Posit

Wrong. The Confederacy claim to the Haldimand pre-dates European first-contact. They have a treaty with the Mississauga to prove it. Six Nations and the Musqueam have different international relationships with the Crown. Six Nations can claim the entire Haldimand because it was theirs before contact, theirs during contact and theirs after contact. And as much as you want to quote the courts, this is not a court case. It is a negotiation where the governments have already acknowledged Six Nations claim to the Haldimand is valid and the only answers remain is to figure out what to do with the squatters. So far the Confederacy have stated they are not after displacing occupants. However the difference is that vacant land is not occupied. They are going after undeveloped lands for that reason. The cost of land is irrelevent in their view and the fact that it is all undeveloped is their only concern as undeveloped land is perfect for the expansion of the territory. Funny enough, as we have discussed at length in other threads, there is no such thing as "private property". Irrelevent and therefore a moot point.

Well... I suppose that at least they are participating in an action they agree with and they aren't coming home in body bags down the "Highway of (Dead) Heroes"..... However, if you want you have a ~real~ discussion about this instead of just some diaper-diving scraper then perhaps you can define what and who you think warriors are? Do you even know the people you are talking about or are you simply using media invective to yet again target Natives because you feel you are inferior?

Ernie Eves stood in the legislature and under-stated the deficit by about $3 billion. Finding it at almost $6 billion required a whole new strategy. Coal plants? Big deal. Ontarians - including big industrial Ontario - need to conserve. That is the only way we can get rid of the fossil fuel generators. Autistic Children? I believe he said that he has injected new money into providing for special needs in the school system.

If I throw a $5 bill at your wife does that make her a prostitute? Contract law (which treaties are) requires the agreement to meet certain criteria to be valid. The first and foremost is that there must be a meeting of the minds. If the agreement is vague or not consistent with the beliefs of one of the parties than the courts will render it null, reversing anything that might have stemmed from the agreement, and providing compensation in order to make the parties whole - as if the agreement was never made. A second perquisite is that there must be consideration - both parties must mutually benefit from the agreement. Where one party does not fulfill their side of the bargain, then the courts can make awards to fulfill the contract and add any penalties it prescribes for the failures. In most cases of the Haldimand surrenders there was neither a meeting of the minds, or consideration. Money that was purported to be obtained through many of the valid leases were to have been placed in a a trust account, the interest of which was to benefit Six Nations. However, in many cases the monies were not placed into account, and the government has been stalling on presenting the records of transactions they wee obligated to provide as trustees. In so far as Six Nations has examined some of the records of the trust it appears that a majority of the funds were embezzled by the Indian agents, removed as extraneous and unauthorized expenses and misappropriated for personal of government instigated projects - some of which failed. As far as a meeting of the minds goes it is clear that there is a discrepancy between what the Confederacy claims it authorized and what the government insists happened. A number of the documents the government has provided as proof have been dismissed by ours and their negotiators because of many inconsistencies concerning time-lines, actual correspondence and apparent alterations and editions of the document text. The government negotiators are presently charged with providing alternate documentation which they claimed they had 6 months ago but have failed to produce. As well the continuing objections by the Confederacy in the 1800's to the government and the King suggest that they did not authorize the sales and instead land sales were pushed ahead by the government without Confederacy approval. In the end it appears that we cannot prove that Six Nations sold the land to us, or that any monies that were supposed to be paid were in fact paid. By any court, that would make us responsible to abide by the Haldimand Proclamation and return lands that never belonged to us. By the grace of the Confederacy they have offered they are not interested in displacing homeowners of businesses off of the Haldimand, but that Crown lands and vacant lands under development should be returned. As well it is fitting IMO that Six Nations is not only due appropriation compensation for loss of use of such lands but that they should jointly benefit from all development, new and existing that occurs in the tract.

Of course your opinion is worthless. R. v Marshall Looks like yours doesn't even qualify as a minority opinion.

A house under construction is not a "dwelling" and the courts hold possession, search and seizure laws differently. From what I have read so far, every indication is that Sam Gualtieri initiated the fight, and the young men got the upper hand. One of Sam Gualtieri's nephews has already admitted that they went outside looking for a two by four to use against the youths and when they returned they found Sam unconscious and the youth running down the street. They claim he was beaten with an oak railing picket, yet his injuries don't show a whole lot of facial lacerations or head wounds that would indicate an attck with an weapon like that. Instead, his injuries suggest concussion which would more likely have been caused by repeated blows to the head by a blunt instrument, like a fist. Obviously (or not to the more pedantic posters) his nephews would not have gone out and left Sam alone to look for weapons, if they had of been on the upper end of a fist of cuffs. I have heard that the only way to stop a Mohawk would be to kill them. Their tenacity in battle is unmatched by no one and reason enough why Mohawk warriors are well respected in both the Canadian Armed Forces and the US Armed Forces. I digress.....

So here we'll back the truck up. Everything that follows stems from the incorrect answer to this. Brant could have been designated a "Pine Tree" chief however, there is no record of him ever being raised up. If he had their would have been a wampum created for his installation. And if he was it still neither authorized him to speak on behalf of the Mohawks, or the Confederacy or to hold power of attorney over anyone. A Pine Tree is nothing more than an advisor to the Confederacy and is allowed to speak in Council and Caucus. While they cannot be deposed, the usual response to a Pine Chief once he was cut down was to simply ignore his suggestions. Thus he still formed part of the council but had no voice in which to influence it. No Royaner (which I am told means "he has been raised")could speak for the Confederacy on any issue. Instead there had to be at least 3 Royaner, and their Clan Mother present in every discussion. National decisions - among the Mohawk as example - had to be made and presented at a National Council of the Mohawk and only then a delegation selected by the National Council could be sent to sign the deal. This same process was emulated by the Confederacy Council and the British were well aware of the process having dealt with the Confederacy on many occasions previously. Secondly, by the time Six Nations moved back to the Haldimand, they were accustomed to writing the minutes of their Council meetings and no where in their records do they show Brant with power of attorney to sell land to the British. In fact there are copies of correspondence sent to and received from the British along with the minutes of meetings from the 1800's that clearly indicate that the Council had refused to sell land, and they were insisting that the squatters be removed - forcibly if necessary - from the tract of land. Contained in the records are also copies of letters whereby the British had guaranteed they were doing everything possible to keep settlers out of the are but that they had difficultly with "land barons and men of ill character" selling the land to unsuspecting immigrants. There was no authority either by Confederacy law or British law that allowed the illegal land sales to stick. Brant was accused by the Confederacy of brokering land leases to which the Confederacy neither authorized or initiated and after the first couple leases and a noticeable difference of opinion, Brant was "cut down" by the Confederacy Council. Shortly after in shame Brant exiled himself to Hamilton. History shows that the Indian Agents were heavily involved in embezzling the Six Nations trust, as well as selling lands and producing dubious documents. And as the crime was perpetuated by the government and under the nose of the government, there s a legal case for a return of lands and/or fair market payment for all those lands illegally taken or squatted on.

My summary for tonight's debate? Dalton McGuinty was apologetic and evasive. He kept repeating that he is still dealing with the Conservatives 8 year massive screw of the adminstration and the deficit. John Tory was....was.....was....(well I eventually squinted my eyes and all of a sudden his true picture came to mind - A Rat! Smelling, whining and sniveling cartoon rat!) Howard Hampton looked like a deer in headlights and was obviously stumped most the time. I think it set the tone when Steve Paikin asked him his name and he hesitated like he had to think about it as a trick question. Overall Dalton wins points for standing up to the whiner.

No. You'll have to look in the "H-______" designations. Canada holds no jurisdiction over the Haundenosaunee. Look it up. The Queen and the Governor General have all the paperwork.

No. Crown allies. Which brings us to the next point of that equation. Canada, complete with its letters patent, is nothing more than a Crown Corporation, with the major stockholder, the Queen. And since the Crown had agreements directly with the Crown, that would put Canada as having no business, control or authority over Six Nations. Of course the is according to the "Rule of Law", which I expect now the termites will come out of the woodwork to dispute, ravage and deny. It just that no one here actually believes in the "Rule of Law" and instead subscribe to the "Rule of making it up as we go along and faking it". I do say that their wives have made a better job of faking than they are......

Wrong. Those who hold dual citizenship get to vote and still go back to their home countries....under OUR "Rule of Law". However, Six Nations under the Great Law cannot hold dual citizenship in any other nation and so they refuse to vote in Canadian elections as a sign of their patriotism to their nations. Still even though Canada "allows" someone to vote doesn't define them as Canadian, and the fact the majority of Six Nations do not vote is sufficient evidence that they believe they are not Canadian. And lastly there is no (and was never any) conscription of native people into the Canadian system - legally or otherwise. Simply having an act to watch over them does not legally assimilate them either. Rather we also have a ministry and numerous acts dealing with foreign affairs, and yet no one is silly enough to believe that those foreigners whom the acts are prescribed for, are Canadian in any shape or form.

Oh you should do YOUR homework....... The Supreme Court of Canada already ruled oral history is sometimes more valuable than written records in determining what the content of the agreements with the Crown were. So your opinion is worth squat. The "Rule of Law" confirms oral history is not only valid but necessary to present the customs and rights prior to contact on issues of lands rights and aboriginal rights.

Funny isn't it..... The "Rule of Law" INCLUDES the determination that oral history is MORE valid that written British history and is to be given EQUAL or better weight in deciding what agreements exist between First Nations and the Crown. Secondly, the "Rule of Law" INCLUDES First Nations' rights to determine what happens to land they have an interest in. Too bad you use so much hyperbole to try to make a case that really isn't there. Funny isn't it......?

Six Nations had a responsible and democratic government system before the feds came in at gunpoint, removed the Chiefs and installed the band system under the Indian Act. The Confederacy system of democratic government and the Great Law (their Constitution) go back over 1000 years and has never been dissolved. The Haldimand Proclamation set aside certain lands for Six Nations (and other tribes friendly to Six nations) for their exclusive use with guarantees that they would not be encroached upon by the expanding colonial settlers. This agreement was broken even before the Haldimand was put into effect, and Six Nations sent wave after wave of deputations to the British Governor of Canada. Joseph Brant even travelled toe England for an audience with the King who promised that the King's colonies would protect Six Nations on the Haldimand from encroachment. However, the business interests and settlers ignored the declaration and invaded the Haldimand without recourse. Still in 1924 when the Confederacy was deposed the Chiefs were still complaining. Sixn nations has made EVERY effort legally to get the attention of the government and have their lands returned to them. And today despite our modern information system and the support of an overwhelming majority of Canadians who support the settlement of land claims, the government refuses to return lands and make fair compensations for the loss of use of those lands and resources. I will repeat again that Brant neither sold land or was complacent in the squatting on the Haldimand. He attempted to lease some lands with the expectation that doing so would head off the illegal land grabs and at the same time benefit Six Nations in the long term. It was the Indian Agent and the British that converted those leases without any authority or agreement of Six Nations and completely illegal under the Royal Proclamation. If you have been paying attention you will have realized that Six Nations does not pursue the return of lands occupied by residents with illegal title. Instead they move on undeveloped lands (or lands that are in the process of development) in an effort to stop the further occupation of lands that potentially could be returned to them. In addition, they are insisting during negotiations that all land development in the Haldimand be stopped until such time as the lands claims are exhausted. As well part of the federal offer of $125 million included an attempt to pay off the illegal appropriation of the Six Nations' trust that was borrowed for Crown ventures but never repaid. The last estimate I heard from Six Nations accountants was that the present-day value of that missing trust account is $25 billion. The $125 mil is a long way away from $25 billion and it was seen as a slap in the face. This is further evidence that the government is playing games and not serious about finding common ground. "Fairness" in this issue is not based on emotional immaturity or political correctness. It is based on what is truth and what is just under the law. As it stands Six Nation's claims are valid and the government continues to allow development on the lands that can be returned. There is nothing fair about having to chase down a government to comply with its own laws. We owe Six Nations justice and a fair audience to hear their claims.

Maybe you should have listened earlier instead of planning what you were going to say while reading my posts. The government has a complete record of the complaints and grievances filed by Six Nations beginning in the late 1700's through to the present. The doctrine of latches does not apply because the complaints were filed from the very beginning and the consecutive governments just ignored them.

Perhaps you have "scored a point" on this one? It is true that the Alberta tar sands were inhabitable lands. However, the roads to access the tar sands cross First Nations land. The gravel used to build those roads came from First Nations lands. The steel to build equipment to mine the tar sands came from First Nations lands. The oil and water used to operate the tars sands extraction process came from First Nations lands. etc etc.' So you see the tar sands which you think contributes to Canadian economy would not have been possible if we did not exploit First Nations lands fro our own benefit. Back to the future....Canada's "natural" wealth does not BELONG to Canada. The "natural" wealth all belongs to First Nations, save and except you single point on the uninhabited tar sands region. And in fact before us "whities" showed up First Nations enjoyed a vast trade with other nations across the Americas. They had everything they needed when they needed it. For the most part there was no poverty because one held out over another and one nation struggled to survive, other nations shared what the had and struggled right along side them. And you know what. The lived happily and prosperously without producing tons of radioactive and other wastes, water and air pollution. Their methods of living with the land were sustainable and practical. And when a resource was harvested it didn't destroy the rest of the ecosystem in the process. The land shared and natives shared the land. So with all our affluence and prosperity, where does all that wealth we toil for actually go? With 90% of the wealth being held by 5% of the population, it means that 95% of us are fighting and working for a small slice of that remaining 10%. Seems to me we are not better off for it. We're just above slavery and running from poverty because of it.

The courts under their interpretation disagree with you and do not believe that applying the law of 250 years ago, identifying the injustice and reconciling the land rights with present-day applications of fairness, is unreasonable at all. In fact the courts have gone to great lengths to prescribe that the government must stop forging ahead without consultation and that they MUST accommodate native peoples when allowing development on their lands. The doctrine of latches doesn't apply, since the evidence shows that First Nation peoples made numerous attempts to have their grievances recognized but that the British and then their successors - our government - refused to hear them. And basically the courts are saying that legally we can't ignore them any longer. On the second part of this, the courts have also be increasingly adamant about awarding penalties for loss of use, in addition to the current fair-market value of lands and resources. This is exactly why the feds pull the cases out of court and into a political area. We cannot afford the huge settlements that First Nations are owed, nor can we afford the continued grievances aired before the international community that tarnish Canada as a free and equal society. Brant had no authority to sell anything belonging to the Confederacy, and while you can claim that a mistake can't be undone, the courts say it can when the government was culpable and knew Brant had no authority in the first place. And by that nature when a fraud such as this is perpetrated, the legal remedy is to undo the deal and restore the losses in the most just way possible. That is the purpose of negotiations, to identify and settle the illegal land transfers in the most agreeable way possible. Certainly those iron clad deals and titles you think are so air-tight are full of holes when the government admits to the claim and offers a settlement as an offer to quit them.

However, not in the case of the current lands claims by Six Nations. The Minister of Indian Affairs has already confirmed previously that Six Nation's (and Tyendinaga's) land claims are outside of the Specifis Lands Claims process. These issues will be only settled by negotiation, or we face the constant and persistent action so land reclamations and economic disruption for a long time to come......

Using armor piercing bombs does. First of all Judges are supposed to be unbiased. After all justice is blind. And Court is not a political process involving the "will" of anyone. It is a court of law, where the first premise is to uphold the Constitution,including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and then uphold the law that is consistent with both. The law says both are wrong in asserting their claims against the natives. However, we all know that launching a lawsuit with a hefty claim is a simple legal maneuver to scare the opponents. However, in my experience Native people with Truth on their side aren't scared of petty acts by inexperienced lawyers. But Frontenac is suing the wrong agency and they are in a tenuous position. If they were smart they would join a class action against the Provincial government since it was they who issued the permits without consulting the natives. I highly doubt their claim will make it past the first hearing. However, since failing to consult IS a tort as set out in the above case, it is obvious that both Frontenac and the Province bear responsibility for the damages they each caused as a result of their actions. And since your opinion is unsupported by precedent it is obvious that you are still wrong. Geez, it must just feel awful for your being wrong so many times in one day.....

Nah. More B.S. Coming from you that doesn't surprise me. Maybe if you studied the legal papers a bit more instead of relying upon genealogy sites for your information might help....

Legally Joseph Brant could not have sold the land. Even if there were a title around somewhere with his signature on it, it would have not legal any authority because one, the Royal Proclamation demanded that Natives could only sell their land to the Crown, and two the British recognized and affirmed that Six Nations required a consensus of the community before any land could be sold, leased or otherwise ceded. So, no matter what Joseph Brant involved himself in, he neither had authority under the law, or authority as an agent for the Confederacy. It is just that simple. EVERY member of the Haudenosaunee society are equal, free and able to enjoy full rights. There were no forced marriages (primarily because the weddings were the device of the women and the Clan Mothers, and divorce was as easy as telling the man to leave the long house) and prisoners were held only as long as they were useful to the community - that includes no longer being a threat (Kind of like being a prisoner but under more gentle and compassionate conditions). If they refused to participate in the community they were let go and if they did participate they were adopted into the nation. I'm really disheartened kengs333, that I can't have an intelligent conversation with you on this subject. I realize that in comparison you and your riverwind friends are starting at a deficit, but I had hoped you would at least research the trail I set out before you. Seems that arguing myths is your specialty but alas they are still ephemeral nonsense no matter how you try to spin them.

Court is not a place where two sovereign entities settle their differences. And according to the government they must recognize that Six Nations is sovereign or otherwise what other reason could they have for not wanting Six Nations land claims in court? Unless the documents they have purporting that Six Nations sold lands are fraudulent......OR the evidence Six Nations holds prove the lands were never ceded. The fact is, our government refuses to go to court to settle these claims and has gone to great lengths to avoid the civil system. People only do that when they can't win and want to find another way to keep the stolen properties.

They've already been to court and the government asked them to negotiate when they received their copy of Six Nations' evidence. No doubt our government would try to mitigate damages through negotiation rather than pursue a court case if they knew they would lose. Every claim Six Nations has made so far is based on irregularities in the documentation prepared by the British or the Canadian government. In fact there are so many inconsistencies that the government has acknowledged that the document you cited earlier is not valid as evidence of a surrender. They have not brought any claim to the table in a frivolous manner. Each claim is valid or the governmetn would not have made an offer to settle 7 of the current ones on the table.

Wrong again Bud. The appeals court never addressed Judge Marshall's statement about ceasing negotiation until the site was vacated because his tongue lashing never made it into his ruling. Instead the appeals court only said that the injunction only applied BEFORE the April buy-out and that the order to the police to charge anyone found on the site was not legal, since they could not arrest anyone without first having "cause" (and simply being on site was not evidence of the refusal of injunction). As it stands now the province has publicly stated that the protesters can remain on site. So they are there legally. And all the other sites they occupy will be justified through estopple since the provincial government continues to issue permits and approvals for development of lands under dispute. What IS illegal is the continued refusal to consult and accomodate on ALL development BEFORE ANY developmetn begins. Today the Confederacy and Six Nations just told the Haldimand Council to stop all development, or face similar and continuous occupations. Under the law they have no choice but to stop. Failing to do so is sufficient justification for Six Nations to stop development themselves.

No, you are not correct. Joseph Brant attempted to get the squatters to sign leases - succeeding at a few - but the colonial government converted them to sales without authority. In a number of other cases the Indian Agent took the money from the valid leases and embezzled it putting it into high cost expenses and investments like the failed Grand River Navigation company. Six Nations identity is not linked to any racial heritage. There were lots of Dutch, English and French who were adopted at one time into the Confederate nations whose descendants are considered Mohawk, Seneca, Cayuga, Oneida, Onondaga, or Tuscarora. There were also lots of Mississauga, Algonquin Abernaki and other nations adopted into the nations and they too enjoy the full protection of the Confederacy and the Great Law. The Confederacy is a political entity and the Great Law is a Constitution of all the people who belong to it.