charter.rights

Just reading the Treaty of Fort Stanwix 1768 again where Six Nations secured £10,460 for the adjustment of their boundary into Ohio. This amount was also put into trust on behalf of Six Nations. So add another $18000 plus accumulated compounded interest to Six Nations account....

Further, Nowegijick v. Her Majesty the Queen by the Supreme Court of Canada on January 25, 1983: It is legal lore that, to be valid, exemptions to tax laws should be clearly expressed. It seems to me that treaties and statutes relating to Indians should be liberally construed and doubtful expressions resolved in favour of the Indians. If the statutes contains language which can be reasonably be construed to confer tax exemption, that construction, in my view, is to be favoured over a more technical construction which might be available to deny exemption. In Jones v. Meehan, 175 U.S.1, it was held that Indians treaties must be construed, not according to the technical meaning of their words, but in the sense in which they would actually be understood by the Indians. To the Indians, the Royal Proclamation 1763 was a treaty - one that came at least to Six Nations with promises that they would be allowed to retire to their Ontario Territory with the full protection of their allies Great Britain. And it is the oral promises that were made that in fact will alter the language of the Proclamation and not necessarily the letter of the law. Clearly Six Nations did not agree that they were subjects of the Crown and that assertion has been brought forward to the present day. So we come back to the fundamental question: How can Canada assert sovereignty and authority over Six Nations when they would not accept it? There was no force or coercion that made Six Nations to capitulate. And when there is a disagreement, and or other promises made, the letter or words of the Proclamation cannot be taken de facto. Rather there is, as in disputes about lands claims and aboriginal rights a responsibility imposed on the Crown to interpret statutes "in the sense in which they would actually be understood by the Indians." at the time they were made. There were a series of treaties and agreements, as well as hundred of correspondence with the Crown in the early 1800's where Six Nations demonstrate their disagreement with the Crown's claim of sovereignty. Joseph Brant's action to lease land (which he did successfully) is an action demonstrating their independence. Then we have the Queen today still referring to Six Nations as their faithful allies - not subjects but allies on the same standing as the US or any other ally of Great Britain.... We also have in our history the surrender of land to us by Six Nations under Nanfan 1701 and other various treaties, which before the Royal Proclamation was clearly an act of a sovereign nation who the British recognized had control of a vast tract of land from Mississippi to Nippissing and from the Allegheny Mountains to North Dakota. Yet someone, somewhere came up with the idea that they could claim sovereignty over the entire territory, they did not believe it, since in 1768 the British entered into the Treaty of Fort Stanwix to seek the readjustment of the boundary between the several nations of Indians and the settlers in New York. I'm not claiming that there may have been some deal somewhere that may have had some nations recognizing the Crown sovereign. However it is clear that Six Nations did not recognize that the Crown held authority and challenged it on many occasions. So it is clearly in dispute, regardless of what you might think the Proclamation says, cautioning that your colonial bias and 2010 interpretation might not be accurate. Being use to reading many of these treaties, reading the minutes of meetings leading up to such agreements and reading interpretations made at the time and more recently by legal experts, I still do not agree that the Royal Proclamation 1763 conveyed Crown sovereignty over Six Nations or their territories. So to go beyond this impasse I invite you to provide further proof of your opinion through supporting documentation (as I have done). Your simple reading and interpretation of the Proclamation is lacking and without further proof, your opinion stands still. Using circular reasoning is by suggesting that the proof that sovereignty was given in the Proclamation is contained in the Proclamation itself is a useless exercise. The British were much smarter than that and always had their minutes and correspondence to back up what was agreed upon - even if it sinks today's challenges.

Hidden in government papers. The government has acknowledged that they hold a "substantial" trust in favour of Six Nations. They just won't account for and provide a full accounting. We do know historically that the government took money from the trust to start the Grand River Navigation Company, and to build Osgoode Hall. And we do know that neither the GRNC or the Upper Law Society of Canada ever paid back into that fund. And we also know that William Jarvis the Indian Agent was found to have embezzled tens of thousands of dollars. So where is the account? Apparently we have been enjoying it, spending it for our institutions and businesses, and squandering it on illicit activities..over the years. But the bulk of it still exists and the government refuses to say how much...even though Six Nations has done the audit from their archives and the archives of Great Britain and found it way beyond what anyone could imagine.

The leases are on-going. So not only are the principles calculated on FMV at the time they were first made, but since many of the leases were for 99 years and never renewed, they must consider the FMV after 1900 onward, on an annual evaluation. Using my example of the Welland Canal lands, a $12-14000 value in 1824 became a $500 million to $1 billion trust account it isn't hard to see that the value of 900,000 acres could easily balloon into the figures Six Nations accountants came up with. From an initial simple calculation at $5 per acre (using 1824 figures for the Welland Canal), before interest the value of Six Nations lands in 1824 would have been worth about $4,500,000. Compound interests over the years in accordance with the references i provided earlier and I would have to think that $1 trillion would be a conservative amount. Nonetheless, Six Nations says with leases, and the cash the government has been holding on their behalf amount to $250 billion to $1 trillion. We are in deep dodo.

Incorrect. Brant was asserting Six Nations sovereignty over the land. By leasing or selling, alnd was not removed from the Confederacy. Rather the people who purchased the land became immigrants to the Confederacy.

Try again. Your circular reasoning cannot rationalize that fact that Six Nations never capitulated. And then we have the little matter where the Queen celebrated the nation to nation relationship with Six Nations just this past July by presenting 8 silver hand bells to the Chiefs of Six Nations and Tyendinaga. Engraved on the bells: ""The Silver Chain of Friendship 1710-2010." Seems the Queen of Canada - the Crown still sees Six Nations as an ally and not a subject.... Maybe you should take this up with her? And regardless, the land in Southern Ontario under the law is still Six Nations territory. It, like their sovereignty has never been ceded.

Try again. So how can one party insist they are Canadian, when the other party has a long history rejecting it? To ASSUME that the Crown holds jurisdiction over Six Nations, you would have to prove that they held sovereignty over them and their lands BEFORE the Royal Proclamation 1763. Because the declaration of the Crown over a nation they recognized as not being British subjects would have had to hold authority over them to ignore their own assertions of sovereignty. Unless you can prove that Six Nations capitulated, your colonial biased opinion holds no water.

Not at all. I have advocated all along for the government to comply with The Law - to consult, negotiate, accommodate and reconcile the issues. I realize you didn't catch that. Your anger clouds your ability to see what is really being said. Take another look. I have presented the proof that the government doesn't comply with the law. So rather than whining like a little schoolgirl, what are YOU going to do about it?

Ha ha ha ha ha. You are obviously conflicted and out of semi-intelligent rebuttal. You go on girl with your ad hominen. It is so comical and cute coming from YOU.

That's one perspective and I've heard it many times. However, Six Nations and other FN assert they are sovereign and never agreed to Crown sovereignty over them. Clearly there was no meeting of the minds, and therefore no agreement. As well native people have never been conquered or have they capitulated, surrendered or merged with the Crown. So how can one party insist they are Canadian, when the other party has a long history rejecting it? The term "sovereign protection" comes from the Howard Treaty 1684 had no intent or effect of turning Six Nations people into subjects. Also under international law one nation cannot assume jurisdiction over another without their full and unconditional consent. So that leaves us with doubt, that leans in favour of Six Nations.

Six Nations has requested on numerous times that the issue be tried in international court, or by an impartial international arbitrator. The government refuses. They know the cannot win. Instead they recommend "negotiation" where they stall and obfuscate for 10 to 20 years, where a new generation takes over and starts the process all over again. The net result? Nothing. And still the interest on their trust account grows by about 30 billion a year. Compounded that trust account will be worth about another trillion in 10 years. I suggest Jerry that you are not mad enough, yet. And your anger is directed at the wrong party. When you have had enough, like the rest of us then maybe you can demand the government get off their butts and work towards settlement. The status quo is at least 20 or so more years of protest, sometimes violent, always causing economic disruption and lots more inconvenience to us. It is $3 trillion more added to their trust account in interest WE are ultimately responsible for. It means more Supreme Court of Canada rulings that go against us, and bolster and clarify aboriginal rights. The one saving grace is that it will also mean 20 years of eduction where finally we may rid our society of the ignorant and ill-informed anti-native sentiment you so eloquently express. It also means that the power-shift away from the dominant Anglo-white male will finally be complete and we can then start working towards a more equitable and just society. And finally it will mean that all the mean-spirited self-indulgent myth makers will have passed on, and we'll have a new generation who can direct their anger at people like you for leaving all this garbage for them to clean up.

Actually it means that we are holding the goods...$200 billion worth...and using it as if it is business as usual. It is no wonder that corruption reigns supreme in the government. The government apologists think it is reasonable and deserved. However, the Crown of Canada was indivisible from the Crown of Great Britain prior to 1982 and as such inherited the whole lock, stock and barrel. So not only did they inherit the "Indian Problem" but they inherited the stolen goods as well. That does not legalize the theft, or the fact the goods are stolen goods. It merely passes on the requirement for accountability - the full lock, stock and barrel of it.

Jerry. When do you stop with the myths? Six Nations had been in southern Ontario for at least 1000 years according to the archaeology of the North Shore of Ontario and Erie and had never left. While it is true that many people went south prior to the American Revolution to fight with the British, the settlements never ceased. Each nation within the Six Nations we free to choose sides. The Oneida and Onondaga sided with the US (although they claimed they were neutral). The Mohawk and Seneca sided with the British. The Cayuga were neutrals. So in doing so, while apparently split, the Six Nations actually guaranteed some benefits by the split. I would remind you that there are lots of Six Nations people still living in the US.

However, we also have the thousands of acres that were occupied in 1784 that were to be vacated and never happened. The persistent settlement of Six Nations lands illegally after 1874 also bears compensation. And none of it ever involved Joseph Brant or any other Haudenosaunee acting on his own or in collusion with others. It should also be noted that Six Nations and Joseph Brant's assertion that they could sell or lease land to whomever they wanted was an assertion of their sovereignty. Six Nations did not accept that the British had gained authority over them, and their assertions have been consistent ever since.

We have preserves and canned goods as well as fresh / stored roots vegetables. The preserves and canned goods lasts for years. I also begin harvesting fresh food beginning in March/April. So we are good for the whole yearly cycle.

Another example to sink your teeth into: In 1824, 2400 acres were expropriated by statute for the flooding for the Welland Canal. That same statute provided that Six Nations would be compensated for the loss of lands, as well as any disruptions that occurred as a result of the construction. In 1824 farmers who also had land flooded were compensated at about $5-$6 per acre, bringing the Welland Canal lands on Six nations territory to between $12,000 and $14,000 for the 2400 acres. In 1994 Indian Affairs acknowledged that Six Nations was due compensation for that land. Taking a simple value of $12-14,000 using the interests from the above link calculated forward, that same $12-14,000 1822 value becomes between $500 million and $1 billion that must be returned to the trust account. One 2400 acre expropriated parcel is worth as much as $1 billion to the Six Nations trust account - staggering. Now you can do the math on the other 896,000 acres.

I would suggest that you start calculating what the leases on 900,000 acres would be worth just in today's FMV and then roll that back 160 years to when it was first leased out to the benefit of Six Nations. Then add to that the $100,000 or so that Six Nations knows went missing from that same trust account in 1844, all with compound interests according to Appendix B - Rates of Interest on Capital and Revenue Accounts. Six Nations have done the audit and made the calculations and the results, while staggering comes to between $200 billion and $1 trillion. You call it what you want. I call it theft if the government does not come clean on it.

ADP

Most people don't buy locally because it isn't in front of them at the supermarkets. Nuclear meltdown preparedness are even bigger unknowns and yet there are action plans in place for almost every possibility, no matter what the percentage of risk.

I hear what you are saying: Thanks to Google Translation....

The rule of law was being followed and there was no two-tier justice. That is simply another myth. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms IS the Rule of Law and Six Nations had a right to stop development that was occurring on their unsurrendered land and compel the government to negotiate with them. They were successful in meeting that objective, and as such were within their rights to block roads, to erect barricades and patrol the site to guarantee their security. The only thing the OPP could (and did)do was to keep the peace. That was their only role to play, legally.

Full of myth Jerry. Joseph Brant could not sell the land to anyone, as it was illegal for any British subject to purchase land. Only a surrender to the Crown was possible and that never took place. The Royal Proclamation set out most of the Continental USA and all of Canada (save and except Hudsons Bay Company territory as "Indian Lands" reserved for them, for their exclusive use and title (go back and read all the stuff Canadien and I have been presenting. All of it represents the reality today. Land was never surrendered to the Crown by Six Nation who were clearly the title holders at the time of the Proclamation.

Not all all. The $100 million that we give Six Nations annually for health, education, social services, infrastructure etc, doesn't even minutely touch the INTEREST on that account. $200 billion is the conservative amount with accumulated interests that have been accruing since the 1800s, while the most optimistic amount of $1 trillion looks at the fair market values of comparable leases for the times plus compounded interests, and since the money was never paid, and some of what was in the account was misappropriated and embezzled by the government's agent (whom the government is still accountable for) we still have to account for it. However, the compounded interest to be paid on Indian monies are not in dispute since they were set out by an Order in Council and compounded annually until from 1867 to 1980, when it was compounded quarterly. The discrepancy between the lower and higher values comes about as a result of there not being fixed rates prior to 1867. The lower amounts consider that there was no interest paid on the accounts prior to Confederation, while the higher amount represents the minimum amounts of interest that Great Britain paid on other accounts they held with land values at an equitable rate. In any case the $200 billion earns on average $35 billion per year in compounded interests while Six Nations only receives $100 million per year in annual transfers. We aren't even making a dent in what we owe them. It is a real account, keeping in mind that the government, holds many such accounts for various First Nations, whom we also owe interest to. Source: INAC, MANUAL FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF BAND MONEYS, Indian Moneys Directorate Registration, Revenues and Band Governance Lands and Trust Services October 1997, Revised September 2008

It means we buy local so that we can directly support the agriculture industry that feeds us. It helps guarantee that local farms remain viable and ensures that should world crops fail, or transportation glitches etc, we have direct access to one of our primary survival mechanism. Bottled water versus pristine lakes and rivers have the same concerns. If we disregard what we do to the water sources in Canada, and instead rely upon bottled water, what happens is a world drought suddenly removes our access to the bottled water supplies? We can always drink contaminated water but at what costs?

...and gays. Don't forget gay men...