then Newark, not Butlersville, that's in PA So Professor...it would seem that our oral history does stand up to the test!!!

Where do you get this crap???

What kind of lower than a snake deceitful crap are you trying to pull??? You should be banned for even trying to suggest that Tsi is blain or saga!!!

Dizzy Tsi Maybe you are smoking too much sacred tobacco The Great Law defines the Long House land as Central/Northern NY. It even names the eastern and western gates in NY state. (that oral tradition once again getting in the way) The only people who belong to the Great Law of the Long House are the 6Nations, none other; also named in the Great Law. Well...I see you're still trying to be an expert on the Kaianerenkowa! How many nations are mentioned in it? I think you'd better find a better source than the one you're using! I belive the peace maker established FIVE. The Tuscaroras entered in 1714. The Erielhonan (Erie) and Attawantaron (Neutrals) were not "rubbed" out by the Five Nations. Both Nations were adopted into both the Wendat (Huron) and the Five Nations. Col. John Butler the founder of the Butler's Rangers for his service to the Crown during the American Revolutionary war was given a King's grant of land. Butler's Rangers were often refered to as "White Savages or Blue Eyed Savages" as they lived our way of life and fought using our tactics. They can be treced back to Rogers Rangers of the F&I war and their standing orders are still the standing orders of the U.S. Army Rangers to this day. He wished to settle among his friends the Six Nations and was granted permission from them through Joseph Brant. The town was originally called Butlersville then Newark and is presently Niagara on the lake. The Young family in the town of Cayuga were given the same permission. Many of the men that served with the Butler's Rangers and the King's Rolyal Yorkers wished to live among us and many were married in to our Nations. You really need to find better sources for your arguments! Under Toronto's Young St. sits a Seneca village and if you go to the township of Milton west of Burlington you'll find a rebuilt Seneca village built pole for pole. I do believe they are situated in Southern Ontario! If you go south as far as Ohio and Indiana you find numerous Seneca village locations. Sandusky, Ohio is well noted for Seneca presence. There were also a few Mohawk villages down there as well. That is where Joseph Brant was born! If you know any Shawnee people from Ohio they can verify but you might not want to believe their oral history! What hat did you pull this one from? I think you're confusing the opening of council and cerimonial burning/smoking of tobacco with the regular personal smoking of tobacco! When the chiefs are smoking or burning tobacco during a council or cerimony, no one else is allowed to smoke or burn at the same time. When the council or cerimony is completed the people may resume smoking. We cultivated tobacco and had our own personal pipes called "efigy pipes." I don't think our Wendat and Anishnabe brothers and sisters would appreciate your words too much!!!