People are getting fed up with natives

[bush_cheney2004]

bush-cheney - that's not a very strong endorsement for Trump. Belly button lint has created more jobs than Justin Trudeau.

That's why The Right Honourable Justin P. J. Trudeau continues the "white culture" welfare tradition in Canada.

[Argus]

Or look at "white culture" up north....

Where up north? You have to be more specific.

[WestCanMan]

That's why The Right Honourable Justin P. J. Trudeau continues the "white culture" welfare tradition in Canada.

What is that?

[Accountability Now]

Specifically what claim are you making up slanderous nonsense about?

Link please?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_River_land_dispute

The land/deed in question was bought by Haldimand in May of 1784. Payment made. He then gave the Iroquois permission to live on the land. It wasn't a treaty with specific rights, it was a reward for siding with the British during the war. Haldimand's grant was not legally proper so Simcoe came in and provided a limited deed in 1793 which again did not provide the natives with the right of alienation. (ie right to sell the land to anyone but themselves and back to the King). From what I have read, the Six Nations actually rejected the Simcoe Patent because they knew they didn't own the land.

Shortly after that Brant sold off some of the land even though he didn't have the right nor the deed to do so. Payment made even though the land wasn't theirs.

Land for Plank Road was sold even though they didn't own the deed. Payment made even though the land wasn't theirs.

The reality is that the deed for the land was never fully turned over to the Six Nations. If so, please provide the treaty or deed title that shows it did.

You are not addressing the issue of trust fund fraud that I raised.

I did address it. I showed you the link to the Canadian government audit of the First Nations trust fund. The fact that you feel this specific claim should be added to that list does not prove that its a legal fact.. Again, this matter is in the courts because of the various components involved. The reality is that the Canadian government was willing to settle because they probably did say they would put the money in trust and having this come out in court would make them look bad on that front. However, their actual 'legal' responsibility would be limited because the Canadian government never turned over the deed and therefore legally wouldn't have to put anything in trust.

As you say...I guess we'll see what the courts say.

[jacee]

As you say...I guess we'll see what the courts say.

That's true.

The Plank Road claim was never formally rejected so there is no documentation to support your opinions.

It's still in play and part of the accounting being requested, I believe.

[Accountability Now]

The Plank Road claim was never formally rejected so there is no documentation to support your opinions.

.

Rejected or accepted?

1844: A surrender is signed by 47 Six Nations chiefs that authorized the sale of land to build Plank Road.

Are you saying this DIDN'T happen?

[jacee]

Rejected or accepted?

Neither.

1844: A surrender is signed by 47 Six Nations chiefs that authorized the sale of land to build Plank Road.

Are you saying this DIDN'T happen?

Are you saying payment happened?

We'll see what the courts say.

.

[Accountability Now]

Neither.

Wow....you really like your conspiracy theories.

Are you saying payment happened?

Some did. Maybe not all...or at least not to the liking of the Six Nations. What I am saying is that the money wasn't owed to them as it wasn't their land.

[jacee]

Wow....you really like your conspiracy theories.

The Plank Road claim has neither been formally accepted nor formally rejected (ie, in writing with rationale).

If you have evidence of either, please present it.

Some did. Maybe not all...or at least not to the liking of the Six Nations. What I am saying is that the money wasn't owed to them as it wasn't their land.

In your opinion.

We'll see what the courts say.

.

[Accountability Now]

The Plank Road claim has neither been formally accepted nor formally rejected (ie, in writing with rationale).

.

Was the Simcoe Patent or the Haldimand Claim ever accepted in writing by the Six Nations?

[jacee]

Was the Simcoe Patent or the Haldimand Claim ever accepted in writing by the Six Nations?

That's a nonsense deflection.

My point was, of course, that the government negotiators failed to reject the Plank Road claim. If their case was as strong as you pretend, why didn't they just reject it formally, and document their reasons and evidence ... and put an end to the uncertainty for that community?

You don't have all of the information nor the expertise to draw the conclusions you put forward.

.

[Accountability Now]

That's a nonsense deflection.

How is it nonsense? You claim that it has to be in writing for it to matter yet the First Nations did not accept the Haldimand Proclamation or the Simcoe Patent in writing. Actually, there is some documentation that I have read suggesting they actually rejected the Simcoe Patent because they knew they didn't own the land.

My point was, of course, that the government negotiators failed to reject the Plank Road claim. If their case was as strong as you pretend, why didn't they just reject it formally, and document their reasons and evidence ... and put an end to the uncertainty for that community?

jacee....are you just making stuff up now? The Government did reject this claim. As per Ron Doering, the Senior Federal Negotiator:

"Canada's position has always been that we have no legal obligation in relation to Douglas Creek Estates or the Plank Road claim," Doering said. "But we will make a condition of this that no final settlement will be made with them unless the occupation ended."

http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=2c5f6eb1-77b3-469f-9f89-1e03c1c40299

The only claims that are relevant were the four claims being addressed by the 125M settlement:

Those claims relate to: The decommissioned Burtch Correctional Centre, near Brantford; the former Moulton township; the flooding of lands in Dunnville to build the Welland Canal; and the collapse of the Grand River Navigation Co., a canal-building company in which the British Crown invested money on Six Nations' behalf.

The Plank Road/DCE claim was only discussed because the native occupiers were on that land. A condition of the 125M settlement was that these 'occupiers' would leave that land.

You don't have all of the information nor the expertise to draw the conclusions you put forward.

Clearly I have enough to make short work of your false claims.

[jacee]

Now you are close to getting it:

The feds never put that in writing, never followed through with the rejection process formally, never documented it legally.

So it awaits the courts judgement.

Got it now?

.

[Accountability Now]

Now you are close to getting it:

I wish you were though...

The feds never put that in writing, never followed through with the rejection process formally, never documented it legally.

Canada has made its position knows. On February 29, 2009

Canada’s position on the Hamilton Port Dover Plank Road Bed is that Canada believes that the Province of Canada acted in the best interests of Six Nations by dedicating and constructing the Plank Road as a public highway, although no direct compensation was paid for the road bed acreage (96 acres) itself. This was consistent with the practice of other land owners at the time and enhanced the value and marketability of the lots sold for the benefit of the Six Nations.

http://www.sixnations.ca/LandsResources/NegUpdate2.htm

It has never been formally rejected because Canada agreed to continued to have discussions as that is Canada's preferred method of getting this done. I find it ironic that you want Canada to stop having discussions and just make a decision when the entire native world bangs their collective drum about the importance of meaningful discussion and consultation.

I don't know what, if any discussions have been had since 2009 however it would be up to the Six Nations to provide any new information that proved Canada did not act prudently. Its going to be a hard sell considering this road was built to the same standards as other non-native communities of the time.

For a summary of the position paper, you can look here http://www.sixnations.ca/LandsResources/CanadaPlankRoadNathanGagePresentation.pdf

So it awaits the courts judgement.

Lol...and when do you think that will be? The claim was first filed in 1987 and then included in the new claim in 1995. In 2007 the government said:

Federal negotiator Barbara McDougall told reporters that although the government says Six Nations does not have "a legitimate claim to that particular property," it doesn't mean there are not solutions to other problems "we are trying to deal with at the table ... there are still issues we want to deal with."

http://www.caledoniawakeupcall.com/updates/070126spectator.html

In 2009 the position paper stated above basically held the same stance. Canada's position on this has not wavered. Yet the Six Nations are content with further discussions? Why....because they most likely agree with Barbara McDougall in that there are other issues to be dealt with beyond the land claim.

Got it now?

That's a question you should be asking yourself.

[jacee]

Canada has made its position knows. On February 29, 2009

It has never been formally rejected because Canada agreed to continued to have discussions ...

That's the gov's starting position for negotiating ... as reported by someone else.

That is ... it's just hearsay.

If the gov had solid grounds for rejecting the Plank Road claim, as you suggest, they would have followed through with the formal process, knocked that big one off their list, got their bonus.

I guess it just isn't as clear as you say.

I don't know what, if any discussions have been had since 2009

From your link ...

Since 2010, meetings have not continued in a formal format as previously held between all parties.

AN, it would be easier to have a real discussion with you if you wouldn't confuse things so much ... and so intentionally.

In the portions of your post I deleted, you confused:

Negotiating a land claim

and

Consultation regarding Aboriginal rights;

A bargaining position

and

a formal rejection;

Negotiating

and

Litigating.

These are important elements of understanding Aboriginal rights and titles.

It just wasn't worth correcting your errors to even try to respond to you.

If indeed some 'people are getting fed up with natives' ... maybe it's because 'some people' prefer to confuse things and evade the truth.

.

Edited April 8, 2016 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

That's the gov's starting position for negotiating ... as reported by someone else.

That is ... it's just hearsay.

As reported by the SIX NATIONS!!!! Please check the link if you don't believe me.

On the second link, also from the Six Nations website, it shows the summary of the position paper from the Government of Canada which explicitly states on Canada's view on the sixth page. Do you know what hearsay is? Or would you just prefer to deflect so you don't have to admit you're wrong?

If the gov had solid grounds for rejecting the Plank Road claim, as you suggest, they would have followed through with the formal process, knocked that big one off their list, got their bonus.

I guess it just isn't as clear as you say.

Do I seriously need to hold your hand through this process? The Plank Road claim was initially filed in 1987 and then included in the 1995 lawsuit which included a number of other claims. As such the government has to address ALL the claims to dismiss the 1995 suit.....not just Plank Road. Yeesh.

From your link ...

Since 2010, meetings have not continued in a formal format as previously held between all parties.

No....my link does not say that. You went over to another page on the Six Nations site to find this http://www.sixnations.ca/LandsResources/lsuNegotiations.htm

Unfortunately that is not discussing the negotiations on Plank Road but rather the negotiations on Welland Canal and other grievances.

Can you please try your best to understand the differences?

AN, it would be easier to have a real discussion with you if you wouldn't confuse things so much ... and so intentionally.

I can't help it that you are easily confused. Not my fault. Perhaps take some time to read what is actually being said and let it soak in.

I do recall you having troubles with this in the past where you kept trumpeting claims about Canada spending 11 billion on litigation in Aboriginal Affairs when that wasn't even close to being true. It took me a number of posts to clear that up for you because you refused to actually read what was being said.

Real discussions do require comprehension....something that you clearly lack.

Negotiating a land claim

and

Consultation regarding Aboriginal rights;

A bargaining position

and

a formal rejection;

Negotiating

and

Litigating.

Yes...all of these things have been discussed in various parts of our conversation but not once have I confused them as you indicate. The simple fact is that you read into what you want to see and have zero ability to follow the conversation. Again, please take some time to understand what is being said and about what comment as that may actually help you.

It just wasn't worth correcting your errors to even try to respond to you.

What you mean to say here is that you had no proper argument so you are now making crap up. I understand!

If indeed some 'people are getting fed up with natives' ... maybe it's because 'some people' prefer to confuse things and evade the truth.

Its funny you say this. I decided to watch a number of videos on the Caledonia crisis and I was absolutely amazed by the lack of understanding that natives had. They kept calling the Haldimand Proclamation a 'treaty' which of course it clearly is not. They also have no sense of what an actual deed with the right of alienation is.

Again...the frustration with natives somewhat has to do with their confusion and willingness to spew this ignorance to anyone that will listen. The larger part of frustration is their willingness to play the system as the poor downtrodden 'Indian' whenever there is the slightest chance that they can get money or some sort of deal even when they clearly don't have a legal leg to stand on.

The entire irony of the whole situation is interesting....it is always expected the Crown is to act in good faith however that expectation of the natives is not there nor is it shown.

[jacee]

As reported by the SIX NATIONS!!!! Please check the link if you don't believe me.

On the second link, also from the Six Nations website, it shows the summary of the position paper from the Government of Canada which explicitly states on Canada's view on the sixth page. Do you know what hearsay is?

Hearsay is reporting what someone else told you.

Such as ... Six Nations reporting on their website what the negotiators told them.

You have reported hearsay. It is not definitive proof of anything. You will have to look further to find a written statement from the government formally rejecting the claim. But you won't find it ... because they haven't.

The Plank Road claim was initially filed in 1987 and then included in the 1995 lawsuit which included a number of other claims. As such the government has to address ALL the claims to dismiss the 1995 suit.....not just Plank Road. Yeesh.

Yes that's true... but ... a lawsuit is evaluated by the courts, not by the government. (Yeesh. More of your confusion.)

Then they went back into negotiations as we know, and then negotiations broke down in 2010.

Now you will find on Six Nations website an indication that they are again preparing for litigation, for an accounting of their Trust Fund monies including most or all of the historical transactions.

And yes ... the government is always required to operate 'in good faith', without 'sharp dealing'.

They seldom do, imo, despite the Supreme Court ruling that 'the honour of the Queen must be upheld'.

Specifically, you sometimes hear people say things like 'Well yes, that's what the [treaty, etc] says, but Canada never really intended to do that!'

Well ... the courts do demand that Canada uphold those agreements.

It doesn't really matter what he said/she said, you said/I said does it?

It matters what the court says, or in treaties and negotiations, it matters what is mutually agreed upon and ratified.

Perhaps you know ... is the claim for the Burch lands dependent on the validity of the Haldimand Proclamation?

And ... what area is covered by the Nanfan Treaty?

.

Edited April 8, 2016 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

Hearsay is reporting what someone else told you.

No....hearsay is information that one cannot substantiate. When the Six Nations (one of the sides involved) published to their website a copy of the summary provided by the Government of Canada (the other side) which includes comments about the Government of Canada's position in direct, clear language.....well....that's not hearsay.

Such as ... Six Nations reporting on their website what the negotiators told them.

You mean what was actually written on the summary report. Or quoted by Ron Doering or Barbara MacDougall, the two direct negotiators for the Federal government. Hearsay is someone claiming these people have said something but they have nothing in writing nor direct quotes. BIG difference as I have shown both of those apply here

Yes that's true... but ... a lawsuit is evaluated by the courts, not by the government. (Yeesh. More of your confusion.)

No confusion here. If you actually read up and comprehended what was being said then you would know that the 1995 lawsuit did not go straight to litigation. It had various stages where the litigation was pushed aside in favour of negotiations. For litigation to continue, the federal government needs to DISMISS these claims. That's why you end up going to litigation! Yeesh.

Now...to further drive home my point, the one claim that you keep blabbing on about (Plank Road) could not have been accepted or rejected because it was tied to the lawsuit. Now since you don't care to believe me, take a look at this statement from the AANDC website:

As there was significant overlap between the 28 specific claims and the claims put forward in the 1995 litigation, work on the specific claims was discontinued.

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100016334/1100100016335

So PLEASE....for the love of everything holy....stop your incessant whining about why has the Federal government not accepted or rejected the claim. Their position is clear and has been stated in writing and verbally that they feel their is no legal bounds for this particular claim however it doesn't matter any more as the process that deals with it is no longer applicable.

Specifically, you sometimes hear people say things like 'Well yes, that's what the [treaty, etc] says, but Canada never really intended to do that!'

I have no problems what so ever with honoring the treaties but the problem isn't about honoring what is actually said...its about being forced to honor a liberal interpretation of what is actually said. The comments about 'intentions' have been used by the native side far more than the Canada side. I often hear about how the oral history needs to be brought into the equation when that oral history directly contradicts what was agreed to in the written treaty.

Even in this case, if we look at the cold, hard, objective facts you would see that the Six Nations have no legal claim to this land. The Haldimand Proclamation was a poor piece of work that contained many errors which had to be corrected by the Simcoe Patent. However, even with the patent it offers a very limited deed that does not include the right of alienation. There are reports of Joseph Brandt rejecting the Patent because of this. They knew this then and they know it now but they are playing the legal system in hopes of a windfall. The reality is they know the courts favour the poor downtrodden 'Indian' which is why they are proceeding.

Perhaps you know ... is the claim for the Burch lands dependent on the validity of the Haldimand Proclamation?

The claim for the Burtch lands may have originally been brought forth by their belief in the Haldimand Proclamation however it will end up going to the Six Nations because the Province of Ontario is giving it to them based on the conflict resolution in Caledonia.

The Province of Ontario has the deed which it will give to the SIx Nations.....so ultimately they don't have to rely on the false notion that the land belongs to them because of Haldimand.

[jacee]

No....hearsay is information that one cannot substantiate. When the Six Nations (one of the sides involved) published to their website a copy of the summary provided by the Government of Canada (the other side) which includes comments about the Government of Canada's position in direct, clear language.....well....that's not hearsay.

You mean what was actually written on the summary report. Or quoted by Ron Doering or Barbara MacDougall, the two direct negotiators for the Federal government. Hearsay is someone claiming these people have said something but they have nothing in writing nor direct quotes. BIG difference as I have shown both of those apply here

Prove there was a written summary.

No confusion here. If you actually read up and comprehended what was being said then you would know that the 1995 lawsuit did not go straight to litigation. It had various stages where the litigation was pushed aside in favour of negotiations. For litigation to continue, the federal government needs to DISMISS these claims. That's why you end up going to litigation! Yeesh.

Nonsense.

They can decide to litigate whenever they want.

I can see why you get "fed up".

You are confused about the processes.

A lack of understanding can cause frustration.

.

Edited April 9, 2016 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

Prove there was a written summary.

I'm actually a little embarrassed for you on this one. I clearly posted the link to the WRITTEN summary back in post 214. I have quoted the part of the quote that you need. Let me know if you need help learning how to click on a hyperlink.

For a summary of the position paper, you can look here http://www.sixnations.ca/LandsResources/CanadaPlankRoadNathanGagePresentation.pdf

Nonsense.

They can decide to litigate whenever they want.

Sure they can. Just like the government of Canada can decide to not negotiate. They both can also decide to hit their heads against a brick wall. The reality is First Nations and Canada will ALWAYS negotiate first as it normally results in a win-win situation. The decision to go to litigation comes after the Federal Government dismisses their claim. I understand this requires common sense to understand, so it may be difficult.

A lack of understanding can cause frustration.

Yup....I'm dealing with someone who doesn't know how to click on hyperlinks or actually read the information provided. I certainly can see how you would get so frustrated.

A little advice for you jacee....stop basing your arguments on what you see from the comments section in the article. Read the actual article and see what makes sense.

[jacee]

I clearly posted the link to the WRITTEN summary back in post 214.

That is a hearsay report of what the feds said. There is no written report from the feds, no formal rejection of the claim.

The decision to go to litigation comes after the Federal Government dismisses their claim.

No they don't have to wait for that. They can choose to litigate at any time, eg if it becomes clear that the feds are not negotiating in good faith.

I am fed up with our governments that drag negotiations out to avoid settlements - ie, don't bargain in good faith. It's the biggest obstacle to improving conditions for First Nations, and certainty for business communities.

Your personal attacks are noted and ignored.

.

Edited April 9, 2016 by jacee

[Accountability Now]

That is a hearsay report of what the feds said. There is no written report from the feds, no formal rejection of the claim.

Look at the very first slide on page 1. Who does it say this report is presented by? Hmmmm....yup Presented by Canada.

But let's play devil's advocate, shall we? Lets say it is 'hearsay' as you claim. Then why is the Six Nations publishing hearsay and not issuing proper, factual information on their website especially when it comes to something as sensitive and important as the Plank Road land claim? Are you suggesting that they are not being honest???

No they don't have to wait for that. They can choose to litigate at any time, eg if it becomes clear that the feds are not negotiating in good faith.

Do you honestly not comprehend sentences and just look for certain words. I already said they don't 'have' to wait but they always do. As I already stated, its in both parties best interests to negotiate. Therefore they negotiate first and see what that brings. If the government dismisses their claim then they can proceed to litigation. I can't recall a case where they went straight to litigation. In fact, I have been involved in a few lawsuits with my business and they always send you through arbitration first to see if it can get resolved before court.

I am fed up with our governments that drag negotiations out to avoid settlements - ie, don't bargain in good faith. It's the biggest obstacle to improving conditions for First Nations, and certainty for business communities.

I'm fed up with people who say they aren't Canadian trying to rape Canada every chance they get because we are supposed to be 'acting in good faith' while they can be deceitful and act however they want.

Your personal attacks are noted and ignored.

This is hilarious. You do know that you are contradicting yourself. Here are definitions of the two terms you used:

Note: worth paying attention to.

Ignore: refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.

Do you ever make sense?

With that said, my attacks are on your arguments and your inability to construct a proper one. Additionally they are on your inability to comprehend what is being said to you. But I know how you work, the minute you know you are beaten you then insinuate that people are attacking you. I've seen you do it with me and others so its nothing new.

Edited April 10, 2016 by Accountability Now

[jacee]

Your attempt to bury your head in the sand, deny Aboriginal and treaty rights, is not a constructive approach, AN.

Fortunately, others are more astute:

/aboriginal-prosperity-a-win-win-for-canada

Former prime minister Paul Martin, a longtime champion of aboriginal prosperity, told the crowd the business community has the ability to be indigenous Canadas greatest allies.

If businesses team up with First Nations communities starting at the ground floor of a project, there are many benefits for both sides.

...

Martin put it bluntly: If we turn our backs on indigenous Canada, we might as well kiss economic development goodbye.

.

[Accountability Now]

Your attempt to bury your head in the sand, deny Aboriginal and treaty rights, is not a constructive approach, AN

.

Maybe come up with an example where Aboriginal Right actually applies. Don't blame me for your inability to understand the details involved.

Now please go on and take note and ignore me

[Accountability Now]

Meanwhile....on another reserve in Saskatchewan....

Saskatchewan’s Cote First Nation: What In the Actual F**ck Is Going On?

In 2012 Saskatchewan’s Cote First Nation was awarded $130 million, $20,000 per band member, from the federal government as part of a land claim settlement – making the Yorkton/Kamsack-area First Nation one of the wealthiest in Canada.

$68 million was shelled out up front. It was gone by the end of March 2013: $50+ million on those per capita (band member) payments, the rest frittered away on programming, according to the unaudited statement posted on the First Nation’s website.

There is no posted audit for 2014 or 2015, the years in which the majority of the balance of the $60+ million in annual settlement payments would have been issued to the band.

Last week, Jayden Flett – who should receive a medal for her reporting on this(you’re going to want to watch the video) – revealed that as of today the Cote reserve is in dire straits, and nobody seems to know where all that money went.

This wouldn’t be the first time the Cote First Nation received a land claim settlement windfall, and then begged and battled with the Chief to tell them where the money went.

The APTN was actually run off the reserve when they confronted the reserve leaders to ask about this. http://aptn.ca/news/2016/03/24/vanished-money-raising-questions-on-cote-first-nation/

Watch the video on the above link.

Certainly this is just one reserve however there is definitely others.