The Silver Covenant Chain Treaty 1710 is alive.

[Smallc]

I can vouch for that!!!!

lol

[Smallc]

Do you think there is such a thing as "a little bit insane"?

yes

[Remiel]

I would say, given my current opinions on the limits of human rationality, that pretty everyone who would conventionally be defined as " sane " is in truth " a little bit insane " , if sanity is measured vis-a-vis rationality.

[Moonbox]

You think that we're crazy? That's rich.

This is just getting funnier and funnier by the minute isn't it. I'm actually excited every time I open up this thread to see what sort of hilariously stupid comment CR will come up with next.

[Shwa]

This is what I meant by the difference between you and CR. CR will actually say something retarded like "math is a myth" when presented with solid figures. You, on the other hand just ignore, deflect and cower behind glib one-liners whenever you're pressed on one of your idiotic assertions. I'm not sure which one is more pathetic.

This from a guy who spent time doing math on a fantasy trillion dollars to make his point about the possibility of a fantasy revolution in Canada. How was the $1 trillion arrived at again? Do you remember?

How is the math "daft"? Please, share your ineptitude with us. I'm sure we'll all get a good chuckle.

How did you arrive at $1 trillion dollars being an applicable number to base your math upon? Like I said: daft. And a bit of a sucker too.

Again, please enlighten us. Explain to us how else you're supposed to appraise a $1 trillion Trust.

Oh, nice dodge arty, why don't YOU explain how YOU'RE "supposed" to appraise a $1 trillion dollar Trust? Remember - and try and stay with me on this one - the trillion dollar figure is YOUR focus, not mine and not really even C.R's. When it is pointed out to you that the conclusion from your fantasy is more fantasy then all the ad hominem starts.

From page 2:

Small c makes a valid point on the Crown. However, the government of Canada already recognizes that the Six Nations trust is somewhere between $200 billion and $500 billion. They just use different calculation methods. However, government accountants have already suggested that the government's figures are low. Six Nations accountants came to the nearly $1 trillion account based on compounded interest that goes back over 200 years.

Your need for ad hominem is so great, you didn't even bother with the other figures mentioned. So where is the math and revolution now Mr. Roarke?

Once again, I'm sure you can't and I'm equally certain you'll not respond to any of these questions. That's how you operate. You're happy to challenge literally EVERYTHING people say that you don't agree with, but you're pathetically incapable of supporting your own points.

Nah. You're lazy, inexpert and more interested in superficial appeal than any sort of real depth of discussion. Thus glib one-liners is appropriate since this is the limit to what you can understand.

[Shwa]

You've moved the goalposts. Of course you can come up with illogical examples of many systems. So what? CR said that "logic was a delusion", carte blanche!

He did NOT say that expropriation was illogical or that the government may make illogical justifications for some of its actions. Or any of YOUR actions! Or his, or mine, for that matter.

He said flat out that logic IN ITSELF is a delusional concept!

Geez, sometimes trying to get you or CR to stick to what you actually said is like nailing jello to the wall. One or BOTH of you MUST be lawyers! Every time you get challenged you try to weasel around it by dragging in examples out of context or in CR's case, flat out non sequiturs.

Go ahead. 'Prove' your point by calling me a name! If you and CR are truly typical of native land claim negotiators it's no wonder government couldn't care less if things drag out for centuries. It's just not worth the cost of blood pressure pills for the frustration in dealing with people not "one to one" with reality...

But Wild Bill, I never said or implied that eminent domain was illogical. So what was your point again?

[Moonbox]

How was the $1 trillion arrived at again? Do you remember?

That was CR's claim at the beginning of the thread. I laughed at it then and he continued to argue its validity.

Oh, nice dodge arty, why don't YOU explain how YOU'RE "supposed" to appraise a $1 trillion dollar Trust? Remember - and try and stay with me on this one - the trillion dollar figure is YOUR focus, not mine and not really even C.R's. When it is pointed out to you that the conclusion from your fantasy is more fantasy then all the ad hominem starts.

From page 2:

The trillion dollar figure was most certainly my focus and CR's focus. We have several pages on this thread to support this. I even stated (immediately after the quotation you just offered on page 2) this:

I've yet to see any reasonable reference of ANY intentions to settle the $1 trillion charter.rights is crying about. The $145 million accounts for about 0.1% of the overall amounts we're talking about. I've already mentioned in other threads that I'm sure other settlements will be made. The totals will amount to the low billions, however, rather than the hundreds of billions or trillions this clown is talking about.

It doesn't matter what numbers you focus on. I addressed this in the first page. Reduce the figure by 80% and it's STILL unreasonable. Any way you slice and any way you evaluate it, $200 billion is still unaffordable to Canadians and would STILL make the First Nations one the wealthiest demographic in the world at tremendous and unaffordable expense to Canadians.

$200 billion, whether as a trust, up-front settlement or as an annuity (do you know what that word means?) is a liability equivalent to increasing our national debt level by 40%.

Your need for ad hominem is so great, you didn't even bother with the other figures mentioned. So where is the math and revolution now Mr. Roarke?

Well there you have it. Now I've dealt with the other figures mentioned. How amiable do you think Canadians will be to paying $6000 each to make every First Nations inhabitants instantly wealthy?

You've not presented anything in this entire thread that WAS NOT ad hominem. You're the equivalent of a forum troll. You ask questions, have them answered, and then when asked questions yourself you squirm and wiggle and change the subject and context of the argument.

Let's look at your last bunch of posts:

Now you are just be daft:

Not only are you being daft you are showing a severely limited comprehension of valuation. Fantasy fixations do that I guess.

Right. Another fabulous opinion from the imaginary baker who confuses the cake with the recipe. No matter, words have no meaning.

This is a make-believe condition you have invented to appeal to popular opinion because your ability to be reasonable is blocked. If you want to ask questions about fantasy, I prefer discussing Barbarella.

No, you imagined it. But again, your response: predictable. At least you are consistent, that should count for something. Now go bake us a real cake!

For someone so opposed to ad hominem, you certainly do more than your fair share of it. In fact, over the last 5 pages of this thread you've posted absolutely nothing to actually contribute to the discussion. You've asked deflective questions in an effort to change the subject and you've attacked posters, but you've not answered a SINGLE question anyone has asked you nor have you been willing to back up any of your opinions with either fact or reason.

Since you're not willing to discuss any of the numbers I've been using (which I got from you and CR), why don't you present me with some of your own? I invite you to present me with numbers or proposals you think likely and reasonable and then you and I can discuss them? Does that sound good?

I doubt it will. It's pretty obvious your realm of expertise is asking questions and changing subjects. You won't actually state a solid opinion, nor are you able to defend one. Even the most mediocre posters here can disassemble your thought process and reveal it to be the load of garbage that it is.

Nah. You're lazy, inexpert and more interested in superficial appeal than any sort of real depth of discussion. Thus glib one-liners is appropriate since this is the limit to what you can understand.

I think it's more a matter of that being all you're capable of. You've yet to show us otherwise.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Moonbox

[Moonbox]

But Wild Bill, I never said or implied that eminent domain was illogical. So what was your point again?

Nobody said that. Why are you?

What a joke.

[bebe]

Well there you have it. Now I've dealt with the other figures mentioned. How amiable do you think Canadians will be to paying $6000 each to make every First Nations inhabitants instantly wealthy?

Really? Is that all it would cost to resolve Canada's national debts relating to treaty issues? To me that seems quite fair, over a period of time. EG, assuming a career of 30 years, that's only about $17 a month in additional taxes. I'd support that.

[Shwa]

That was CR's claim at the beginning of the thread. I laughed at it then and he continued to argue its validity.

If I recall, C.R "claimed" that it "is estimated" and then qualified it a few posts later saying that it was estimated by Six Nations accountants, but the governments estimates were much lower. So point out the thread where he continued to argue the validity of the $1 trillion dollar figure. After the post where he clarified the source, he is only guilty of valuation. You on the other hand grabbed right on. You lost your objectivity right there (i.e. out of touch).

The trillion dollar figure was most certainly my focus and CR's focus. We have several pages on this thread to support this. I even stated (immediately after the quotation you just offered on page 2) this:

I don't think so Mr. Roarke, you artful dodger you. How be you show me the "several pages" where it was C.R's focus? The only one focusing on it was you. In fact, I recall C.R taking you to task for being sucked in by myth. A myth of your own creation, complete with Constitutional re-writes and revolution. Fascinating fiction at that, but says more about you than anything - or anyone - else.

It doesn't matter what numbers you focus on. I addressed this in the first page. Reduce the figure by 80% and it's STILL unreasonable. Any way you slice and any way you evaluate it, $200 billion is still unaffordable to Canadians and would STILL make the First Nations one the wealthiest demographic in the world at tremendous and unaffordable expense to Canadians.

$200 billion, whether as a trust, up-front settlement or as an annuity (do you know what that word means?) is a liability equivalent to increasing our national debt level by 40%.

"It doesn't matter what numbers you focus on."

Well there you have it. Now I've dealt with the other figures mentioned. How amiable do you think Canadians will be to paying $6000 each to make every First Nations inhabitants instantly wealthy?

Is that how it will happen? Or will someone tug on your shirt and says, "Boss, de plane, de plane!"

You've not presented anything in this entire thread that WAS NOT ad hominem. You're the equivalent of a forum troll. You ask questions, have them answered, and then when asked questions yourself you squirm and wiggle and change the subject and context of the argument.

Aw. You don't like being treated like that Mr. Roarke? I thought that by the wording of your posts and their tone, that it was perfectly acceptable. Now are you claiming to be the exception to the rule? The taking-my-ball-and-going-home fallacy. I recall C.R making a post in the early pages about sulking in a corner? In retrospect, a spot on observation methinks.

For someone so opposed to ad hominem, you certainly do more than your fair share of it. In fact, over the last 5 pages of this thread you've posted absolutely nothing to actually contribute to the discussion. You've asked deflective questions in an effort to change the subject and you've attacked posters, but you've not answered a SINGLE question anyone has asked you nor have you been willing to back up any of your opinions with either fact or reason.

I have not answered a "single question anyone has asked?" That is your problem right there in a nutshell:

it appears you are more than a wee bit out of touch on this topic.

I stand by this remark.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Shwa

[Shwa]

Really? Is that all it would cost to resolve Canada's national debts relating to treaty issues? To me that seems quite fair, over a period of time. EG, assuming a career of 30 years, that's only about $17 a month in additional taxes. I'd support that.

Or even better bebe, a philosophical question for you:

Can the Crown sieze your real property - that you've estimated is worth, say $1 million - without your consent, and hand it over to a First Nation as part of a land claims settlement?

And a corollary, with a slight variation:

Can the Crown take it's own property - i.e. Crown Land estimated to be valued at, say, a $1 billion - without your consent, and hand it over to a First Nation as part of a land claims settlement?

[charter.rights]

it appears you are more than a wee bit out of touch on this topic.

it appears you are more than a wee bit whole lot out of touch on this topic.

I just had to fix this sentence....

Edited July 21, 2010 by charter.rights

[Moonbox]

Really? Is that all it would cost to resolve Canada's national debts relating to treaty issues? To me that seems quite fair, over a period of time. EG, assuming a career of 30 years, that's only about $17 a month in additional taxes. I'd support that.

If it's over thirty years, you have to compound that amount with a reasonable rate of return. For 30 years at 4% that would be $30/month. Also take into account that only 50% of the population is working and instead you'd be paying $60/month. If the average Canadian salary is ~36000 a year that's a 2% tax increase for the next 30 years.

One thing that was never very clear to me, however, is whether the figures Shwa and CR are talking about are for ALL First Nations claims or for just the Six Nations. If we're only talking about Six Nations, then the numbers only get worse.

I'd love to see an explanation on how CR and Shwa feel the Crown would justify an effective 2% tax hike on 33,000,000 Canadians so that First Nations inhabitants can each enjoy a $300,000 windfall and enjoy average net worth more than DOUBLE the average Canadian.

[Moonbox]

If I recall, C.R "claimed" that it "is estimated" and then qualified it a few posts later saying that it was estimated by Six Nations accountants, but the governments estimates were much lower.

and I acknowledged it and stated that even the (uncited as per usual with CR) government estimates were unreasonable. My whole argument was that claims by the Six Nations for hundreds of billions of dollars are neither likely nor reasonable. If hundreds of billions are not what we're talking about, then I may not have any issue at all with your claims or CR's. Indeed, I indicated several times that I believe the First Nations are entitled to settlements and they will continue to receive them. My position was very clear in that, and also very clear that my point of contention was the likely SIZE of these settlements.

So, again, I ask, what IS your position on the issues discussed in this thread? Do you even have one, or are you just trolling again?

How be you show me the "several pages" where it was C.R's focus? The only one focusing on it was you. In fact, I recall C.R taking you to task for being sucked in by myth. A myth of your own creation, complete with Constitutional re-writes and revolution. Fascinating fiction at that, but says more about you than anything - or anyone - else.

Hahaha. No CR said we were sucked in by the 'myth' of logic. We have several quotes of him saying pretty much exactly that. My argument was that if the Crown were to judge in favour of awarding the equivalent of $300,000+ for each First Nations inhabitant (700,000 of them) and it cost $200+ billion dollars, the Crown could and likely would lose the support of Canadians.

You're quite right in saying none of this is 'fact', however. It's pure supposition. CR's claim (and yours by supporting him), however, are also supposition. What the Crown 'will' do is uncertain. We can merely guess at what the results will be and what the Crown's logic/reasoning will be behind their decisions. When one side denounces logic, however, it becomes a pretty pointless debate though doesn't it?

"It doesn't matter what numbers you focus on."

Not with you it doesn't. You haven't taken a position. Rather, you've bounced around like a clown asking stupid questions.

Is that how it will happen? Or will someone tug on your shirt and says, "Boss, de plane, de plane!"

You tell me how it will happen? Can you do that? Are you going to make plain what you think will happen? Or are you just going to keep trolling like a fool?

I recall C.R making a post in the early pages about sulking in a corner? In retrospect, a spot on observation methinks.

Only in your strange world would you mistake my sneering contempt of both of you for sulking. I'm having a grand time with both of you.

I have not answered a "single question anyone has asked?" That is your problem right there in a nutshell:

That's been your whole argument this thread. You haven't contested anything anyone else has said based on facts, reason or your own position or argument. You've just trolled and ridiculed. Like I said before, make clear your position, child, or by default you're pretty much admitting you don't have one or can't support one.

I'm almost certain, in that mixed-up jello muck you call your brain, you actually have a position on the issue. I'm equally certain, however, that it's beyond your power to articulate it and support it.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Moonbox

[bebe]

Or even better bebe, a philosophical question for you:

Can the Crown sieze your real property - that you've estimated is worth, say $1 million - without your consent, and hand it over to a First Nation as part of a land claims settlement?

And a corollary, with a slight variation:

Can the Crown take it's own property - i.e. Crown Land estimated to be valued at, say, a $1 billion - without your consent, and hand it over to a First Nation as part of a land claims settlement?

Ahh ... the classic uninformed right-wing scare-monger approach.

Where on earth did you get that idea? Out of a box of crapperjacks?

We do have rights to live here, you know, according to the treaties. We/our governments have violated the treaties but First Nations peoples have not. I believe they will continue to respect our rights and us as human beings. In fact, I have more faith in their integrity than in our governments'. (Ontario Realty Corp, for example ... need I say more?)

The government first tries to settle for financial compensation. However, where land transfers are involved, my understanding of such cases is that it proceeds over time, on a willing seller/willing buyer basis. Some people will their land back to the care of First Nations, for example, and there are other ways of respecting their underlying Aboriginal title that have nothing to do with being displaced.

Edited July 21, 2010 by bebe

[Shwa]

So, again, I ask, what IS your position on the issues discussed in this thread? Do you even have one, or are you just trolling again?

Now you are turning into a nutjob crank:

Here is where we agree, however I would modify this to say that what will happen is that the Crown will continue to expropriate real property with or without consent and hand it over to First Nations to settle land claims.

That was seven days ago genius. Did you notice the hint of the refusal to get into your little exclusive $1 trillion dollar circle-jerk?

hahahha - no. What is supposed is that you are interested - of even capable of - anything resembling discussion on these types of issues. You are more interested in attacking people and appeals to popularity that debating or sourcing. I wouldn't call you a troll, but I would call you useless. And somewhat out of touch on this issue too.

[Shwa]

...and there are other ways of respecting their underlying Aboriginal title that have nothing to do with being displaced.

'nuff said. Thank you!

[charter.rights]

'nuff said. Thank you!

So here goes....

In addition to defending the Honour of the Crown, the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that aboriginal land rights are a usufructary right. As such First Nations share the land, as they had long before first contact or colonial settlement. These sharing agreements are entrenched in a number of agreements and treaties both pre and post contact. So it is clear from the aboriginal position that land ownership was a foreign concept.

However, to the uniformed lay person there is a myth that that ususfructary right is granted by the Crown. That is not the case and in fact legally the Crown's right clearly defined in the Royal Proclamation 1763 is also a usufruct. The problem for the Crown however, is that they recognized Six nations territorial sovereignty in the Royal Proclamation, the maps accompanying it and the Mitchell map 1757 went to great lengths to describe not only the boundaries of their territory but the limitations on set forth on colonial settlement. It puts the Crown in an awkward position in that they can not lay claim through eminent domain, or conquest when they fully recognized their detachment from such lands, and prescribed a single procedure to be followed in order to gain access to such lands. And if that wasn't enough, by certifying under Crown law that Six Nations had care and control over a specific territory, they recognized that under Crown law Six Nations was the owner and sunk their boat in trying to lay claim to land within Canada.

As a recognized aboriginal usufruct, treaties then do not surrender land, but only limit the Treaty First Nations use of the land. It can't surrender what it does not own, nor can the Crown obtain what it recognizes as not belonging to the First Nation.

Lastly, what is important to understand is that the settlement of "Six Nation's" Canada, post-proclamation was done under the pretext of the prevailing authority - Six Nations - which allowed settlement and use of land, but not removal from their territory. Thus governance in Upper Canada became then, and remains today sovereign only over the people, void of land and only a usufructary right with Six Nations holding the underlying aboriginal title.

Edited July 22, 2010 by charter.rights

[Moonbox]

Now you are turning into a nutjob crank:

Here is where we agree, however I would modify this to say that what will happen is that the Crown will continue to expropriate real property with or without consent and hand it over to First Nations to settle land claims.

Okay so that's your position??

Here's mine from page 2 of this thread:

I've already mentioned in other threads that I'm sure other settlements will be made. The totals will amount to the low billions, however, rather than the hundreds of billions or trillions this clown is talking about

So what are you arguing with me about? I agreed the Crown can expropriate land. I agreed settlements and judgements would continue to be made. So I ask you, genius, what is it that you're disagreeing with me on? It seems you're just trolling for attention again. I feel bad that's the sort of validation you need.

That was seven days ago genius. Did you notice the hint of the refusal to get into your little exclusive $1 trillion dollar circle-jerk?

The first two pages of the thread saw CR CLEARLY stating that there were hundreds of billions (or trillions that was from his mouth not mine) in settlements/trusts that the were on their way. I contest that issue alone. I don't contest that the Crown and the government will continue to negotiate settlements. Stop pretending I do.

In the course of our disagreement over what sort of settlements would be awarded, CR made it pretty clear he didn't understand what the Crown was and he flat out denied that the People have any power over it (which is easily proven and sourced as untrue). Finally, when it became apparent he was getting chewed up from all sides, he took the boneheaded position that logic is a delusion.

That's how the argument proceeded. Your contribution to the thread has been little more than asking inane and pointless questions, childish insults and inept mockery.

[Shwa]

Your contribution to the thread has been little more than asking inane and pointless questions, childish insults and inept mockery.

If that were the case, then shame on you for engaging this sort of person. However, I suspect this is more fantastical thinking to cover up your out-of-touchedness on these types of issues.

You revolutionary you.

[Shwa]

So here goes....

In addition to defending the Honour of the Crown, the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that aboriginal land rights are a usufructary right. As such First Nations share the land, as they had long before first contact or colonial settlement. These sharing agreements are entrenched in a number of agreements and treaties both pre and post contact. So it is clear from the aboriginal position that land ownership was a foreign concept.

However, to the uniformed lay person there is a myth that that ususfructary right is granted by the Crown. That is not the case and in fact legally the Crown's right clearly defined in the Royal Proclamation 1763 is also a usufruct. The problem for the Crown however, is that they recognized Six nations territorial sovereignty in the Royal Proclamation, the maps accompanying it and the Mitchell map 1757 went to great lengths to describe not only the boundaries of their territory but the limitations on set forth on colonial settlement. It puts the Crown in an awkward position in that they can not lay claim through eminent domain, or conquest when they fully recognized their detachment from such lands, and prescribed a single procedure to be followed in order to gain access to such lands. And if that wasn't enough, by certifying under Crown law that Six Nations had care and control over a specific territory, they recognized that under Crown law Six Nations was the owner and sunk their boat in trying to lay claim to land within Canada.

As a recognized aboriginal usufruct, treaties then do not surrender land, but only limit the Treaty First Nations use of the land. It can't surrender what it does not own, nor can the Crown obtain what it recognizes as not belonging to the First Nation.

Lastly, what is important to understand is that the settlement of "Six Nation's" Canada, post-proclamation was done under the pretext of the prevailing authority - Six Nations - which allowed settlement and use of land, but not removal from their territory. Thus governance in Upper Canada became then, and remains today sovereign only over the people, void of land and only a usufructary right with Six Nations holding the underlying aboriginal title.

But does any of this deal with known situations of squatting or any sort of actual sale of (i.e. from over a century ago) Indian lands to non-governmental persons or organizations?

[charter.rights]

But does any of this deal with known situations of squatting or any sort of actual sale of (i.e. from over a century ago) Indian lands to non-governmental persons or organizations?

Yes it does. In particular the settlements on Six Nations land was done strictly under Haudenosaunee Confederacy law, which provided for the use of land (to a plow's depth) and the harvesting of resources for personal use. It did not however, allow land to be removed from the territorial sovereignty (a foreign concept) or for the use of industry and commercial exploitation of the resources.

In the case of squatting, the Crown prohibited settlement (i.e. squatting) on Indian lands through the Royal Proclamation and later through the very specific Haldimad Proclamation. These laws were squarely aimed at British subjects, which unexpectedly became a problem when the lingering French settlers in Upper Canada refused to submit to the British Crown. The result was the Quebec Act 1774.

The only reason that these issues arise now is that the Crown prohibited (by law) lawyers from representing native people over land claims issues. That law was not repealed until 1957. Since then between obtaining research information, funding for claims and fighting government obfuscation and delays, native people are just emerging with the truth and facts. And as it turns out, not only is the law on their side, but the Crown is as well having entrenched aboriginal land rights and territorial sovereignty in those early documents, treaties and proclamations. And as the OP states this is still very much on the mind of the Crown, in the polishing of the chain ceremony that took place in Toronto a couple of weeks ago.

Edited July 22, 2010 by charter.rights