First Nations peoples are being eradicated by

[Tilter]

First Nations peoples are being eradicated by

perhaps their own chiefs?

[Bryan]

The Judiciary is one of the three divisions of government and cannot be over-ruled by the other two.

More B.S. from you. Governments can and do over rule and/or disregard judges' decisions all the time. See the current furor over the govt's decision to just ignore a federal judge regarding the removal of the CWBs monopoly. Charters and Constitutions don't mean a damn thing either if the government decides to ignore them. Try putting an english sign on your business in Quebec to see how your right to one of our national languages can just be tossed aside.

[g_bambino]

Governments can and do over rule and/or disregard judges' decisions all the time. See the current furor over the govt's decision to just ignore a federal judge regarding the removal of the CWBs monopoly. Charters and Constitutions don't mean a damn thing either if the government decides to ignore them. Try putting an english sign on your business in Quebec to see how your right to one of our national languages can just be tossed aside.

That's actually a collection of BS in itself. Technically, a government can act extra-constitutionally, but loses legitimacy by doing so since the act of a government acting outside the law undermines the legal system itself and all Hell then follows. But, nothing of the sort has ever happened in Canada; your two examples don't apply: In the first, the Canadian Wheat Board Act isn't a part of the constitution and, though the Minister of Agriculture did table his bill in an illegal manner, there was no established punnishment he could've faced for doing so other than for parliament to hold him in contempt, which, with the governing party holding a majority, obviousy won't happen. And as for the issue of language in Quebec, it's legal to have English on your sign and there's nothing in the constitution specifying required font sizes.

The government is therfore compelled to act within the bounds of the constitution, including the treaties within it, and certain acts of parliament that bind the Crown.

All that said, Charter is also full of BS. The Supreme Court has never said that First Nations are owed trillions of dollars, nor has it declared First Nations are totally sovereign.

[ed: +]

Edited January 3, 2012 by g_bambino

[charter.rights]

I've never heard of the Haudenossaunee, but I highly doubt their passport is recognized without its Canadian counterpart. As for the Lakota Republic, anybody can issue tokens, I buy them at football games to exchange for beer. Doesn't make them legal tender. As for the rest of your clap-trap regarding sovereignty and the Proclamation of 1763, when I hear it on the National, I'll believe it. Go read a real treaty. Oh wait, those are all null and void, aren't they?

The Haudenosaunee are the Six Nations - the Crowns long standing allies. Their passport has been accepted in 30 countries around the world.

The Lakota Bank is issuing "currency". It is legal tender within many First Nations and is backed by their ownership of silver. It is a token. You really should get out more.

The Royal Proclamation 1763 is the legal instrument that recognizes all Aboriginal rights - including self government - in Canada. Without it there would be no Canada. For someone who claims to teach you are a blatant failure at the first rule. KNow what you are teaching. You don't know history and should be expelled for claiming to teach it.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The Haudenosaunee are the Six Nations - the Crowns long standing allies. Their passport has been accepted in 30 countries around the world.

The Lakota Bank is issuing "currency". It is legal tender within many First Nations and is backed by their ownership of silver. It is a token. You really should get out more.

The Royal Proclamation 1763 is the legal instrument that recognizes all Aboriginal rights - including self government - in Canada. Without it there would be no Canada. For someone who claims to teach you are a blatant failure at the first rule. KNow what you are teaching. You don't know history and should be expelled for claiming to teach it.

“Since last week, the team learned that the Obama administration declined to honor the Haudenosaunee passports, and instead has asked the group to travel on U.S. passports – an action that would violate the sovereignty of the six Haudenosaunee (or Iroquois) Confederacy nations – the Onondaga, Mohawk, Seneca, Oneida, Tuscarora and Cayuga. Haudenosaunee citizens have been traveling internationally on their own passports for more than 30 years, said Chief Oren Lyons.”My link

So much for the much vaunted passport. It can't be used to get into the USA, that much is clear. Lie number one.

My link

"The Royal Proclamation of 1763

In the Royal Proclamation of 1763, as the British Empire established control over North America, guidelines for the government's relationship with Aboriginal people were set. These are still relevant today. The Royal Proclamation describes the basis for the historical and modern day treaties.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 recognized that:

• Aboriginal people lived on traditional lands

• Interest in those lands belonged to groups and nations, not individuals

• Only the Crown could buy or accept Aboriginal lands

• The Crown generally required an agreement to obtain lands from Aboriginal people

• Aboriginal people were under the Crown's protection

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 is very significant. It defines Canada's special relationship with Aboriginal people and sets out the basis in law for Aboriginal land ownership and other rights."

1763 makes it pretty clear that the Crown "established control over North America". In so doing they set "out the basis in law for Aboriginal land ownership and other rights." What this really means is that aboriginal rights are those determined by the crown.

[g_bambino]

What this really means is that aboriginal rights are those determined by the crown.

The Crown-in-Parliament, specifically.

Also, a key part of the Royal Proclamation that Charter always ignores is the following:

[T]he several Nations or Tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the Possession of such Parts of Our Dominions and Territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their Hunting Grounds... And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure... to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson's Bay Company, as also all the Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid.

Royal Proclamation 1763

First Nations in Canada are not completely sovereign; they are under the sovereignty of the Canadian Crown. Charter confuses self-government with sovereignty. The very fact that Aboriginal government is set out and governed by an act of the Canadian parliament (the Indian Act) should, in itself, demonstrate that First Nations people are subjects of the Queen of Canada, not inhabitants of their own sovereign states (as though Six Nations of the Grand River First Nation was akin to, say, France).

[cybercoma]

The First Nations have a direct relationship with the Crown and are self-governed. Which is why third-party management is questionable, since the federal government doesn't exactly have authority over the First Nations; the federal government is the Crown's administration to the First Nations.

[g_bambino]

[T]he federal government is the Crown's administration to the First Nations.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. First Nations can govern themselves, but it must be according to the Indian Act, an act of the Crown in its Canadian parliament. This was according to S.91.24 of the Constitution Act 1867, which sets out that parliament makes laws in relation to "Indians and Lands Reserved for Indians".

[charter.rights]

1763 makes it pretty clear that the Crown "established control over North America". In so doing they set "out the basis in law for Aboriginal land ownership and other rights." What this really means is that aboriginal rights are those determined by the crown.

The Haudenosaunee passport WAS accepted by the US until after the Secure passports were initiated. For that reason the US declined the Haudenosaunee passport just LAST YEAR. The Haudenosaunee Confederacy Council is producing another passport that will meet the Homeland Security requirements and has their assurance it will be able to be used once they meet the specifications.

As far as your quote goes, you need to learn how to properly read those documents. Despite your simplistic assertion, the Royal Proclamation 1763 did not establish "control over North America". In fact it did little more than create 4 colonies limited to Quebec, East Florida, West Florida and Grenada, a small strip of land up the east coast of the continental USA and the island of Grenada. Had the French not surrendered in the Treaty of Paris in 1763, Quebec would have also been excluded. And while it declared the four colonies were under Great Britain's control it still recognized lands within the colonies that had not been surrendered as the sole title of "the Indians". It had no application west of the Allegheny River except to recognize it was all Indian lands that were prohibited to settlement.

Although it is not a treaty per se, the Royal Proclamation 1763 was the result of an ultimatum sent to the British during negotiations for land under the Treaty of Loggstown 1759 where Six Nations informed the British that any settlement beyond the Allegheny would be met with war on the frontier. This was a serious threat to the settlement of the west and the British heeded the warning by prescribing the Proclamation as a measure to stop land barons for grabbing land, and cheating to get it. It prescribed that only the Crown could negotiate for land and prohibited settlement unless a surrender was obtained first.

Of course this is where Six Nations still holds all the cards since the Supreme Court has recognized that official surrenders were mandatory, and without them the Indians held a plenum dominium title to the land. Since Southern Ontario was never surrendered by Six Nations (they have held title since before 1656) the land still belongs to Six Nations. While the Court has held that land cannot be expropriated to settle these types of claims, it has order the government to pay the far value (explained previously). That means for Southern Ontario by using the Supreme Court's methods of determining fair value, it is worth over $78 trillion giver or take a trillion.

So before your make another silly juvenile mistake, take the time to thoroughly read and understand the Proclamation and not some whispering that often hides behind the racist intentions of others.

Edited January 4, 2012 by charter.rights

[jbg]

The First Nations have a direct relationship with the Crown and are self-governed. Which is why third-party management is questionable, since the federal government doesn't exactly have authority over the First Nations; the federal government is the Crown's administration to the First Nations.

Then how can you support both Quebec secession and say what you're saying?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The Haudenosaunee passport WAS accepted by the US until after the Secure passports were initiated. For that reason the US declined the Haudenosaunee passport just LAST YEAR. The Haudenosaunee Confederacy Council is producing another passport that will meet the Homeland Security requirements and has their assurance it will be able to be used once they meet the specifications.

As far as your quote goes, you need to learn how to properly read those documents. Despite your simplistic assertion, the Royal Proclamation 1763 did not establish "control over North America". In fact it did little more than create 4 colonies limited to Quebec, East Florida, West Florida and Grenada, a small strip of land up the east coast of the continental USA and the island of Grenada. Had the French not surrendered in the Treaty of Paris in 1763, Quebec would have also been excluded. And while it declared the four colonies were under Great Britain's control it still recognized lands within the colonies that had not been surrendered as the sole title of "the Indians". It had no application west of the Allegheny River except to recognize it was all Indian lands that were prohibited to settlement.

Although it is not a treaty per se, the Royal Proclamation 1763 was the result of an ultimatum sent to the British during negotiations for land under the Treaty of Loggstown 1759 where Six Nations informed the British that any settlement beyond the Allegheny would be met with war on the frontier. This was a serious threat to the settlement of the west and the British heeded the warning by prescribing the Proclamation as a measure to stop land barons for grabbing land, and cheating to get it. It prescribed that only the Crown could negotiate for land and prohibited settlement unless a surrender was obtained first.

Of course this is where Six Nations still holds all the cards since the Supreme Court has recognized that official surrenders were mandatory, and without them the Indians held a plenum dominium title to the land. Since Southern Ontario was never surrendered by Six Nations (they have held title since before 1656) the land still belongs to Six Nations. While the Court has held that land cannot be expropriated to settle these types of claims, it has order the government to pay the far value (explained previously). That means for Southern Ontario by using the Supreme Court's methods of determining fair value, it is worth over $78 trillion giver or take a trillion.

So before your make another silly juvenile mistake, take the time to thoroughly read and understand the Proclamation and not some whispering that often hides behind the racist intentions of others.

You are out to lunch. The Six Nations RETURNED to Canada from a long absence, they were given a piece of land along the Grande River. You should know it as the Haldimand Proclamation, a nice little bundle of goodies courtesy of Mr. Brandt. This is the same guy, a first nations guy, who then sold off the land back to either the crown, or agents of the crown. This man was trusted by the crown as an official representative of Six Nations peoples. Are these not facts CR ?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Ooooppps

Edited January 4, 2012 by Jerry J. Fortin

[Jerry J. Fortin]

duplicate post

Edited January 4, 2012 by Jerry J. Fortin

[charter.rights]

You are out to lunch. The Six Nations RETURNED to Canada from a long absence, they were given a piece of land along the Grande River. You should know it as the Haldimand Proclamation, a nice little bundle of goodies courtesy of Mr. Brandt. This is the same guy, a first nations guy, who then sold off the land back to either the crown, or agents of the crown. This man was trusted by the crown as an official representative of Six Nations peoples. Are these not facts CR ?

NO. They are NOt "facts". They are myths perpetrated by the Family Compact with the intention of trying to claim all of Canada was unoccupied at the time the British arrived.

Check out the Mitchell Map 1757. It clearly shows that Six Nations was in control of Southern Ontario for at least a hundred years prior. Before that they had continuous occupation of the north shores of the St. Lawrence, and Lakes Ontario and Erie for about 100 miles northward (where Hwy 7 runs through Ontario today). Archaeology of the North shores has shown that Six Nations have been in Southern Ontario including where the Haldimand Tract is today, since about 750BP. It is likely they will find earlier dates since many archaeologists has stopped looking because they believed the Hauedenosaunee only came here after the tract was granted.

The Haldimand Tract was NOT given to Six Nations. It was their land at the time, and the British and Six Nations made a deal with the Mississauga to relocate them back to the North Shore of Superior for some cash, in order that Six Nations would have the land exclusively. Victor Conrad a well known geographer has Six Nations occupying the Haldimand / Brantford area in a number of villages at about 1400AD. Settlers and squatters were also ordered off the land. However, the British failed to uphold their demands and many settlers continued to stay on the land despite the persistent grievances and protests of Six Nations.

Joseph Brant was nothing more than a "Pine Tree Chief", his name hung around his neck. After he entered the Six Nations into the war on the British side - an act that was against the consensus of the Confederacy Council who had voted to remain neutral - he was deposed and had no authority to speak on behalf of the Six Nations. Under the Haudenosaunee law he could not be stripped of his title until death but he was sanctioned by the Council and no one was to give him the time of day.

The British refused to acknowledge his removal and continued to try to make deals with him. However, the Confederacy Council had over time written to the Governor General to inform them of his removal and refused to abide by any deals the British made with him. That is why there is ambiguity over the land leases that Brant offered to settlers. They were never official, and Brant had no authority to grant them or to sell land.

All of which brings us back to to the importance of the Royal Proclamation 1763. The British had ruled that no land could be settled or purchased without a proper surrender having taken place first. They knew the protocol required by Six Nations since they had been making treaties with them since the early 1500's. None of the purported surrenders around the Haldimand, or in Southern Ontario followed that law, or the requirements of the Royal Proclamation. And according to the ruling made by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Chippewas of Sarnia v. Canada, no surrenders or purchases are valid.

Edited January 4, 2012 by charter.rights

[peg_city]

This story is as old as history itself. An invading country takes control through force or by diplomacy. The main exception is that now the ruling majority have the empathy and morals to deal with the issue through legal means. The results of an invading country has usually resulted in the minority getting absorbed by the majority and you are left with a racial melting pot. Yes the aboriginal demographic is growing but so is Canada's population and if you follow the demographics you will see that these land claims will be dealt with by a prime minister with Chinese dissent who had nothing to do with British colonialism. The end game will be the aboriginal population being absorbed by the Canadian majority, whether it's now or in 200 years. My guess is that the Canadian governments plan is to wait it out.

Edited January 4, 2012 by peg_city

[scribblet]

I see the paid Conservative attack crew has infiltrated this site as well. The PMO has been busy this fall trying to downplay their incompetence.

Toto - I'm not in Kansas anymore

Who pay you anyway LOL

[scribblet]

Maybe we should revisit Trudeau's words

Why should we continue with race based preferential treatment.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Trudeau+words+about+aboriginals+resonate/5938345/story.html

"So this year we came up with a proposal. It's a policy paper on the Indian problem. It proposes a set of solutions. It doesn't impose them on anybody. It proposes them - not only to the Indians, but to all Canadians - not only to their federal representatives, but to the provincial representatives, too, and it says we're at the crossroads. We can go on treating the Indians as having a special status. We can go on adding bricks of discrimination around the ghetto in which they live and at the same time perhaps helping them preserve certain cultural traits and certain ancestral rights. Or we can say you're at a crossroad - the time is now to decide whether the Indians will be a race apart in Canada or whether it will be Canadians of full status."

Those words were spoken back on Aug. 8, 1969, by then-prime minister Pierre Trudeau at the Aboriginal and Treaty Rights meeting in Vancouver.

Edited January 4, 2012 by scribblet

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Look CR, face the facts. Brandt was in fact instrumental in the the deal struck with the Crown, that deal was in fact proposed by Brandt. The deal was simple, support the Crown and get some land. These natives were refugees from the losing side in the quest for American Independence. Those Six Nations people were from the USA, that is a fact. You can say what you want about Brandt, but you cannot ignore the reality of his position. He was designated as a leader and he legally represented those of the First Nations. What is more is that BRANDT WAS ONE OF THOSE SELLING THE LAND.

[prairiechickin]

Look CR, face the facts. Brandt was in fact instrumental in the the deal struck with the Crown, that deal was in fact proposed by Brandt. The deal was simple, support the Crown and get some land. These natives were refugees from the losing side in the quest for American Independence. Those Six Nations people were from the USA, that is a fact. You can say what you want about Brandt, but you cannot ignore the reality of his position. He was designated as a leader and he legally represented those of the First Nations. What is more is that BRANDT WAS ONE OF THOSE SELLING THE LAND.

You are bang on here, but all the factual history in the world will not convince CR of anything -- he lives in a parallel universe where everyone is their own historian and we all get to rewrite our past so as to cast ourselves in a favorable light. Facts are powerless when confronted with his all powerful imagination.

[cybercoma]

You are bang on here, but all the factual history in the world will not convince CR of anything -- he lives in a parallel universe where everyone is their own historian and we all get to rewrite our past so as to cast ourselves in a favorable light. Facts are powerless when confronted with his all powerful imagination.

So all of this...

Joseph Brant was nothing more than a "Pine Tree Chief", his name hung around his neck. After he entered the Six Nations into the war on the British side - an act that was against the consensus of the Confederacy Council who had voted to remain neutral - he was deposed and had no authority to speak on behalf of the Six Nations. Under the Haudenosaunee law he could not be stripped of his title until death but he was sanctioned by the Council and no one was to give him the time of day.

The British refused to acknowledge his removal and continued to try to make deals with him. However, the Confederacy Council had over time written to the Governor General to inform them of his removal and refused to abide by any deals the British made with him. That is why there is ambiguity over the land leases that Brant offered to settlers. They were never official, and Brant had no authority to grant them or to sell land.

...is just made up off the top of CR's head?

[prairiechickin]

All of which brings us back to to the importance of the Royal Proclamation 1763. The British had ruled that no land could be settled or purchased without a proper surrender having taken place first. They knew the protocol required by Six Nations since they had been making treaties with them since the early 1500's. None of the purported surrenders around the Haldimand, or in Southern Ontario followed that law, or the requirements of the Royal Proclamation. And according to the ruling made by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Chippewas of Sarnia v. Canada, no surrenders or purchases are valid.

Chippewas of Sarnia Band v. Canada (Attorney General), 195 D.L.R. (4th) 135, was a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario rendered on December 21, 2000. The plaintiff, an aboriginal nation, claimed aboriginal title to a four-square-mile parcel of land in and around the city of Sarnia, Ontario. The Court of Appeal dismissed the claim, upholding the lower court's judgment although with different reasoning. The Chippewas of Sarnia sought leave from the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal the decision, but leave was denied.

So much for your oft-repeated claim about the Chippawa of Sarnia v. Canada. First of all, the case never made it to the SCoC. The Chippawa lost in the Ontario Court of Appeals. The judge ruled that regardless of the legality of the transfer, the Chippawa never filed claim in the 60 years following the deal, so any right they may have had for redress from the many innocent legal landowners died in 1921.

[prairiechickin]

So all of this...

...is just made up off the top of CR's head?

Unless he cites a source, pretty much. See my post above, he has a pretty good track record of just making stuff up.

Edited January 4, 2012 by prairiechickin

[jacee]

Let's take a look at the status of the law of Canada ... in this case the Supreme Court rulings, case law, that apply to Aboriginal rights:

But the court decisions continued to arrive, binding the province ever more tightly and gradually acclimatizing both the government and the citizenry to the idea that aboriginal title could not be avoided. In 1984, a B.C. judicial decision affirmed that where treaties existed, they had to be considered “in the sense in which they would naturally be understood by Indians,” not simply for the convenience of government departments.

...

Only the steady accretion of judicial decisions on aboriginal rights has gradually educated governments and the business community, and the public too. Court decisions gradually taught that land claims left unsettled will prevent economic development, undermine everyone’s land titles and subject the Crown either to endless litigation or to violent confrontations. As that lesson slowly took hold, sober self-interest began to whisper that a deal was both smart and feasible.

...

If Ontario had a case like Calder the Grand River valley, what might the law actually say? Now that it is settled law that Canada must accept treaty obligations to First Nations, can the cynical manoeuvrings and tortured reasoning by which Ontario justified its 19th-century appropriations of Six Nations’ land survive judicial scrutiny? Now that legal interpretations of treaty clauses must consider how aboriginal parties actually understood them, the courts may eventually take a fresh look at how Ontario redefined those guarantees of land “to be enjoyed forever” and “in the most free and ample manner.” It might not be a bad bet to wager that one day a court is going to rule that the Crown in Ontario lacks valid title not just to the postage stamp that is Douglas Creek Estates but to the full 400,000 hectares of the original Six Nations territory, and that the Crown is indeed compelled to consult in the use and development of those lands and their resources.

http://reviewcanada.ca/essays/2010/04/01/the-calamity-of-caledonia/

It seems that there is more to treaty interpretation and application in law than some would like to acknowledge.

In an Ontario courtroom a lower court judge acknowledged that a recent Ontario Court of Appeal ruling meant that Six Nations should have been properly consulted about the Douglas Creek Estate development and their Aboriginal rights accommodated prior to violent police action against them (ie, April 20 2006) but he concluded, rather lamely, that there was no clear indication that the ruling applied to any other properties - ie, the entire Haldimand Tract. His hesitancy in saying these words, and his pallor, made it clear that he knew. That he was wrong, but just as clear that as a lowly lower court judge, he was not going to be the one to make that inevitable sweeping judgement.

The status of Aboriginal rights in Ontario is still evolving, but it's very clear at this point that the extinction of Aboriginal rights and Aboriginal peoples is not legal in Canada. Regardless of the deceitful intent of BNA/Canada's treaty-making, the "honour of the Crown" must be respected and maintained by the courts. We are held by our own laws to honour the treaties as they were understood and agreed to at the time, not to the underlying underhanded intent to use them only to destroy Aboriginal peoples and their rights: To accept that underhanded 'intent' would besmirch the 'honour of the Crown' and the courts cannot do that.

Edited January 5, 2012 by jacee

[charter.rights]

Chippewas of Sarnia Band v. Canada (Attorney General), 195 D.L.R. (4th) 135, was a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario rendered on December 21, 2000. The plaintiff, an aboriginal nation, claimed aboriginal title to a four-square-mile parcel of land in and around the city of Sarnia, Ontario. The Court of Appeal dismissed the claim, upholding the lower court's judgment although with different reasoning. The Chippewas of Sarnia sought leave from the Supreme Court of Canada to appeal the decision, but leave was denied.

So much for your oft-repeated claim about the Chippawa of Sarnia v. Canada. First of all, the case never made it to the SCoC. The Chippawa lost in the Ontario Court of Appeals. The judge ruled that regardless of the legality of the transfer, the Chippawa never filed claim in the 60 years following the deal, so any right they may have had for redress from the many innocent legal landowners died in 1921.

I stand corrected. The case did go before the Ontario Court of Appeal. In this the Court of Appeal confirmed the test required to certify a valid surrender in the following:

Chippewas of Sarnia v. Canada

1. Did the surrender procedures set out in the Royal Proclamation have the force of law at the time of the sale to Cameron in 1839 and the subsequent letters patent in 1853?

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 to Cameron?

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?

[18].....The motions judge held that the surrender procedures in the Royal Proclamation had the force of law at the relevant time, that these procedures were not followed and that the Chippewas never consented to or affirmed the Cameron transaction....

[19]...Instead, we adopt the view that surrender was necessary as a result of the established protocol between the Crown and First Nations peoples that aboriginal title could be lost only by surrender to the Crown....

[20]...we accept the proposition that a surrender required a voluntary, informed, communal decision to give up the land and we agree with the motions judge that the Chippewas never surrendered the disputed lands to the Crown....

[23]...The motions judge held that the Chippewas’ claim was not barred by any statutory limitation period. He held further that in the absence of surrender, the Cameron patent was void ab initio and that the defences of laches and acquiescence could not be relied upon. ...

[24]We agree with the motions judge that the Chippewas’ claim is not barred by any statutory limitation period. However, we do not agree that the Cameron patent was void ab initio. In our view, the patent was valid on its face and continues to have legal effect unless and until a court decides to exercise its discretion to set it aside. We are of the view that the principles governing the availability of the relevant public and private law remedies militate against a court exercising its discretion in this case. Finally, we are of the view that the imposition of a sixty-year “equitable limitation period” is not supportable in law. In the result, we are of the view that the Chippewas have no entitlement to the remedies they seek for the return of the disputed lands and that they are left with their claim in damages against Canada and Ontario.

Sometimes it is not the outcome that creates precedence but the meat of the cases themselves.

The Chippewas test became the defacto legal test for determining whether or not a valid surrender has taken place.

[charter.rights]

Look CR, face the facts. Brandt was in fact instrumental in the the deal struck with the Crown, that deal was in fact proposed by Brandt. The deal was simple, support the Crown and get some land. These natives were refugees from the losing side in the quest for American Independence. Those Six Nations people were from the USA, that is a fact. You can say what you want about Brandt, but you cannot ignore the reality of his position. He was designated as a leader and he legally represented those of the First Nations. What is more is that BRANDT WAS ONE OF THOSE SELLING THE LAND.

Incorrect. And his name is Joseph BRANT, NOT BRANDT. He was Mohawk, not German.

The Silver Covenant Chain treaties started about 1686, and continued on up until the Royal Proclamation 1763. The quest for land in the US was actually brokered through Six Nation / Haudenosaunee agents and negotiators.

The Haldimand Proclamation was not a treaty that required the agreement of Six Nations, nor were the Haudenosaunee "refugees". The deal for land in Ontario to be set aside for Six Nations' exlcusive use was made before the Mohawks under Brant ever joined in the war. And in fact more than half of the Six Nations Confederacy remained in the US, while a number of families followed Joseph Brant and John Deseronto to their Ontario lands after the war.

The Haldimand Proclamation was issued as a law for the settlers to get off the Six Nations land. It had no lawful effect on any member of Six Nations.

Earlier, Six Nations and the British made a deal with the Mississauga to relocate back to the North Shore of Superior. They had previously been invited down into Southern Ontario by Six Nations under the Two Spoons One Bowl Treaty of 1656, signed at Taiaiagon (now Toronto). When they met with representatives of Six Nations and the British at Burlington in 1783 the Mississauga demanded gifts as was customary and Joseph Brant convinced Haldimand to pay a sum for the relocation of the Mississauga. History has been twisted to refer to that as the "Haldimand Purchase" however, under the Royal Proclamation 1763 any such surrender was legal unless it consisted of a public and formal signing of a treaty delivered by consensus of the full Mississauga Nation. That "surrender" never occurred.

In the Mitchell Map 1757 it identifies that Six Nations had been in possession of all of Southern Ontario south of the Ottawa River for over 100 years. When they decided to come to the Haldimand Tract (as they had selected) they were merely traveling to their own land. It is noted on the map that the Mississauga became the 8th member of the Confederacy, although there is no written history I am aware of that confirms it. However, Mohawk oral history does talk about the adoption of the Mississauga into the Confederacy and there is a time where there are a number of blended family names between the two nations.

In any case, Joseph Brant had no authority and by 1802 he was exiled to Burlington where he died in 1807.