charter.rights

We've heard you opinion before. It doesn't make it so just because YOU believe it. The Purpose of the Royal Proclamation 1763 was to protect aboriginal rights, not to subvert them. SCoC Laskin J In Calder v. A-G of British Columbia (1973) said: “This Proclamation was an Executive Order having the force and effect of an Act of Parliament and was described by Gwynne, J … as the “Indian Bill of Rights”…its force as a statute to the status of Magna Carta which has always been considered to be the law throughout the Empire. It was a law which followed the flag as England assumed jurisdiction over newly discovered or acquired lands or territories… In respect of this Proclamation, it can be said that when other exploring nations were showing a ruthless disregard of native rights England adopted a remarkably enlightened attitude towards the Indians of North America. The Proclamation must be regarded as a fundamental document upon any just determination of original rights rests.” SCoC Larmer C. J. In DELGAMUUKW v. BRITISH COLUMBIA (1997) said: ...the sui generis [i.e., unique] nature of Aboriginal title as the unifying principle underlying its various dimensions. These are: • inalienability, in that lands held pursuant to Aboriginal title may be transferred or surrendered only to the Crown: this does not mean, however, that Aboriginal title "is a non-proprietary interest which amounts to no more than a licence to use and occupy the land and cannot compete on an equal footing with other proprietary interests" (par. 113); • source, in that Aboriginal title arises from (1) occupation of Canada by Aboriginal peoples prior to the Royal Proclamation of 1763: under common law principles, the physical fact of occupation is proof of possession in law; and (2) the relationship between common law and pre-existing systems of Aboriginal law; • communal nature, in that Aboriginal title is a collective right to land held by all members of an Aboriginal nation. These features cannot be explained fully under either common law rules of real property, or property rules of Aboriginal legal systems. So from this we have the following facts: 1. The Royal Proclamation 1763 was a 'fundamental document upon any just determination of original rights rests'. 2. Aboriginal authority over land was a 'sui generis' (unique and not readily understood under common law) that made it 'inalienable' by any other means except surrender to the Crown, that the recognition of the source was from aboriginal occupation and use of lands prior to the Proclamation, and that it was personal and communal in nature - a usufruct among all people of the nation. Given these facts, the ScoC has also ruled in Chippewa of Sarnia (2000) v. A-G of Canada that the following test had to be applied in order to determine whether or not a surrender could be declared to have taken place: 1. Did the surrender procedures set out in the Royal Proclamation have the force of law at the time of the sale? 2. Did the Chippewas surrender the disputed lands to the Crown? 3. If the lands were not surrendered, did the Chippewas nonetheless consent to or affirm the sale? 4. Is the Chippewas’ claim barred by any statutory limitation periods? 5. In the absence of a surrender, is the Cameron patent void ab initio or is the remedy subject to the exercise of the court’s discretion? 6. Do the equitable defences of laches and acquiescence apply to bar the Chippewas’ claim to the disputed lands? 7. Does the equitable defence of good faith purchaser for value apply to defeat the Chippewas’ claim? If so, was the motions judge correct in finding that the defence of good faith purchaser for value was subject to an equitable sixty-year limitation period before it can operate to extinguish the Chippewas’ claim to the land? 8. If the Chippewas enjoy continuing and unextinguished rights in the disputed lands, should this court order that the Crown has a duty to negotiate in good faith with the Chippewas? [189] The Indian provisions of the Royal Proclamation ... creates an interior Indian territory beyond the colonies and the western settlement barrier. It prohibits government land grants of any kind in this territory and prohibits government land grants in the colonies of unceded Indian land...The leave and licence provisions are of little application and have no significance to this case. In this case the Court held that surrender had not taken place. In essence acquiescence cannot be assumed. It also provided that government could not issues grants or licenses for settlement. So in Six Nations defense there was either no surrender, or a very clear cut case to determine if one took place. In fact what we are talking about that Southern Ontario was never surrender, is supported by the Chippewas case above. There is no evidence that a surrender took place in this capacity. So yes right now I am talking about land title...or a sui generis...Which provides the support for the soveriegnty issue. You have recognized that Six Nations and other FN were sovereign before the Proclamation took effect. The Proclamation did not have the force of removing aboriginal rights but of protecting them, and as such their sovereignty would have still been intact at the date the RP was proclaimed. What you are saying if I can get to the crux of it, is that Six Nations acquiesced to the Crown, or at least the law of laches applies such that they did nothing to change the situation or assert their right to self-government. However the SCoC has said that self-government is a right derived prior to the Proclamation and it is inherent and inalienable. So surrender of that right (if surrender of rights is possible) would have had to be specific and deliberate, such that according to Lord Denning: ...it was of the first importance to pay great respect to their laws and customs, and never interfere with them... McLachlin J.’s comments in R. v. Van der Peet, (1996): For legislation or regulation to extinguish an aboriginal right,the intention to extinguish must be “clear and plain”: Sparrow, supra at p. 1099. The Canadian test for extinguishment of aboriginal rights borrows from the American test, enunciated in United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734 (1986), at pp. 739-40: “[w]hat is essential [to satisfy the “clear and plain” test’] is clear evidence that [the government] actually considered the conflict between its intended action on the one hand and Indian treaty rights on the other, and chose to resolve that conflict by abrogating the treaty” or right. What this means is that acquiescence is not a valid instrument to surrender a right, but that the surrender of a right must be clear and concise and must be an act of the Crown, and not the government on its own. And further arising from the Chippewas v. A-G of Canada the SCoC recognizd that no surrender could take place except in the full customs and ceremony in full public view of the nation. So that sui generis was held by individual and separate nations BEFORE the proclamation. That cannot be understated since there are many pre-Proclamation treaties which depended on it. The proclamation could not simply assume to remove their sovereignty by a unilateral declaration nor can they lose their right to self-government through acquiescence or neglect. And since their sui-generis title over land is unique we must also conclude that their right to self-government is also unique ab intio. Therefore there must have been a 'clear and concise' action by the Crown and Six Nations, held in full public view to surrender that right to self-government. In fact this never took place and from before the Proclamation until today Six Nations has held fast that they are a sovereign and independent people who hold a treaty relationship with the Crown. In 2006 the government recognized de facto that the Confederacy (and not the band government) would be taking the lead in negotiations at Caledonia. They accepted that they had the authority to commit Six Nations people to the process. On your point about submitting to the Courts, I would suggest that you revisit the NAFTA conflict over lumber tariffs where the government of Canada appealed to the US Supreme Court for redress. If as you say that submitting to one nations courts automatically creates a acquiescence, then welcome to the U.S. The treaty relationship between Six Nations and the Crown (not the government but the Crown in Right of Canada) cannot be altered by an act of the government and the government's failure to uphold Crown's fiduciary responsibilities can be challenged in Canadian courts. That is the proper place one would go to force the government to act in good faith, and those courts could so order it. Finally. This does not mean that there is a division of Canada, or suddenly armed borders start showing up everywhere. But what it does mean is that the nature of Canada - its constitutionality - is not what it appears, nor what YOU believe. So it is a myth in essence certainly as far as how First Nations fit into it. And that means that we must sit down to sort out exactly where F.N fit into Canada, and ask them where they want to be. At the same time we can't engage most Canadians because like you they are hung out on the myths and legal magic created by the Family Compact of the 1800s with it full intent to steal land they were banned by the Crown from doing. So the Crown of Canada on behalf of HRM subjects will be the ones engaged in the discussions. However, if F.N want out, then we have no choice but to renegotiate our position here. A Rwanda type solution is not an option even though most Canadians would surely be calling for it.

A myth...at best.

Ad hominen. I see you are out of intelligent discussion.

Japan, Switzerland, Australia. There are three for you. You really are a train wreck.... I have posted 10 or more links to back up what I have been saying. You have cited what? One? There is your problem. You can't think about what you really don't know and understand. Being colonially biased you have succumbed to the myth of Canada - even to the expense of Quebec being suck up by British roots. That's good because that makes you just an ordinary Canadian whose has even lost track of his own roots..... So you've lost it. What else is new?

Not at all. Proposition meets proposition and when they are resolved we can agree on the fact. That is what intellectual discussion is all about. You cannot come to a conclusion that your beliefs hold more weight than another person's facts unless you can refute it with facts that support your case.

Oh but it can and does all the time. The fact that they interpret and refine meanings and application of rights forces constitutional changes from the old stogy beliefs and colonial bias to new progressive views. So while they don't touch the wording, their declarations and precedent-setting rulings change the meaning behind the Constitution and thus it evolves.

Making a declaration isn't altering the Constitution and the Courts are within their boundaries to do such things. "Following the Supreme Court of Canada’s declaration that Omar Khadr’s rights were breached by actions of the Canadian government, the spheres of power claimed by Canada’s government and Canada’s courts have clashed." A good example. The declaration doesn't have to prescribe any solution but to say that the government's actions violate aboriginal rights would force government not only to reconsider their stance with respect to independent self government, but would cause them to enter into negotiations and examinations of the constitutionality of Indian status under the framework. Aboriginal Self-Government "If an Aboriginal people is successful in proving a right of self-government, and the Crown fails to prove that it was extinguished prior to 17 April 1982, it would have been recognized and affirmed by the Constitution as an existing Aboriginal right at that time." The extent of the jurisdiction that can be exercised depends on either the scope of the right of self-government, or on the delegating legislation. Some Aboriginal nations claim that they have an inherent right to govern all aspects of their nation's affairs, and that their relationship with Canada is a nation-to-nation relationship that is not governed by the Canadian Constitution. I have provided proof that a pre-existing aboriginal right to sovereign self-government exists. It is up to the Crown (or you since you are taking that position) to prove it was extinguished prior to 1982. I have found nothing in 20 years of researching this subject that suggests that at least Six Nations' rights were ever extinguished.

The aboriginal side of the table goes back 500 years of post contact law, history and custom. What do you think the Two Row Wampum was about? It set out the terms of the nation to nation relationship between the Dutch and their government system and the Haudenosaunee and their government system....go in the same direction but never interfering with each other.... And then when the British arrived they formalized it in the Silver Covenant Chain Treaty - Peace, Friendship and Goodwill. From the aboriginal perspective they never gave up to the British, but have worked side by side with them over 200 years for their joint benefit. You are still stuck in an tenuous position. The real point here is that there is no agreement on what sovereignty means to us and them, or how it can be applied to them either inside or outside our Constitutional Order. And that creates a dispute between what we say they are and what they say they have always been. There can never be a reconciliation until WE recognize that their status MIGHT very well be something we don't understand. (This is the crux of the constitutional debate). Then we have a position we can both negotiate from. However, your problem is your refusal to acknowledge that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that either they are not Canadians and not subjects of the Crown, or very minimally that there is a confusion as to how they fit under a Confederation that shunned and tried to dismantle them against their will. The fact that we are still required to make treaties with them over land, and to observe their rights and consult with them about issues that affect them suggests that their involvement under the Constitutional prerogative is not the same as ordinary Canadians. We know it is not. So that special status means that we cannot decide whether or not we hold authority and sovereignty over them unless we involve them in the examination and discussion. Rather we must first present a case for inclusion based on recognition that they have the choice to decide, and listen to their case of exclusion, or inclusion with terms acceptable to them. We do not however, have the authority to ignore their points of view and demand that they adhere to our (or more specifically YOUR) point of view. As I said earlier, all the Supreme Court need do is to make a declaration similar to what the Federal Court did to Davis and Horne, by declaring that Mohawks are not Canadians. That does not automatically create a succession but it puts our jurisdiction in peril and requires us to open up the door a little wider. And as the SCoC has also ruled in a number of cases, their history whether oral or otherwise recorded, must be given equal or better weight in the discussion. Otherwise, we go no where. They "in their canoe and us in our boat", and I predict it will be rough waters ahead for both of us. And if you wonder why lands claims and development issues keeping rearing their ugly heads, this is it.

You are trying to present a conclusion without going through the process necessary to prove it. So yes if someone tells you there is a God and you stand up and state there isn't, then the burden is on you. Again you are trying to undermine the issue. First it is up to the Crown to present a case of reasonable cause. You as the defense are required to counter the accusation, which is what you are failing to do here. Rather you jump right to the conclusion and suggest that YOUR conclusion is fact, when it is nothing more than an unsubstantiated belief. Yes. It is up to Health Canada to substantiate any claims BEFORE they approve the drug for use in Canada. Incorrect. All you are doing is presenting an argumentum ad ignorantiam - a fallacy argument - that has no place in formal and intelligent debate.

You seriously need a formal education... Six Nation - Haudenosaune Confederacy.

Wrong. If you dispute the claims then the onus is on you to provide the proof that her claims are not legitimate. Of course that would be the way scholars refute others' claims. With your spelling and lack of debating skills, your matchbox university degree was likely of the mail order variety.

Kahentinetha Horne lives in Akwesasne - or Cornwall Island - not the US. Katenies Davis lives in Kahnawake, not the US. So the Court said they were not Canadians, or at least agreed in a round about way with an assertion that Mohawks were not entitled to deal in a Canadian court. That is an open door. Six Nations has sets for 50 Royaner, or diplomats that speak on behalf of the Confederacy, and have often sent delegations all over the world, and been recognized all over the world as representing their respective nations. The Confederacy need not be a member of the UN to be legitimate. That's hogwash. Six Nations Confederacy produces its own passports that have been recognized in about 50 or more countries. The Iroquois National Lacrosse team travels regularly under that passport. The US recognizes and has for 50 years and have been negotiating with the Confederacy to update their passport to a secure passport that is acceptable to the standards laid out by Homeland Security. The Mohawk Warriors are a militia force that are raised up from time to time to defend theirs and other nations. Six Nations does not have a need to have a full fledged army since their political ideology is based on the Great Law of Peace, which uses diplomacy to solve issues as long as it is possible. Six Nations has a land base that was never surrendered to the Crown. Six nations has about 25 treaties with other Nations, including the US and Canada. The Six Nations Confederacy has their own constitution and have a democratic government system that has been around for about 1000 years. The meet your test, and yet you still deny it in favour of your myths. Canada has no land base. It only holds a usufrutary use of aboriginal land. So it fails one of your tests.

Now you're back to using semantics..."contemporary sense of the word"...ya right. We are talking nation to nation, recognition - equal status, sovereign over their respective governments and the people it served. Six Nations was a sovereign nation on equal status to the Crown before the Proclamation and creating a whole bunk of "legal magic" didn't change that. It was merely slight of hand, using some wording that never meant what YOU think it means and trying to assert that they automatically became subjects because YOU say so. Neither the Court nor the Government have any authority to determine or limit the scope of Six Nations self-government and sovereignty. And in fact the Federal Court has already taken a step in that direction. While I can't find the actual judgment, Madam Tabib of the Federal Court rejected an application to sue the Canadian Border Agency for their assaults on two elderly Mohawk women, citing that neither Akwesanse or Kahnawake where each of the women were from, was in Canada, meaning that because they were Mohawk and not Canadian, she could not hear the case. The Supreme Court wouldn't need to change the Constitution. All that would be needed is a declaration by the Court that Six Nations people were not Canadian. Evey thing else could flow from that. Very simple indeed. Then we have the matter of United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which provides that States must recognize aboriginal rights. Autonomous self-government is a pre-existing right. That is very simple as well. Aboriginal jurisprudence is evolving, and has come along way in 30 years. There are many cases before the courts today that are continuing to assert the 'unknown' but extensive issue of rights and sovereignty, and refine the previous decisions dealing with recognition by the SCoC, so it is just a matter of time. The Honour of the Crown demands it.

About 50 countries world-wide have recognized the Haudenosaunee passport for over 50 years.

One zero too many.

I don't think so dude. The INTEREST on $1 trillion is over $300 billion a year. Food is grown on their land so we owe them still for that. Health care is not our invention and the costs over 100 years even would be considerably less. You don't know very much, do you....

And you know this: ~how~? Because you said so? Because you are a Supreme Court judge? Or maybe you can use your crystal ball to see the future? Think again. The Supreme Court has stated that the Proclamation is not the origin of aboriginal rights but is the pivot point in history where all rights previous are recognized from that point forward. The Royal Proclamation however, IS the point in law where all British right of sovereignty, law, and jurisdiction stems from....that before the Proclamation they had not right whatsoever over Indians or their land, except where treaties were made and land was surrendered. Do you follow? So as Sovereign nations over land and body, Indians were self-governing (as they have always been) and as such the SCoC regonizes their right to self-government. However attempting to restrict that self-government to our constitutional umbrella has no basis in law, or in the Proclamation itself. Simply declaring sovereignty and jurisdiction over Indians doesn't wash since by their own admission only conquest over other nations gives them authority to rule. So what we have is by all accounts "legal magic" where the Crown of Canada has attempted to assert a claim that really isn't there, nor one supported by the Crown of Great Britain when it was indivisible. Lord Dennings 1982 High Court Judicial Review stated: “Our long experience of these matters taught us how to treat the indigenous peoples. As a matter of public policy, it was of the first importance to pay great respect to their laws and customs, and never interfere with them except when necessary in the interests of peace and good order. It was the responsibility of the Crown of England, and those representing the Crown, to see that the rights of indigenous people were secured to them, and that they were not imposed on by the selfish or the thoughtless or the ruthless. Witness the impeachment of Warren Hastings in Westminister Hall for his conduct of affairs as Governor General of Bengal.” So I would say that unless the Crown of Canada recognizes that First Nations are still autonomous, independent and sovereign the the Crown of Canada is itself the "the selfish or the thoughtless or the ruthless" that the Proclamation was designed to protect against. From the perspective aboriginal people, their status before the Proclamation was the same after as it was before, since the Proclamation was clearly aimed at British subjects, and not aboriginal people. It was a declaration - a clarification - FOR the British subjects and not at the Indians who by treaty had already resolved their differences with the Crown. It was the settler himself who was the problem and the target of the Proclamation, who ignored Crown rule in the new country and whose constant and persistent encroachments on the land and way of life of the Indians that caused so many Indian grievances against Crown. It was the 1754 Treaty of Loggstown that was the final straw when after many encroachments and breeches of previous treaties that Six Nations finally refused to relinquish any more land. While they allowed settlement in areas that had already been occupied on the east side of the Ohio River, they made it clear that there would be no more surrenders, and no more encroachments onto their lands. And while the British were not happy with half of the land they were asking for they agreed to abide by the terms of that Treaty. Their only option was to tell the British settlers in bold where they could and could not settle. Indian lands were "reserved for them" exclusively and under force of penalty if any British subject attempted to buy, lease, use or occupy. They could not even hunt west of the Ohio and so through the Proclamation the British set it aside. No matter what you think was in their mind at the time it is irrelevant to the basis of the law of Canada. 25. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including (a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and ( any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.(94) 35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed. And that would include any rights - the right of autonomous self-government - that were in existence before the Proclamation, as well as after. There was no surrender of lands by Six Nations to any of their lands in Ontario and they have never capitulated treatied or surrendered their Confederacy Government to the British, ever. So at a minimum leaves the Crown's ability to apply "legal magic" against Six Nations or any other Indian nation in a DISPUTE that must be reconciled.

There you go again. Taking things out of context. ...which said seaven nations our predecessors did four score years agoe totally conquer and subdue and drove them out of that country and had peaceable and quiet possession of the same to hunt beavers (which was the motive caused us to war for the same) for three score years it being the only chief place for hunting in this parte of the world that ever wee heard of and after that wee had been sixty years sole masters and owners of the said land enjoying peaceable hunting without any internegotion, a remnant of one of the seaven nations called Tionondade whom wee had expelled and drove away came and settled there twenty years agoe disturbed our beaver hunting against which nation wee have warred ever since and would have subdued them long ere now had not they been assisted and succoured by the French of Canada... The Huron were one nation of the seven nations that the Iroquois chased out of the Beaver Hunting Grounds (Detroit and the Michigan Peninsula) and while they did possess around Georgian Bay they also possessed the other side of the river (what? you think there was an imaginary border then?) and drove them out of the Beaver Hunting Grounds 60 years earlier. Most of the Huron (which by their real name is Wendat) went to Quebec in 1656 with the French after disease decimated their populations, but the remaining 7 nations fled to west. Southern Ontario was not included in the Nanfan. You are incredibly naive. The map presents a Royal Proclamation 1763 era interpretation of the Nanfan surrender, and just like the Supreme Court of Canada has been refining what the Royal Proclamation really meant, the Mitchell Map provides a much more modern and accurate rendition of the surrender...especially since you have trouble with your interpretations in light of the supporting evidence I have provided on numerous occasions proving you could (and like are in my mind) be wrong.

By the way. Did anyone here know that a copy of the Two Row Wampum hangs in the foyer of Osgoode Hall? Apparently they think it has some legal significance..... Could it be that the Law Society of Upper Canada respects the first Nation to Nation treaty ade between Six Nations and the Europeans?

It has been acknowledged that the trust exists, and we have provided proof that it does in fact exist. The problem is that INAC will not come clean about where all the money is, or how much is actually held there. Like I also said it is in the historical record that Samuel Jarvis was caught stealing money from the trust, as well as trust funds had been used to build Osgoode Hall and the the Grand River Navigation Company without any of it being returned. So the money is supposed to be there legally, and interests paid as per the schedules. INAC just refuse to put it all together and tell Six Nations what they think it is worth. Six Nations has already calculated what it should be and where there is a discrepancy it must be investigated, negotiated and resolved to Six Nations satisfaction. After all. It is their money.

The interpretations are wrong. That is why I told you to go look at The Mitchell Map 1757. According to linguist Carl Mastay, the the etymology of the word "Canagariarchio" (Kanakta'riha'tsyo) comes from Mohawk (the second being the most correct spelling) Kanakta - the place, bed or the flat place 'riha' meaning "in the middle of" and 'tsyo" meaning "at the end of the lakes". Put together it translates the "flat place in the middle of the lakes", best describe today as the Michigan Peninsula. Now go to them Mitchell Map and follow along: Beginning around Hamilton. Lake Superior...look at the spot between Lakes Superior, Huron and Michigan where the Outauowacs or Outawa Nation lies...ie the great lake of the Outauowac Lake Erie. So Nanfan described the land between the Great Lake Superior and Lake Erie as being included in the surrender. The forks of the Wabache River and the Ohio River. If you find the bold words starting with S I X N A T I O N S, the work Twigh Twies shows up just below. The etymology of this name comes from the Iroquoian word for "Pig" which describes where wild boar hunting was prolific. Chicago. Look at the bottom of Lake Michigan to find Quadoghe which is near where Chicago is today. Tieugsachrondio (The Beaver Hunting Grounds), or its alias "Fort Detroit". The Beaver Hunting Grounds were located on the west side of Lake Huron near where Detroit stands today. .Runs back around Lake Erie. Irondequoit, New York 20 miles from Seneca Castles, New York. So if you have been referencing the map we can take the "Coles Notes" approach by looking first at Quodoghe on the map for the line that goes south which is labelled "Western Bounds of Six Nations, sold and surrender to Great Britain" then follow that line up on the east side of Lake Michigan to the top of the Michigan Peninsula going round the lake (and then the line changes to a smaller dash) on the west side of Lake Huron down to Detroit. Then according to the Treaty the surrender goes south to the west end of Lake Erie, "round the lake" past Canahogue making a straight line to Oniadarondaquat (Irondequoit), New York. Now what confirms that the surrender is in the Michigan lands is the text that follows: ...which said seaven nations our predecessors did four score years agoe totally conquer and subdue and drove them out of that country and had peaceable and quiet possession of the same to hunt beavers (which was the motive caused us to war for the same) for three score years it being the only chief place for hunting in this parte of the world that ever wee heard of and after that wee had been sixty years sole masters and owners of the said land enjoying peaceable hunting without any internegotion, a remnant of one of the seaven nations called Tionondade whom wee had expelled and drove away came and settled there twenty years agoe disturbed our beaver hunting against which nation wee have warred ever since and would have subdued them long ere now had not they been assisted and succoured by the French of Canada So they are saying that the Wendat, Tobacco, Neutral and Cat Nations were expelled from southern Ontario by The Haudenosaunee and 20 years previous to the Nanfan the Tionondades came back to the Beaver Hunting Grounds and harassed the Iroquois and set off a war with them, that would have been successful if they had not been assisted by the French. As well the Six Nations Confederacy added 2 more nations - the Nicariages (see the top end of Michigan on the Mitchell Map) and the Messesagues (see north of Lake Huron) - which gave them sovereign authority to surrender it to the British. Soooo. If you are still following along, go back on the map to the top of Lake Michigan and follow that line that we were following before eastward through Nipissing (past Lake Nipisfin) where the label now changes to "Bounds of the Six Nations" all the way to Montreal. And if you study the map below that line you will find all sorts of notes and labels that define the land to the lakes as Six Nations Territory or the Northern Iroquois(which is the same thing). Six Years later, the Royal Proclamation 1763 is issued and the map that was provided still shows Southern Ontario as Six Nations Territory" So where does it say on that map that the land in what is now Canada belonged to the British, again?

Well put.

Sure. But it is the same indivisible Crown that took control of that money and as such Canada holds responsibility for it today.

I was the one that cited the Nanfan 1701, not you. And in fact you forget all treaties were written by British so using semantics as your argument is lame. You might very well read the entire Nanfan instead of taking bits and pieces like you are prone to do. The refer to the Mitchell Map 1757 which also delineates the boundaries of the Six Nation surrender under Nanfan. One would think that if the British were really using the Mitchell Map as propaganda, as you claim they did that they could have easily included the Ontario lands as part of their surrender. They didn't because they recognized Six Nations sovereign right to surrender a part of their territory and retain the other under Six Nations sovereign right. "...lands on this side of Cadarachqui lake" refers to the land south of Lake Ontario. Nanfan was signed in New York. Ontario lands remain the sovereign territory of Six Nations.

That's where your problem lies. It is not an "undisputed fact". It is and has been disputed ever since it was declared. And the other problem it that I am not making a claim using the Proclamation alone, like you are. I have provided supporting evidence. The fact that Six Nations has asserted their sovereignty for 500 years is also evidence under which the Supreme Court says must be considered to the benefit of the Indians.