The Native Shakedown of Innocent People Continues

[Riverwind]

http://www.citizen.on.ca/news/2006/0810/Front_Page/001.html

A duo ostensibly representing the "Six Nations Women Title Holders" has served notice on Canadian Hydro Developers Inc. asserting that it owns the Melancthon I wind plant, and intends to seize it.

The wind plant may sit on land that is in dispute but is is completely rediculous for anyone to claim that the equipment used in the wind plant belongs to anyone other than the investors that paid for the development.

Stories like this demonstrate how the native land claim industry has gotten completely out of a control. We need politicians that will re-introduce some sanity into these discussions by making it clear that no matter what historical wrongs occurred the rights of innocent property owners will be protected by the gov't.

[jdobbin]

http://www.citizen.on.ca/news/2006/0810/Front_Page/001.html

A duo ostensibly representing the "Six Nations Women Title Holders" has served notice on Canadian Hydro Developers Inc. asserting that it owns the Melancthon I wind plant, and intends to seize it.

The wind plant may sit on land that is in dispute but is is completely rediculous for anyone to claim that the equipment used in the wind plant belongs to anyone other than the investors that paid for the development.

Stories like this demonstrate how the native land claim industry has gotten completely out of a control. We need politicians that will re-introduce some sanity into these discussions by making it clear that no matter what historical wrongs occurred the rights of innocent property owners will be protected by the gov't.

We were told we'd be seeing more of this happening this year.

The National Post today said the federal government can no longer dodge their responsibility of getting involved.

[geoffrey]

Can Canada declare soverignty from the native people? It seems they are trying to hold us captive, much like they accuse Canadians of doing to them.

Let's just leave them and spare the ruckus.

[GostHacked]

If I build something on disputed land that brings me to this.

A) Does owning the land allow you to claim anything that others built on it?

Does building on someone elses land give you rights to that land?

Both answers to me seems to be NO. You should not be allowed to built on disputed land claims. But I can see building on disputed lands to try and claim it as your own. 'Look we have been here for years and no one said anything untill now? Why should I have to leave now?'

How long will it be before native indians will become 'terrorists' Surprised that term has not been thrown at them before. Or I have not been reading enough news on that subject.

[Hicksey]

Before the white men came to North America it all belonged to Indians of some sort.

How much should we give back? We could possibly be giving back a city of 750,000 people in Manitoba.

Do we give in every time they make a new claim?

Does the Caledonia dispute set a dangerous precedent?

There comes a time where it has to stop.

That time is now I think.

[sharkman]

Before the white men came to North America it all belonged to Indians of some sort.

How much should we give back? We could possibly be giving back a city of 750,000 people in Manitoba.

Do we give in every time they make a new claim?

Does the Caledonia dispute set a dangerous precedent?

There comes a time where it has to stop.

That time is now I think.

It's beyond silly. Every time a new development goes up, the native lawyers run for the maps to see which band can protest, or hold the land in question at ransom until they get a big piece of the action.

[Okwaho]

If I build something on disputed land that brings me to this.

A) Does owning the land allow you to claim anything that others built on it?

Does building on someone elses land give you rights to that land?

Both answers to me seems to be NO. You should not be allowed to built on disputed land claims. But I can see building on disputed lands to try and claim it as your own. 'Look we have been here for years and no one said anything untill now? Why should I have to leave now?'

How long will it be before native indians will become 'terrorists' Surprised that term has not been thrown at them before. Or I have not been reading enough news on that subject.

If the owner of whatever was built on the land failed to excersise due diligence before he built then it does! You see, that is where your government fails you. They are not obligated to tell you your law and inorance is not a defense.

[Okwaho]

It's beyond silly. Every time a new development goes up, the native lawyers run for the maps to see which band can protest, or hold the land in question at ransom until they get a big piece of the action.

Well you see...that's where you're wrong. Lawyers cannot do anything for us because the reality is that your domestic courts are not eqipped or mandated to hear the matters of any of our disputes.

[Riverwind]

If the owner of whatever was built on the land failed to excersise due diligence before he built then it does! You see, that is where your government fails you. They are not obligated to tell you your law and ignorance is not a defense.

The party that disputes ownership of the property must enforce their rights within a reasonable period of time. If that party fails to enforce their rights for many years and allows the 'illegal' landowner to invest money into the property then the original property owner loses _all_ rights to the land. This is a principal in British common law that goes back centuries. It is called the doctrine of laches for those that want to look it up.

[Okwaho]

If the owner of whatever was built on the land failed to excersise due diligence before he built then it does! You see, that is where your government fails you. They are not obligated to tell you your law and ignorance is not a defense.

The party that disputes ownership of the property must enforce their rights within a reasonable period of time. If that party fails to enforce their rights for many years and allows the 'illegal' landowner to invest money into the property then the original property owner loses _all_ rights to the land. This is a principal in British common law that goes back centuries. It is called the doctrine of laches for those that want to look it up.

The doctrine of laches is domestic law and does not apply to the territory of a sovereign Nation retaining Proclamations or any other treaties or agreements with the Crown.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

The party that disputes ownership of the property must enforce their rights within a reasonable period of time.

The problem with your supposition is that Canadians do NOT have "property rights" as one of their basic protections / freedoms. Therefore it is impossible before the courts to exercise a right you do not possess.

However, through our right of possession we DO have property rights.

O:nen

[Riverwind]

The doctrine of laches is domestic law and does not apply to the territory of a sovereign Nation retaining Proclamations or any other treaties or agreements with the Crown.

Even if this was true international law since 1945 has accepted that the current borders of existing states are considered legimate no matter how they came about. This is one of the founding principals of the UN. In other words, the fact that Canada has had sovereignty over those lands for 100+ years renders all prior claims by Six Nations are irrelevant under international law. The only claim that Six Nations might have is under Canadian law. In that case, all of the rules of Canadian law apply.

[skyclad]

Dizzi Tsi

Oh my, according to the Great Law only the clan mothers have property rights. Have the clan mothers now given up their rights to the greater population of the Long House.

In order words, does each native now own their own property?

If so, how was this done, as the Great Law has no amending formula.

The manner of land ownership and government in the 6Nations consists of Matrilineal (clan mothers control land and do the farming)and Patriarchical (Clan chiefs-men make the decisions) was typical of many stone tribes, in truth, variations of this system are still being used by stone age tribes in Pupua, New Guinea.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

....international law since 1945 has accepted that the current borders of existing states are considered legimate no matter how they came about.

They'll have no trouble accepting our claims, as the border and title to Haldimand never changed in the 1000 or so years it was in our possession.

The west bank and Gaza Strip was occupied and turns out the Israelis had to vacate it because it rightfully belongs to the Palestinians. The illegal squatters on the west bank and the Gaza might be piussed about it but by international law they were evicted and anything they built on it stays there. We could take that extreme also but I suspect that Canada will do what has to be done in the end.

Skyclad you lowlife troll, I would suggest that you arm yourself with some intelligent research and come back and see if you can join the discussion and make a legitimate point. The Clan Mothers are the "title-bearers" meaning that they hold the national territory for our interest. Our ownership of the parcels within the nation are protected from outside encroachment by that rightful title. Yet I can still own my own lot and do what ever I please with it (except sell it or lease it without the Clan Mother's permission). And just to temp your unintelligence with fact, the Great Law DOES have an amending formula. You can start looking NOW! Ready. Set GO! (that should keep you busy for the next week).

Your are getting silly Riverspin. First you say Canadian law applies and then when you lose that argument you claim international law applies and then when you lose that again, you resort back to saying Canadian law applies. Neither applies, since "international law" is volunatry and Canada doesn't even have sovereign authority over its own government. The argument was lost 2 weeks ago, only you are unwilling to give it up. That makes it looklike a pathetic attempt to convince yourself what you want to believe is true.

The sovereignty and the borders of the Haldimand Tract are holdings of the Haudenosaunee people. It is the Clan Mother's position in the community as title-bearers to make sure that none of it ever leaves our 7th generation children's possession. How hard is that for you to understand? Obviously you have lost your mind if you can't find that simple understanding.

Oh and BTW your Supreme Court disagrees with you. They recognize that occupation of a land does not equate to ownership. Squatters and illegal occupiers have no right to claim what they have never held title to - even if by some shady dealings slimly lawyers created deeds without any authority.

O:nen

[sharkman]

It's beyond silly. Every time a new development goes up, the native lawyers run for the maps to see which band can protest, or hold the land in question at ransom until they get a big piece of the action.

Well you see...that's where you're wrong. Lawyers cannot do anything for us because the reality is that your domestic courts are not eqipped or mandated to hear the matters of any of our disputes.

Is this why the indian people who run blockades brandish guns and try to intimidate people, which is illegal in Canada and should be illegal in the indian nations?

[Okwaho]

Dizzi Tsi

Oh my, according to the Great Law only the clan mothers have property rights. Have the clan mothers now given up their rights to the greater population of the Long House.

In order words, does each native now own their own property?

If so, how was this done, as the Great Law has no amending formula.

The manner of land ownership and government in the 6Nations consists of Matrilineal (clan mothers control land and do the farming)and Patriarchical (Clan chiefs-men make the decisions) was typical of many stone tribes, in truth, variations of this system are still being used by stone age tribes in Pupua, New Guinea.

What do you mean Dizzi Tsi?

You seem to be an expert on the Kaianerenkowa you tell us! If you read his earlier posts he told you how.

[kimmy]

This is the part of the article I found most intriguing.

Locally, Doug Fisher (or Thahoketoteh) of Horning's Mills, who describes himself as "the eyes and ears" of the Six Nations in this area, displays numerous documents he says support the claims of the women.

Historically, he says, the Iroquois captured all of Ontario (Huronia) from the Hurons, and then agreed with the British to allow European settlement - but did not surrender any land.

It gets complicated. In simple terms, the "Wampum" is represented as a banner with two parallel lines along with rows of pure white and others of beads. One of the parallel lines represents the route of a European ship on a river, and the other an Indian canoe on the same river. These are the co-existing races.

Neither vessel controls the other, he says, and they never collide. Thus, the "settlers" live by the rules of their Constitution while the natives abide by their "Great Law," or the rules of Wampum. The "settlers" may live on the land, trade it among themselves, but in the final analysis never own the land.

The Iroquois captured all of Ontario, and never surrendered any of it to Europeans...

...does this mean that some Iroquois could claim any piece of land, store, public building, or private home in Ontario?

"Canada has allowed most of our land and resources to be stolen through illegal land transfers and fraud. Dozens of cities and towns have been established on our land without our consent. We have had enough! Now they're stealing another of our resources, our wind. They never brought this over from Europe, did they," the background to the CHD seizure notice reads in part.

Stealing the wind?

By that logic, I am apparently stealing some Native Person's sunshine right now.

-kimmy

[bearcat]

This is the part of the article I found most intriguing.

Locally, Doug Fisher (or Thahoketoteh) of Horning's Mills, who describes himself as "the eyes and ears" of the Six Nations in this area, displays numerous documents he says support the claims of the women.

Historically, he says, the Iroquois captured all of Ontario (Huronia) from the Hurons, and then agreed with the British to allow European settlement - but did not surrender any land.

It gets complicated. In simple terms, the "Wampum" is represented as a banner with two parallel lines along with rows of pure white and others of beads. One of the parallel lines represents the route of a European ship on a river, and the other an Indian canoe on the same river. These are the co-existing races.

Neither vessel controls the other, he says, and they never collide. Thus, the "settlers" live by the rules of their Constitution while the natives abide by their "Great Law," or the rules of Wampum. The "settlers" may live on the land, trade it among themselves, but in the final analysis never own the land.

The Iroquois captured all of Ontario, and never surrendered any of it to Europeans...

...does this mean that some Iroquois could claim any piece of land, store, public building, or private home in Ontario?

"Canada has allowed most of our land and resources to be stolen through illegal land transfers and fraud. Dozens of cities and towns have been established on our land without our consent. We have had enough! Now they're stealing another of our resources, our wind. They never brought this over from Europe, did they," the background to the CHD seizure notice reads in part.

Stealing the wind?

By that logic, I am apparently stealing some Native Person's sunshine right now.

-kimmy

Just stop it with all of the stealing ... if'n ya got a 'good mind', we would most likely be willing to share ... heheheh

By that logic, I am apparently stealing some Native Person's sunshine right now.

-kimmy

BTW, I got a little extra sunshine, would you like it? Just ask, not take. Sharing is good - stealing is bad. Simple.

:

[Live From China]

Stealing the wind?!!!!

This is a completely frivilous claim/charge. It does nothing more than confuse the issue and actually makes any valid claims look weak and foolish!

[Riverwind]

Stealing the wind?

By that logic, I am apparently stealing some Native Person's sunshine right now.

-kimmy

It sounds ridiculous however it is typical of the fanaticism that infests the native rights movement today. Several native posters in this forum have claimed that every non-native person in the country "owes" natives trillions of dollars for "stealing" the land and resources and rudely insult and denigrate people who suggest that their claims are a tad unreasonable.

That is why I feel that we must give up on the hope of being able to negotiate a polite compromise that addresses historical wrongs but also respects the rights of the millions of immigrants who have made the country what it is today. There are some bands that have leadership that will negotiate reasonable deals but for every band like that there is another band with leadership that insists on a solution that reduces non-natives to the status of tenet farmers on feudal estates owned by natives.

We have to give our gov't permission to negotiate fair deals with the bands that are willing to negotaite fairly but we need to also give our government permission to refuse unreasonable demands even if that means we are faced with many more incidents like Ipperwash, Oka or Caledonia.

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

We have to give our gov't permission to negotiate fair deals with the bands that are willing to negotaite fairly but we need to also give our government permission to refuse unreasonable demands even if that means we are faced with many more incidents like Ipperwash, Oka or Caledonia.

You can't give your government anything, let alone sdirection to act on your behalf. These transactions - the negotiations to the final signed documents will be completed without your input. You're dreaming if you think otherwise.

Oh and BTW...We already ahve an agreement in principle that says the land is ours. The cost of compensation will be born by you the taxpayers and there isn't a thing you say or do that will change that outcome.

O:nen

[Riverwind]

We already ahve an agreement in principle that says the land is ours. The cost of compensation will be born by you the taxpayers and there isn't a thing you say or do that will change that outcome.

Thanks for proving my point. In Canada the taxpayers choose what politicians get elected. No politician will agree to a deal that requires them to raise taxes to pay for a land claim settlement. You can say whatever you want about what the gov't may or may not have said in ongoing negotations but that does not change the fact that there is a limit to the amount of money or land on the table and that limit is much less than $1 trillion dollars.

[kimmy]

If land claims spiral out of control to the point where they're a significant irritant to the average Canadian voter, some government will find some way to cap compensation and limit future claims.

-k

[Tsi Nikayen' Enonhne']

She:kon!

In Canada the taxpayers choose what politicians get elected.

Ha ha ha ha ha...!!!!! Canadians don't elect the politicians of their choice! You get the one the parties give to you. The election process is merely a confirmation of their choices for you. And once they get in they do what their leaders tell them to do. The average taxpayer has no clout where it concerns the government. You are just being used to feign democracy.......It is always a choice between the lesser of two evils...which one will screw you less.....

As far as our claims go they exceed the authority fo your electoral process. The government, once it is in sesion is bound to follow Crown law. Crown law says that the Haldimand Tract belongs to us. You government will simply enforce their laws over you to pay the tab for their mistakes. It is this way and has always been this way. That's what happens when a corporation like Canada runs the show. Their business decisions are made completely independent of your protests.

O:nen

[Riverwind]

The government, once it is in sesion is bound to follow Crown law. Crown law says that the Haldimand Tract belongs to us. You government will simply enforce their laws over you to pay the tab for their mistakes.

The government is free to pass new laws and even change the constitution if necessary. Six Nations will get nothing unless the majority of Canadians believe that it will benefit them. This is the reality that at least some people from Six Nations seem to recognize.