charter.rights Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Perhaps the "First Nations" should repay all of the money spent on them in trade for all of the lands they now have, on the condition that they withdraw any other claims or lands in dispute. Perhaps WE should pay the entire fair market cost of all the lands and resources that that we have used (and abused) belonging to First Nations since our forefathers first arrived here? In case you haven't been following along.....Six Nations is owed at least $1 trillion in a trust our government holds for their benefit. That does not include lands and or resources we took from the Haldimand Tract that we should have paid them way back when. Can you imagine that one First Nation - Six Nations of the Grand - is owed so much? And we haven't even begun to discuss the other hundreds of First Nations across Canada who are owed similarly..... We can't afford to "buy them out" of our interest in their lands. The best we could do is share the benefits with them for their perpetual care and upkeep, as required under Canadian law.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 How wonderful that you have defined the legal framework and lexicon for all those poor "savages"....who they are...what they are....and the required labels. It is so convenient.....thanks for setting us "straight". You are still crooked, my friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 In case you haven't been following along.....Six Nations is owed at least $1 trillion in a trust our government holds for their benefit. Somehow I doubt there has been a ruling to that effect stating that figure . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted August 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 (edited) How wonderful that you have defined the legal framework and lexicon for all those poor "savages"....who they are...what they are....and the required labels. It is so convenient.....thanks for setting us "straight". Do you speak as contemptuously about Native American issues in your US? Edited August 25, 2009 by tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Do you speak as contemptuously about Native American issues in your US? Of course not.....I am neigbours with a band (Shakopee Mdewakanton)....no need for contempt or patronizing labels. We sure as hell wouldn't call "them" ABORIGINALS.....the nations, tribes, and bands have real names believe it or not. ....so much for "butting out".....LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted August 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Of course not.....I am neigbours with a band (Shakopee Mdewakanton)....no need for contempt or patronizing labels.We sure as hell wouldn't call "them" ABORIGINALS.....the nations, tribes, and bands have real names believe it or not. ....so much for "butting out".....LOL! I didn't refer to them as "aboriginals". Yes the Nations have names. For some reason you are trying to derail the thread, and I do think you should butt out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Perhaps WE should pay the entire fair market cost of all the lands and resources that that we have used (and abused) belonging to First Nations since our forefathers first arrived here?In case you haven't been following along.....Six Nations is owed at least $1 trillion in a trust our government holds for their benefit. That does not include lands and or resources we took from the Haldimand Tract that we should have paid them way back when. Can you imagine that one First Nation - Six Nations of the Grand - is owed so much? And we haven't even begun to discuss the other hundreds of First Nations across Canada who are owed similarly..... We can't afford to "buy them out" of our interest in their lands. The best we could do is share the benefits with them for their perpetual care and upkeep, as required under Canadian law.... One trillion! Think of the beer and bingo you could buy with that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted August 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 One trillion! Think of the beer and bingo you could buy with that! Think of the water system it could build, the college it could build, etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 Think of the water system it could build, the college it could build, etc The Native Indians in my area already have all that. The definition of Native Indian in my area is buying a $40,000 truck to take your empties back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted August 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 The Native Indians in my area already have all that. The definition of Native Indian in my area is buying a $40,000 truck to take your empties back. In my neighbourhood, the poor whities use a shopping cart to take their empties back, and beg by the door if they're short. As for vehicles ... You can't get a mortgage if you live on 'reserve' - common lands can't be used as collateral - so they buy an expensive vehicle and use it as collateral to get a loan to build a house. Big deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 In my neighbourhood, the poor whities use a shopping cart to take their empties back, and beg by the door if they're short. As for vehicles ... You can't get a mortgage if you live on 'reserve' - common lands can't be used as collateral - so they buy an expensive vehicle and use it as collateral to get a loan to build a house. Big deal. The poor whites also use shopping carts in my area. Big deal. The definition of Native Indian in my area is having a fully staffed wing at the university dedicated to "Native Studies" yet not bothering to show-up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 As for vehicles ... You can't get a mortgage if you live on 'reserve' - common lands can't be used as collateral - so they buy an expensive vehicle and use it as collateral to get a loan to build a house. Big deal. No they don't. That doesn't even make sense. Actually let's go over this.... You have $40,000 in your account. You want to buy a $40,000 house. The best way to do this, according to you, is not to just spend the $40,000 on the house itself, but rather get a loan to buy a $40,000 vehicle so that you now have $80,000 - 40,000 (for the vehicle) which ends up being $40,000 left to buy the house.... That makes perfect sense... It doesn't get you any closer to getting the house. It just gets you a truck and a truck loan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 In case you haven't been following along.....Six Nations is owed at least $1 trillion in a trust our government holds for their benefit. That does not include lands and or resources we took from the Haldimand Tract that we should have paid them way back when. I'm curious as to where that number came from. I might have missed something can you provide a link or something for me to read? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 That does not include lands and or resources we took from the Haldimand Tract that we should have paid them way back when. There were no mineral rights granted with the Haldimand tract nor were the Six Nations ever granted the land fee simple. They were given the opportunity in the time of Joseph Brant and again during the time of his son. At the end of the day, they didn't want to be more than Canada's ally, a decision I can respect. The King, however, wouldn't grant the land fee simple without allegiance. It's pretty much a mess after that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 There were no mineral rights granted with the Haldimand tract nor were the Six Nations ever granted the land fee simple. They were given the opportunity in the time of Joseph Brant and again during the time of his son. At the end of the day, they didn't want to be more than Canada's ally, a decision I can respect. The King, however, wouldn't grant the land fee simple without allegiance. It's pretty much a mess after that. The British never held any claim to anywhere in southern Ontario south of the Ottawa River to Nippissing. So you are right in a sense that they never granted the land fee simple. They couldn't grant Six Nations its own land. However, the Haldimand was to be protected for the exclusive use and benefit of Six Nations. No one else could live there, and those that were living there at the time were told to get out. While Six Nations did agree to allow settlement of other parts of Six Nations territory in the rest of southern Ontario by farmers and homesteaders, they neither authorized the British, or corporations to extract the resources. Legally, Six Nations still holds a exclusive territorial interest over southern Ontario. They must be consulted before any land development, mine or corporate claim is made over the land. That is the law. The $1 trillion trust was presented to the government by Six Nations of the Grand. Interest is calculated from 1840 on in accordance with the Order in Council, that government is required to pay on all monies held in trust. At the rate we are going in refusing to account for and pay back their trust, it is costing us about $4.5 billion every year. They have demanded a full accounting of all the monies held in trust. The government has thus far refused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 (edited) I didn't refer to them as "aboriginals". Yes the Nations have names. For some reason you are trying to derail the thread, and I do think you should butt out. Oh, I'm sure you do think I should "butt out"....but that's not how it works around here. Your language and attitude is patronizing and contemptuous, and is every bit a part of any "Pay up or leave" discussion. How can the "Crown" deal in good faith using such demeaning language and framework rigged for its own advantage? Edited August 25, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 The $1 trillion trust was presented to the government by Six Nations of the Grand. Interest is calculated from 1840 on in accordance with the Order in Council, that government is required to pay on all monies held in trust. At the rate we are going in refusing to account for and pay back their trust, it is costing us about $4.5 billion every year. They have demanded a full accounting of all the monies held in trust. The government has thus far refused. It's a ridiculous demand and claim. That's why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 It's a ridiculous demand and claim. That's why. It is supposed to be.....makes for a lot of upside during negotiations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 (edited) The $1 trillion trust was presented to the government by Six Nations of the Grand. Interest is calculated from 1840 on in accordance with the Order in Council, that government is required to pay on all monies held in trust. At the rate we are going in refusing to account for and pay back their trust, it is costing us about $4.5 billion every year. They have demanded a full accounting of all the monies held in trust. The government has thus far refused. I was still wondering if you could provide me some sort of reference to this Trust and the calculations made. The argument that ancestors of 150 years ago are entitled to insane sums of money by birthright is absolutely ludicrous. It doesn't appear to me that there's any difference between the claim that the First Nations own land that has been settled and populated for over 100 years and the claim of a Welshman that England belongs to them and that Norman/Saxon ancestors owe them $50 Trillion. It's idiotic and no court in the world would support it. Edited August 25, 2009 by Moonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 It's a ridiculous demand and claim. That's why. Oh....so you speak for the entire government? The trust is well documented. Six Nations has put the case together and on many occasions the government negotiators have tried to link settlements in with a compromise on the trust. The government is fully aware that the trust exists and that it is substantial. They don't want to account for it because much of it was stolen and misused for personal interests. William Jarvis was fired for taking advantage of the trust for his own personal gain. Osgoode Hall - The Home of the Lw Society of Upper Canada was built with money borrowed from the Six Nations' trust. Yet none of it appears to have ever been paid back. The government used Six Nations trust to finance the Grand River Navigation Company which went belly up. Besides being a guarantor of the GRNC they have a responsibility not to use the trust for their own gain..... There are lots more of these kinds of things that took place that the government is well aware of. My bet is that they won't reveal the accounts because they have blood on their hands as trustee, and the law says if that happens, Six Nation is not only owed the full amount of the trust, but punitive damages might also be awarded to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 I was still wondering if you could provide me some sort of reference to this Trust and the calculations made. Its not available on-line. It was contained in the thousands of pages of documents and maps given to the government in support of their claims. You would have to know someone on the inside to have a peak..... You do realize that not everything is available on the internet? In fact most legal stuff is never made available - even after court decisions have been issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 I was still wondering if you could provide me some sort of reference to this Trust and the calculations made.The argument that ancestors of 150 years ago are entitled to insane sums of money by birthright is absolutely ludicrous. It doesn't appear to me that there's any difference between the claim that the First Nations own land that has been settled and populated for over 100 years and the claim of a Welshman that England belongs to them and that Norman/Saxon ancestors owe them $50 Trillion. It's idiotic and no court in the world would support it. They were common amounts of money back in 1800. Just one claim for the flooding of the Welland Canal over Six Nations land was between $10,000 and $14,000 for 2500 acres - just $4 - $5.60 per acre at the going rate. Since the government held the trust for that claim, they were bound by an Order in Council to pay a reasonable interest on the money. The interest rates for the last 170 years is laid out in INAC documents and the method of calculation is confrimed by the Supreme Court of Canada. With the compounded interest, that trust account is worth between $500,000,000 and $1 billion today. One account - one trust amount out of thousands.... And really it doesn't matter what you think. It is a recognized claim and the trust is huge! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 (edited) You're not referencing ANY of this. You're just making claims. Whether or not the information is available on the internet doesn't matter. If there was a recognized, objective accounting of the facts, maybe what you say would have more validity. You're just spewing ridiculous numbers out of nowhere and the only people that seem to 'recognize' the claim is the Six Nations itself. If you want to talk legal action, then legally the government, as the trustee, would be required to fully disclose all information of the trust accounting. Also legally there is a little thing called "Limitations" meaning you can't retroactively file for damages hundreds of years past. It is the legal duty of the aggrieved party to take all actions possible to ensure that damages from broken contracts ect don't compound themselves. From Stats Can, there are about 1.3 million aboroginals in Canada. I'm assuming the actual population of Six Nations is MUCH smaller than that. Whatever the portion of that 1.3 million that the Six Nations ends up being, it's idiotic suggest that they should be entitled to 4.5 billion annually by birthright. An interesting legal concept is that an aggrieved party is never to be awarded damages that would leave them better off overall than if the 'problem' had never happened. Suggesting that the descendants of the Six Nations, however many thousands of them there are, should be made fabulously wealthy and should BENEFIT from the productivity of current and past Canadians would not fly in ANY legal dictionary. Edited August 25, 2009 by Moonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 (edited) You're not referencing ANY of this. You're just making claims. Whether or not the information is available on the internet doesn't matter. If there was a recognized, objective accounting of the facts, maybe what you say would have more validity. You're just spewing ridiculous numbers out of nowhere and the only people that seem to 'recognize' the claim is the Six Nations itself. If you want to talk legal action, then legally the government, as the trustee, would be required to fully disclose all information of the trust accounting. Also legally there is a little thing called "Limitations" meaning you can't retroactively file for damages hundreds of years past. It is the legal duty of the aggrieved party to take all actions possible to ensure that damages from broken contracts ect don't compound themselves. From Stats Can, there are about 1.3 million aboroginals in Canada. I'm assuming the actual population of Six Nations is MUCH smaller than that. Whatever the portion of that 1.3 million that the Six Nations ends up being, it's idiotic suggest that they should be entitled to 4.5 billion annually by birthright. An interesting legal concept is that an aggrieved party is never to be awarded damages that would leave them better off overall than if the 'problem' had never happened. Suggesting that the descendants of the Six Nations, however many thousands of them there are, should be made fabulously wealthy and should BENEFIT from the productivity of current and past Canadians would not fly in ANY legal dictionary. Believe what you want. It doesn't make a bit of difference to the facts, or the final resolutions. However, you might want to read up a bit more on the subject. You are starting to look like the rest of the ill-informed amateurs that plague this forum. You haven't a clue about the law or the legal position our government is obligated towards Six Nations. Nothing they do or say will change the fact we hold Six Nations money and someday we will have to pay it all back. You do realize that a trust does not belong to us, nor can we simply ignore our fiduciary responsibility to manage it in the best interest of Six Nations - including paying interest on it in perpetuity.....unless of course we find the cash to pay it all back and let them manage it for their own benefit.... Imagine what they might do with $1 trillion.....They might even buy you out of your house... Remember too, that we are only talking about one First Nation. We hold similar trusts on behalf of hundreds more that will have to be paid back as well. Edited August 26, 2009 by charter.rights Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tango Posted August 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 (edited) No they don't. That doesn't even make sense. Actually let's go over this.... You have $40,000 in your account. You want to buy a $40,000 house. The best way to do this, according to you, is not to just spend the $40,000 on the house itself, but rather get a loan to buy a $40,000 vehicle so that you now have $80,000 - 40,000 (for the vehicle) which ends up being $40,000 left to buy the house.... That makes perfect sense... It doesn't get you any closer to getting the house. It just gets you a truck and a truck loan. You can qualify for a car loan based on your credit history (but not a mortgage, because the land is owned in common). You buy an expensive car/truck that keeps its value better, pay it off quickly, THEN you can use it for collateral on another loan to build/buy a house. Excuse me for not being clear. Edited August 26, 2009 by tango Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.