Judge Slams Indian Actions

[jdobbin]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/ed...c8-b22edb65a483

National Post says "send in the police."

[Who's Doing What?]

LMFAO@Argus, i swear youre on the comedy wagon too. You dont pay for anything in my life or anyone I know. get off your white supremist horse and realize that yours AND MY tax dollars are also funding the welfare of the caledonia residents, and your trailer park cousins!

I can't speak for Argus' trailer park cousins, but mine still pay taxes on gas and cigarettes and everything else they purchase. Even the white "trailer-park-trash-welfare-bums" are subsidizing the Native way of life.

[NativeCharm]

LOL, you're a real piece of work arent ya "who". I'll amuse you with a brief response, by simply saying you pay for nothing in my life. You must be sharing the same brain with a few others in here. If you really "THINK" that, then you are indeed stupider than you appear. Just another (_____) hoping for a reason to justify your discrimination. Keep searching buddy, you're reason for racism is weak.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

I said right off the mark yesterday the Judge did not have jurisdiction and his ruling violates the Charter right to peaceful assembly. The Ontario government is going to appeal his ruling citing Judge Marshall has no jurisdiction. No doubt the Charter right will come up in the appeal.

This thread is relatively a non-issue now since the ruling will ignored.

O:nen

[FTA Lawyer]

LOL, you're a real piece of work arent ya "who". I'll amuse you with a brief response, by simply saying you pay for nothing in my life. You must be sharing the same brain with a few others in here. If you really "THINK" that, then you are indeed stupider than you appear. Just another (_____) hoping for a reason to justify your discrimination. Keep searching buddy, you're reason for racism is weak.

Why not try to explain to those who don't appear to have their facts straight how your situation is different from a number of other aboriginal groups across Canada. That is, many treaty status indians in our country receive regular payments from the federal government (the infamous "treaty cheque") have their health, university etc. etc. fully paid for by taxpayers, and are tax exempt themselves for a number of otherwise taxable items.

If this is not the case for you and other Six Nations members...just explain that...I expect that a number of the posters here will then change their tunes.

The purpose of intelligent dialogue should be to inform and educate, not ridicule and offend by calling people stupid half-brained discriminatory rascists...really how does that help you get your message / position understood and accepted?

FTA

[jdobbin]

Why is anything the Ontario or Canadian government doing important anyways?

[Big Blue Machine]

It is not the Ontario government's fault. It is the natives's fault, it is they who are living in total anarchy and reckless neglect of the law and court orders. It is they who threaten the people of Caledonia with violence and threaten violence to the OPP if they are pushed out. How can the Ontario government negotiate with these people? The natives only want media attention because no one cares about their problems. If you have a problem, bring it up with the Ontario government but don't infringe on other people's right to walk around safe, free of the fear of being beaten. The natives are making the situation worse because now the people of Caledonia getting less sympathetic to the natives'ss needs. My friend's dad's co-worker was beaten by natives in Caledonia when he was walking on the street. I would take a poll and I would think most people are un sympathetic to the natives. The Ontario government must obey the rule of law, and send in the OPP, and if necessary the army from the feds.

[Who's Doing What?]

LOL, you're a real piece of work arent ya "who". I'll amuse you with a brief response, by simply saying you pay for nothing in my life. You must be sharing the same brain with a few others in here. If you really "THINK" that, then you are indeed stupider than you appear. Just another (_____) hoping for a reason to justify your discrimination. Keep searching buddy, you're reason for racism is weak.

My racism?????

Ha that's a laugh. I'm saying everyone should be equal.

You are the ones saying that a certain group deserves something because their race entitles them to it.

[NativeCharm]

Why do you keep insisting race has something to do with it? If it were the non-native settlers protecting their own land, I'm sure you would be finding reasons to justify their actions. It is because the issues are with "Native people" (and land that is originally theirs by order of the queen)...that is why you have a problem, because they are Native, so it's you (and people like you) that is contributing to increased racism with this issue.

It's the fact that natives are getting what is theirs that really bothers people like you. They will get what is theirs because that is what is right, no matter what their race.

The real problem is people like yourselves let yourselves sit in the dark and spew out comments on something you refuse to see. Turn the lights on upstairs and learn something, if that's possible.

[Who's Doing What?]

It's not your land.

It is owned and occupied by other people.

The natives are the ones saying they deserve or are owed the land for no ther reason than they are Native.

It is the natives who say the other races in Canada have no claim to the land they currently occupy.

It is the natives who already have extra rights and freedoms because of their race.

If anything is increasing the racism of this issue it is the native stance that because of their race, they are entitled to so much more than other races.

It is you who cannot see charm. The land is gone. You have no claim to somewhere 500,000 people call home. So why don't you turn a light on up stairs.

[Big Blue Machine]

Don't milk the race issue. What is the issue here is that the natives are disobeying court orders and the law. This can not stand, even if the group are different than us.

[NativeCharm]

Well you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how uneducated or as far fetched from the truth it really is. I am so glad that many of the non-Native(most) people I know, do not share this same ill informed viewpoint as you.

Jeesh, I really gotta learn to stop replying to stupid people.

[jdobbin]

How is the land claim of the Six Nations being handled differently in New York? All of Syracuse is being claimed. Why no blockades there?

[Big Blue Machine]

Because they know how to deal with the public and not making the public mad around that area.

[Who's Doing What?]

Well you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how uneducated or as far fetched from the truth it really is. I am so glad that many of the non-Native(most) people I know, do not share this same ill informed viewpoint as you.

Jeesh, I really gotta learn to stop replying to stupid people.

Becareful not to reply to yourself then.

[NativeCharm]

Well you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how uneducated or as far fetched from the truth it really is. I am so glad that many of the non-Native(most) people I know, do not share this same ill informed viewpoint as you.

Jeesh, I really gotta learn to stop replying to stupid people.

Becareful not to reply to yourself then.

HAHA, pretty clever! I hope you didn't hurt yourself coming up with that one. You should try to save your mental energy to absorb some real facts.

[Okwaho]

LOL, you're a real piece of work arent ya "who". I'll amuse you with a brief response, by simply saying you pay for nothing in my life. You must be sharing the same brain with a few others in here. If you really "THINK" that, then you are indeed stupider than you appear. Just another (_____) hoping for a reason to justify your discrimination. Keep searching buddy, you're reason for racism is weak.

My racism?????

Ha that's a laugh. I'm saying everyone should be equal.

You are the ones saying that a certain group deserves something because their race entitles them to it.

Here's "equality" in Canada!

1) If you are not one of the majority your voice will never be heard!

2) If you are one of the majority your voice still might not ever be heard!

3) If you own a big business you can have the loudest voice of all!

4) If I you are not at least an upper-middle class citizen your chances of becoming an MP much less Prime Minister are slim to none!

5) If you are a middle or lower class citizen you must carry the burden of taxes while the upper-middle and upper classes that can afford it get all the tax breaks!

6) The wealthier you are the more justice will be on your side!

7) Equality means that you can only have equal opportunity because as you can see from the items above you will never be equal!

8) Finally...if you live in Alberta you can share in the profits from their oil but if you live elsewhere in Canada...well I'm sure you know!

Doesn't look to be very "equal" to me.

[Okwaho]

Because they know how to deal with the public and not making the public mad around that area.

What? Nice try!!!

Read these and see whether Six Nations sovereignty exists or not also!

http://www.state.ny.us/governor/press/02/feb16_1_02.htm

http://www.oneida-nation.net/lcletter.html

[Argus]

Well you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how uneducated or as far fetched from the truth it really is. I am so glad that many of the non-Native(most) people I know, do not share this same ill informed viewpoint as you.

Jeesh, I really gotta learn to stop replying to stupid people.

Problem is there are damned few SMART people who would think you're worth talking to on any substantive level.

[jdobbin]

What? Nice try!!!

Read these and see whether Six Nations sovereignty exists or not also!

http://www.state.ny.us/governor/press/02/feb16_1_02.htm

http://www.oneida-nation.net/lcletter.html

Those links also show that more radical Native claims are not appreciated. The Oneida of New York have no wish to hurt New Yorkers.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I have tried and failed to find the evidence that supports native claim to the lands in question. From what I have found it was in fact given to the government of the day by six native chiefs of supposedly the six native nations. The seems to be some dispute as to the credentials of these individuals by the natives, but that does not alter the fact that the government did in fact recognize these people as the representatives of the natives. These people had previous dealings with the government at a time when they were recognized by their own people as leaders capable of exercising authority in the behalf.

Now I am more than willing to change my mind, but I will need to see evidence from a credible source that is clearly definitive.

[SickandTired]

I have tried and failed to find the evidence that supports native claim to the lands in question. From what I have found it was in fact given to the government of the day by six native chiefs of supposedly the six native nations. The seems to be some dispute as to the credentials of these individuals by the natives, but that does not alter the fact that the government did in fact recognize these people as the representatives of the natives. These people had previous dealings with the government at a time when they were recognized by their own people as leaders capable of exercising authority in the behalf.

Now I am more than willing to change my mind, but I will need to see evidence from a credible source that is clearly definitive.

The interesting thing I find is that the government of Ontario and Canada has already stated it's position in 1995 on the Plank Road Lands (of which Douglas Creek is part of) in their answer to the claims made by Six Nations...This is the section from that statement that deals with the Plank Road lands...

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

HAMILTON/PORT DOVER PLANK ROAD LANDS

111. This Defendant denies the allegations in paragraphs 59 and 60 of the Statement of Claim. This Defendant says that Six Nations consented to the surrender of the subject lands at a Six Nations Council meeting on January 15 and 29, 1835 for the purpose of leasing. However, the Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, Sir Francis Bond Head, would not accept such a surrender.

112. In the absence of a surrender for lease, the subject lands the Six Nations surrendered for a sale on January 18, 1841. This decision was affirmed by Order in Council of October 4, 1843 after discussions with the Six Nations. Under the Order the Six Nations selected its reserve lands, which excluded the Plank Road lots. This decision was again affirmed by the Six Nations on December 18, 1844.

So the government's position in 1995 was that all the talk of leases of the Plank Road lands that happened in the 1830's ended up being meaningless. The leases were never set up and ultimately, the Plank Road lands were not included in Six Nation's selection of their current reserve lands and the Plank Road lands were surrendered and then sold along with the rest of the remaining SN lands in the original grant. Now this was the Statement of Defence - an early statement of position before the court actions get going (which were stopped when an out of court process was agreed to by the government and SN) so it is not settled or proven as fact - but it was the government's position then. I wonder how that position has changed (if it has)?

Just today, Chief MacNaugton (lead SN negotiator) was on 900CHML stating that Douglas Creek Estates was not an occupation, it was a reclamation. He described it this way; since the government had not made the lease payments, they were reclaiming the land just like any lease holder would. But it is the government's position that the land was never leased in 1995. Have they changed their position from 1995?

Also, the surrender was not something that just happened on a Friday afternoon over a couple of drinks. The dates show that it took 4 years to get the surrender deal finalized. The moving of Six Nations people onto the selected Reserve lands must have meant that they understood the deal or why agree to move onto the current Reserve lands??

So what is taking months and months to negotiate? Tsi wants us to believe that the government has already capitulated and agreed that the entire Grand River tract claim has been agreed to by the government - but MacNaughton's comments today make that claim suspect. Obviously from the 1995 Statement of Defence, the government must have documentation detailing it's position (there are supposedly 70,000 pieces of documentation related to the specific claims Six Nations have made).

This standoff has been going on now for almost 6 months, with many supposed negotiating sessions, yet none of either sides position has been detailed further. Other than the rhetoric that is widely broadcast that "the land is ours" or "the surrender was not valid" or "the land was leased and payments have not been made". But all without any supporting documentation or even reasons why these positions are taken.

I would also like to see and hear what the reasons are that surrenders are not valid and also whether the government has changed is position from their 1995 Statement of Defence. I guess everyone will continue to have to wait and see...

[Okwaho]

I have tried and failed to find the evidence that supports native claim to the lands in question. From what I have found it was in fact given to the government of the day by six native chiefs of supposedly the six native nations. The seems to be some dispute as to the credentials of these individuals by the natives, but that does not alter the fact that the government did in fact recognize these people as the representatives of the natives. These people had previous dealings with the government at a time when they were recognized by their own people as leaders capable of exercising authority in the behalf.

Now I am more than willing to change my mind, but I will need to see evidence from a credible source that is clearly definitive.

The interesting thing I find is that the government of Ontario and Canada has already stated it's position in 1995 on the Plank Road Lands (of which Douglas Creek is part of) in their answer to the claims made by Six Nations...This is the section from that statement that deals with the Plank Road lands...

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

HAMILTON/PORT DOVER PLANK ROAD LANDS

111. This Defendant denies the allegations in paragraphs 59 and 60 of the Statement of Claim. This Defendant says that Six Nations consented to the surrender of the subject lands at a Six Nations Council meeting on January 15 and 29, 1835 for the purpose of leasing. However, the Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, Sir Francis Bond Head, would not accept such a surrender.

112. In the absence of a surrender for lease, the subject lands the Six Nations surrendered for a sale on January 18, 1841. This decision was affirmed by Order in Council of October 4, 1843 after discussions with the Six Nations. Under the Order the Six Nations selected its reserve lands, which excluded the Plank Road lots. This decision was again affirmed by the Six Nations on December 18, 1844.

So the government's position in 1995 was that all the talk of leases of the Plank Road lands that happened in the 1830's ended up being meaningless. The leases were never set up and ultimately, the Plank Road lands were not included in Six Nation's selection of their current reserve lands and the Plank Road lands were surrendered and then sold along with the rest of the remaining SN lands in the original grant. Now this was the Statement of Defence - an early statement of position before the court actions get going (which were stopped when an out of court process was agreed to by the government and SN) so it is not settled or proven as fact - but it was the government's position then. I wonder how that position has changed (if it has)?

Just today, Chief MacNaugton (lead SN negotiator) was on 900CHML stating that Douglas Creek Estates was not an occupation, it was a reclamation. He described it this way; since the government had not made the lease payments, they were reclaiming the land just like any lease holder would. But it is the government's position that the land was never leased in 1995. Have they changed their position from 1995?

Also, the surrender was not something that just happened on a Friday afternoon over a couple of drinks. The dates show that it took 4 years to get the surrender deal finalized. The moving of Six Nations people onto the selected Reserve lands must have meant that they understood the deal or why agree to move onto the current Reserve lands??

So what is taking months and months to negotiate? Tsi wants us to believe that the government has already capitulated and agreed that the entire Grand River tract claim has been agreed to by the government - but MacNaughton's comments today make that claim suspect. Obviously from the 1995 Statement of Defence, the government must have documentation detailing it's position (there are supposedly 70,000 pieces of documentation related to the specific claims Six Nations have made).

This standoff has been going on now for almost 6 months, with many supposed negotiating sessions, yet none of either sides position has been detailed further. Other than the rhetoric that is widely broadcast that "the land is ours" or "the surrender was not valid" or "the land was leased and payments have not been made". But all without any supporting documentation or even reasons why these positions are taken.

I would also like to see and hear what the reasons are that surrenders are not valid and also whether the government has changed is position from their 1995 Statement of Defence. I guess everyone will continue to have to wait and see...

Your finally starting to learn something! Of course the government is going to find favor in themselves.

House of Commons Debates Third Session-Twenty-Twelfth Parliament, 4-5George V., 1914

Hon. Frank Oliver (Liberal MP):

But there are bands of the Six Nations Indians located on the Grand river in Ontario who, I maintain, are in a different legal position from any other Indian bands who are native to the country. These Indian bands on the Grand river had their original home in the United States. At the close of the war of the revolution they emigrated to Canada and were given lands under a special treaty, not as subjests of Great Britain, but as allies of Great Britain, and I maintain that the holding of these Six Nations Indians on the Grand river is of such a kind that this parliament has no right to interfere with it.

House of Commons Debates Fourth Session-Twenty-First Parliament, 15George VI, 1951

John Horne Blackmore (Conservative MP for Lethbridge) repeated Mr. Oliver's statement in the House of Commons.

I don't have a link so doubters will have to look them up at your local library.

[SickandTired]

Your finally starting to learn something! Of course the government is going to find favor in themselves.

House of Commons Debates Third Session-Twenty-Twelfth Parliament, 4-5George V., 1914

Hon. Frank Oliver (Liberal MP):

But there are bands of the Six Nations Indians located on the Grand river in Ontario who, I maintain, are in a different legal position from any other Indian bands who are native to the country. These Indian bands on the Grand river had their original home in the United States. At the close of the war of the revolution they emigrated to Canada and were given lands under a special treaty, not as subjests of Great Britain, but as allies of Great Britain, and I maintain that the holding of these Six Nations Indians on the Grand river is of such a kind that this parliament has no right to interfere with it.

House of Commons Debates Fourth Session-Twenty-First Parliament, 15George VI, 1951

John Horne Blackmore (Conservative MP for Lethbridge) repeated Mr. Oliver's statement in the House of Commons.

I don't have a link so doubters will have to look them up at your local library.

In 1914 and in 1951, the 'holding' of Six Nations would have been recognized as the current lands of the Six Nations reservation. I fail to see how these statements, made during a debate in the House of Commons, have anything to do with the land claims of additional territory that was apparently surrendered to the Crown in the 1840's...

[skyclad]

'Chief MacNaugton'

To correct, Allen MacNaugton is actually not a chief, he made that title up, his mother Ann is not a clan mother and has been involved in cigarette smuggling, possible casinop involvement. His mother's sister is a clan mother, but Allen himself holds no chief status in the conferacy...

there are some links about this in one of the citizens of caledonia forums.