Okwaho

That would of course entail your having to read it. The links provided containing insignificant omissions has not altered the context of its origin one bit. Every thought and every notion are still in tact.

First of all I think you've got it bass ackwards. We have told you that you must go back to the past to find your answers. When we've tried to explain everyone wants to ignore the very past from where this country came from. They keep getting caught up in the rhetoric of domestic legal cases and misinterpreting historical Proclamations and agreements. Therefore, it has become quite obvious that you have got eveything figured out. So it would appear that you don't need us to explain. There is even a lawyer that came on here and stated that he believes that we have a legitimate claim. Even after he made that statement all of the armchair legal experts here kept rehashing interpretations of different documents etc. I mean no offence to him when I say that he cannot help us because he is a domestic courts lawyer. I explained to him that we cannot obtain appropriate legal remedy in a domestic court under domestic doctrine. He should know and understand clearly what I meant and why.

What do you mean Dizzi Tsi? You seem to be an expert on the Kaianerenkowa you tell us! If you read his earlier posts he told you how.

The party that disputes ownership of the property must enforce their rights within a reasonable period of time. If that party fails to enforce their rights for many years and allows the 'illegal' landowner to invest money into the property then the original property owner loses _all_ rights to the land. This is a principal in British common law that goes back centuries. It is called the doctrine of laches for those that want to look it up. The doctrine of laches is domestic law and does not apply to the territory of a sovereign Nation retaining Proclamations or any other treaties or agreements with the Crown.

Alberta gives way more than their share into confederation. We have to pay taxes, unlike Indians on reservations, who just make money and enjoy their racially based tax free status. www.statscan.ca You can also see there that we spend $10,000 per Indian in Canada. One quarter of money that Indians spend is welfare. So don't you dare go blaming Alberta for anything, it's hard to find anyone not working in Alberta (other than Indians actually, who still are unemployed, around 20% unemployment, to a large degree), and contributing to Canada. Most Bands are simply leeches that give little back for their massive cost. Despite being a mere 2% of the population (including Metis), 'aboriginal' youth account for 14% of youth on probation and adults account for 17% of prision inmates. So who's the burden my friend? Here's one detailed overview, the rest you can find on your own: http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85F0...3MIE2001001.pdf That has nothing to do with showing me that Alberta with their shares in oil profits are not entitled to something that other Canadians can't recieve! Let's get with the program instead of grasping at straws. Your telling me that even with the money Albertans recieve from its oil profits they are still "equal" to the rest of Canadians that don't. The following has been stated by River. Alberta shares the oil profits with the rest of the country in three ways: 1) All people in Alberta pay federal taxes. Since people in Alberta make more money than people in the rest of the country they pay more taxes per capita into the federal pot. 2) Alberta does not receive equalization payments which means the Alberta receives less per capita funding that other provinces. This has the effect of redistributing income from Alberta to other provinces. 3) Alberta is a magnet for workers from other parts of the country. In many cases these workers leave their families behind in other parts of Canada. The income that these migrant workers maek is sent back to their home provinces and spent there. Show me the states that proves that his 3 points. I can already see by his statement on its own there is no "equality."

No it doesn't change at all. From the time your a baby to the time you die it is told over and over and over again. If the orator was to change even one minute detail everyone would know! Some of our oral history is the same from Nation to Nation. If you watch the show Battlefield Detectives on Little Big Horn, archialogists proved that the Sioux oral history of the battle was dead on and the Americans written version was wrong! There was no last stand for Custer, he ran like the frightened coward he was. If you know the legend of Custer, then you should also know Sitting Bulls Warning. The natives will never get back what is theirs until everything stolen from the Soldiers is returned. Sitting Bull warned the natives of this, after his marathon dance where they plucked tiny chunks of flesh from his body. It was the same dance where he saw how to defeat the Army. He told the natives that they would be victorious but that they must not touch anything of the dead soldiers. The dead were robbed. So goes the legend that the natives will never get back what is theirs until everything taken from the soldiers that day is returned. Yep! Abd that day has come!!! Custer's body was not mutilated but his ears were punctured so he could hear in the afterlife.

Well you see...that's where you're wrong. Lawyers cannot do anything for us because the reality is that your domestic courts are not eqipped or mandated to hear the matters of any of our disputes.

If the owner of whatever was built on the land failed to excersise due diligence before he built then it does! You see, that is where your government fails you. They are not obligated to tell you your law and inorance is not a defense.

I've already posted this on another thread. The Royal Proclamation Act was the catalyst for the American Revolutionary war specifically because it forbade western expansion. It came about to prevent westward settlement.

No it doesn't change at all. From the time your a baby to the time you die it is told over and over and over again. If the orator was to change even one minute detail everyone would know! Some of our oral history is the same from Nation to Nation. If you watch the show Battlefield Detectives on Little Big Horn, archialogists proved that the Sioux oral history of the battle was dead on and the Americans written version was wrong! There was no last stand for Custer, he ran like the frightened coward he was.

Of course it is because you wouldn't have it any other way!

I never did. Oh?

Now, now Riverbend...your on spin cycle again!!! Go back and read the post I responded to and lets stick to the topic whether or not it is ficticous or true has nothing to do with: "Many events in the Bible actually occurred but the story has been altered over years and years of retelling -"

Honestly, I don't care. Then way did you bring it up????

Canada is NOT a sovereign state. Six nations is. And the Crown's sovereignty is limited by the Royal proclamation and the Haldimand Proclamation. The Crown never held sovereignty over these lands by their own declarations! The fact that Canada refuses to recognize Six Nations' sovereign right becomes irrelevent since the Crown does and even prescribes that those rights exceed the right of Canada in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are a sovereign and independent state. You neighbour doesn't have and land. He's actually standing on my land and try to asser t I have no right to it. O:nen GOOONNNGGG. Wrong again Tsi. The Royal Proclamation was simply the basis for making sure the westward expansion of the colonies happened in an orderly fashion (among other things it dealt with). The Crown considered all lands, including those Indians resided on, to be under its sovereignty: "And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid." You are mistaking the boundaries of the sovereignty of the Crown with the boundaries of the colonies. They are not the same thing. Its a forgivable mistake but now that its been pointed out to you, we shouldn't be reading you make the same mistake again. Now with the Haldimand Proclamation, and with the more relevant Simcoe Deed, both refer to the Six Nations being under the protection of the Crown (ding ding ding, there's that phrase again, "under our/his Protection"). Being under the protection of the Crown means Six Nations owed allegiance to the Crown, and therefore were subjects of the Crown. But you already know this because its been pointed out to you many times. Your sovereignty only exists in your mind. quod erat demonstrandum You better find someone qualified to read it properly for you! It was the Royal Proclamation in fact that started the American Revolutionary War because it outright forbade western expansion period!!!

Alberta shares the oil profits with the rest of the country in three ways:1) All people in Alberta pay federal taxes. Since people in Alberta make more money than people in the rest of the country they pay more taxes per capita into the federal pot. 2) Alberta does not receive equalization payments which means the Alberta receives less per capita funding that other provinces. This has the effect of redistributing income from Alberta to other provinces. 3) Alberta is a magnet for workers from other parts of the country. In many cases these workers leave their families behind in other parts of Canada. The income that these migrant workers maek is sent back to their home provinces and spent there. IOW, Alberta does share its oil wealth. More importantly, Alberta shares its oil wealth in ways that benefit all Canadians. Granting special access to resource income for aboriginals would only benefit aboriginals - especially if aboriginals are not taxed on that income. So you can show the stats regarding all of this right?

Recent evidence has shown that the Americas were not populated by a one time migration via the Bering straight. The modern analysis suggests that multiple waves of people migrated over thousands of years and each wave merged with the existing population. However, even if there is some doubt about the nature of the migration patterns there is no doubt that aboriginals migrated from Eurasian continent. There is no credible evidence that humans evolved independently in the Americas.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_mig...o_the_New_World It's all still hypothetical! Maybe the migration went from here to Asia! Suggestions and hypothesis are not evidence.

There is a tremendous difference between special treatment based upon a disability and one that is racially based. One is a necessity; the other one smacks of racism, plain and simple. Guess which one is which? Is there? What kind of "equality" is it? You still didn't answer; "Does Alberta share their oil profits with the rest of the country or just Albertans?" Remember we're talking about all people being treated "equally"!

CHUCK U FARLIE!!! Riverwind brought up the subject so if you don't like it PASS BY IT!!!!

An oral tradition that is supported by written records is certainly more credible. However, not all oral tradition is supported by such records. If it was then we would not be calling it an "oral tradition". For example, some natives (can'r remember if it was you) claimed that Bering strait migration theory must be wrong because native oral tradition says it is not true. I am pretty sure that there are not any wampum belts that prove that natives were placed by the creator on this continent. The Beringian Hypothesis being a migratory route for all Native North and South Americans has been proven false by archialogy and geology. Although there may not be "written" records there are Wampum belts that recorded it. The crossing of the Bering Strait supposedly occured between 20,000-12,000 years ago. Are you aware of a site discovered in South Carolina that could possibly date back to 50,000 years? Even if it only dates back to 30,000 years it still falls well outside of the Beringian Hypothesis. It also would concur with our oral migration history right down to the path along the eastern portion of the continent. Here's a link. http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/11/17....dig/index.html

Round, round we go again! Let's stick to the original subject! We can debate the issues of who and what god is in another forum. Again, Name the Books, Chapters and Verses that have been "changed" or "altered" over the years. I'm not asking for the diference between denominational doctrines! Am I defending the Bible? I'm asking a simple question. You're making exactly the same mistakes and assumptions that I did before I did my research on it. I'm defending a prejudice made which happens to be untrue when in left within the context of the statement that was made. Are you shocked by my honesty? I'm not asking anyone if they believe in or not! Read the question!

Almost every story regarding Christ's life and death has been altered over the years of retelling because their is no way any human could have done the things claimed in the Gospels and later books (water into wine, healing lepers, etc). Christians believe these stories to be true because it is their faith, however, it is unreasonable to expect non-Christians to treat these stories as truth. The same is true of native oral traditions. These stories are the basis for the native religious belief system and I can accept that natives believe them to be true just like Christians believe the stories in the Bible to be true. However, you should not expect anyone who does not believe in native spirituality to give these oral histories the same status as proven fact. Get out of the spin cycle!!! Your original statement was "Many events in the Bible actually occurred but the story has been altered over years and years of retelling -" From the Hebrew Messianic Text all the up to the Modern English Version nothing has been altered. As for our Oral Traditions, they were not only recorded on Wampum Belts but, the one thing we could count on Europeans for was that they wrote everything down. That is the reason we can write in our language today!

Then there is the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon has absolutely nothing to do with the Books, Chapters and Verses contained in the Bible. The Book of Mormon contains the "revelations" of Joseph Smith the founder of The Church of Latter Day Saints (or Mormons). The first printing of the Book of Mormon was completed March 26, 1830. Along with the Book of Mormon other books are used. These include The Book of Doctorines and Covenants, The Pearl of Great Price and the Bible.

A recent Canadian translation of the bible uses both male and female monikers for God. Again my question was, "Name the Books, Chapters and Verses that have aledgedly been altered over the years and years of retelling." As I have already stated I'm not asking to hear about some obscure scrolls or secrets of the Da Vinci Code etc. The "New Age" perception of "God's" sexual orientation falls under etc.

I take then that you believe that Jesus Christ was resurrected from dead three days after being crucified. This happened after a long career where Jesus performed a variety of feats that would generally be considered impossible by modern science such as turning water in wine. I pretty sure the actual events (if they really occurred) were quite different from the stories in the Bible. However, once they were written down they seemed have survived largely in tact because people could go back an check the orginals. Here we go with the spin cycle again. My question to your statement was simple, "Name the Books, Chapters and Verses that have aledgedly been altered over the years and years of retelling." I was not asking for a debate as to their relevance to truth. I told you I studied Christian Religion at Mac. Div. in Hamilton in an effort to know my enemy. In order to defend myself from evangelical Christians from telling me that I'll "burn in hell" if I don't convert!