Phil Fontaine Liberal Leader?

[charter.rights]

Long woods tract, included another 29000 acres, that was never sold, and was "added" into the final sales. The government either didn't know about the extra 29000 acres or they simply stole the property.

A land claim was finished a few years back, and the government settled with CHippewa for 5 million dollars for 190 acres. Each acre was valued at 26000 plus change. So 29000 acres, at 26000 per acre, "Established in 1992", the claim would be worth 760,000,000 million. The actually value, is into the billions with compound interest.

The government tried to throw that same kind of money at Six Nations and 6N told them to blow. The government couldn't come up with the justification for a $25million offer on 290 acres when 6N told them their accountants came up to a value of between $500 million and $1billion with interest. They still have a case in that the government is responsible for costs for loss of use and benefit OR for the full compounded interests had the money been properly place in their trust account. They even offer the government a compromise of $250 million if the claim was settled quickly but the government has been dragging its feet on any Six Naitons claims. Go figure. It is what the government does best....nothing...

Edited July 21, 2011 by charter.rights

[Remiel]

You guys really do First Nations credit by implying that they are usurers of the worst kind.

[jacee]

You guys really do First Nations credit by implying that they are usurers of the worst kind.

how so?

[Remiel]

What what else would you call interest in excess of 15000%? Just go a few posts back and charter.rights claims we owe an excess of $500 billion dollars on land that may have, at probably the most generous, been worth $3 billion in today dollars at the time of sale.

[Sandy MacNab]

In light of Canada's ideas on Racism, if he ran for PM of Canada anyone casting a vote or an opposing party would be considered to be a racist.

If Canadians are that politically correct a gay would be a shoe-in.

[Sandy MacNab]

Wow! With that kind of money, they would never have to go to school! They would never have to invent or build anything for themselves. They could just lie back and pay someone to drop grapes in their mouths!

I'm not sure if that money would be a blessing or a curse...

Isn't that what the majority have done since the signing of the first treaties?

[charter.rights]

What what else would you call interest in excess of 15000%? Just go a few posts back and charter.rights claims we owe an excess of $500 billion dollars on land that may have, at probably the most generous, been worth $3 billion in today dollars at the time of sale.

That's what happens to 190 years of compounded interest.

The compounded interests over the years have been calculated quarterly and bi-annually as set out by and Order in Council. INAC has all the tables going back those 190 years. It isn't land value as it would be today...unless of course the government was willing to buy it back and give it to First Nations. No it is investment money guaranteed by the Crown on all monies held in their trust.

[Remiel]

That's what happens to 190 years of compounded interest.

The compounded interests over the years have been calculated quarterly and bi-annually as set out by and Order in Council. INAC has all the tables going back those 190 years. It isn't land value as it would be today...unless of course the government was willing to buy it back and give it to First Nations. No it is investment money guaranteed by the Crown on all monies held in their trust.

What Order in Council do you imagine can compel Canadians to submit to debt slavery?

[charter.rights]

What Order in Council do you imagine can compel Canadians to submit to debt slavery?

"The Crown" whom enslaves us the minute we are born and registers our births.

[Remiel]

"The Crown" whom enslaves us the minute we are born and registers our births.

And how do you imagine the " Crown " will manage this feat, when there is no one who will enforce the " Crown's " will?

[charter.rights]

And how do you imagine the " Crown " will manage this feat, when there is no one who will enforce the " Crown's " will?

"The Crown" owns the courts, the military, the parliament and all Canadian institutions. Its obligation is on itself defined by the Supreme Court as the "Honour of the Crown" which it sees as absolute. There is no need for enforcement since "The Crown" recognizes it obligations and responsibilities. The government on the other hand often needs to be reminded that it is the Crown and not the Prime Minister that is the supreme lawmaker in Canada.

In any case, while entertaining, your point is moot. The trust is a legal obligation under Canadian law and enforceable by the Courts and protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Remiel]

"The Crown" owns the courts, the military, the parliament and all Canadian institutions. Its obligation is on itself defined by the Supreme Court as the "Honour of the Crown" which it sees as absolute. There is no need for enforcement since "The Crown" recognizes it obligations and responsibilities. The government on the other hand often needs to be reminded that it is the Crown and not the Prime Minister that is the supreme lawmaker in Canada.

In any case, while entertaining, your point is moot. The trust is a legal obligation under Canadian law and enforceable by the Courts and protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I have news for you: none of those insitution matter one whit without the people that run them. You do not seem to comprehend that the Crown has no power over the men and women in the courts, the military, the parliament and all Canadian institutions other than what those people allow themselves. If following the " Crown " means trillions of dollars in debt, then that is so much worse for the Crown, because it will not be followed.

[charter.rights]

I have news for you: none of those insitution matter one whit without the people that run them. You do not seem to comprehend that the Crown has no power over the men and women in the courts, the military, the parliament and all Canadian institutions other than what those people allow themselves. If following the " Crown " means trillions of dollars in debt, then that is so much worse for the Crown, because it will not be followed.

Are you on a lunch break? You sure set out there....

You might want to read the news and in particular read what the courts are ruling when aboriginal issues come to them. We are definitely not in very good shape.

The Crown isn't "in debt". They are managing a trust in favour of First Nations that obligates them to provide interest at rates set out by an Order in Council.

[Remiel]

Are you on a lunch break? You sure set out there....

You might want to read the news and in particular read what the courts are ruling when aboriginal issues come to them. We are definitely not in very good shape.

The Crown isn't "in debt". They are managing a trust in favour of First Nations that obligates them to provide interest at rates set out by an Order in Council.

You might want to grow some common sense and figure out that strict proportionality is not a requirement of anything.

The American Revolution was fought for far less than what you imply. And yet you do not even understand what you imply. The Order in Council you refer to is from 1861, yet in your nonsense calculations you act as if it applies since 1830.

[charter.rights]

You might want to grow some common sense and figure out that strict proportionality is not a requirement of anything.

The American Revolution was fought for far less than what you imply. And yet you do not even understand what you imply. The Order in Council you refer to is from 1861, yet in your nonsense calculations you act as if it applies since 1830.

You are talking nonsense again.

The tables and accrued interests goe back to 1820. However, the trusts in which the Crown promised some FN that they would take control of and invest their money actually began around 1710 and the Crown of Canada inherited all the obligation of the Crown of Great Britain in 1982.

[Remiel]

You are talking nonsense again.

The tables and accrued interests goe back to 1820. However, the trusts in which the Crown promised some FN that they would take control of and invest their money actually began around 1710 and the Crown of Canada inherited all the obligation of the Crown of Great Britain in 1982.

You have yet to demonstrate the obligation to pay interest on anything.

[charter.rights]

You have yet to demonstrate the obligation to pay interest on anything.

You might want to look up the legal obligations of Trustees under Canadian (Crown)law. They are extensive and they must always act in the best interests of the trust holders. Always. $2 trillion "in trust" with interests by Order in Council at rates set bi-annually.

[Remiel]

You might want to look up the legal obligations of Trustees under Canadian (Crown)law. They are extensive and they must always act in the best interests of the trust holders. Always. $2 trillion "in trust" with interests by Order in Council at rates set bi-annually.

You might want to look up Reality under The Real World.

[Tilter]

The government tried to throw that same kind of money at Six Nations and 6N told them to blow. The government couldn't come up with the justification for a $25million offer on 290 acres when 6N told them their accountants came up to a value of between $500 million and $1billion with interest. They still have a case in that the government is responsible for costs for loss of use and benefit OR for the full compounded interests had the money been properly place in their trust account. They even offer the government a compromise of $250 million if the claim was settled quickly but the government has been dragging its feet on any Six Naitons claims. Go figure. It is what the government does best....nothing...

Stole -- schmold--- to the victor go the spoils and our ancestors were victorious.

[charter.rights]

Stole -- schmold--- to the victor go the spoils and our ancestors were victorious.

Try again.

If you read the law and the Supreme Court rulings it is very apparent we got the shorter end of the stick.

R V Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Indian Association of Alberta and others, British High Court 1982,

"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. "

Calder v. A-G of British Columbia 1973

"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."

[Shwa]

Stole -- schmold--- to the victor go the spoils and our ancestors were victorious.

So if someone shoots you and steals your property (aka "the spoils"), you'll be OK with it, because they are "victorious" over you? Or do you arrive at another conclusion because you believe in "the law?"