Caledonia

[Rue]

From your statement it appears the Government has made an offer relating to four claims. Do these four claims encompass the entire Haldimand Tract? Or are more in dispute? If so the Government has not validated the entire claims/Haldimand question at all, just four claims.

I believe your very last sentence is accurate. I do not think it has done anything legall other then create a process to attempt to balidate the 4 claims. I don't think it is wide enough to encompass the entire Tract issue although it might be a basis for a formula of settlement that could. How much precedent this has and how wide it can be legally applied is really an open question.

That is the problem with law. It doesn't always provide the specific clear cut answers we ideally would want it just points you in the direction of more discussion to get to that eventual agreement.

[Rue]

Aboriginal title does include mineral rights, and it precedes any claim the 'Crown' may have.

Aboriginal rights may include sharing revenues from the land, whether real estate, minerals, etc.

All of your opinions are interesting, and I think already addressed in negotiations perhaps.

At least, the government has validated the Haldimand Proclamation by making an offer for 4 claims in the Haldimand Tract.

Six Nations entitlement in the Haldimand Tract seems to be recognized by the federal government.

That is the basis for the Six Nations Confederacy asserting jurisdiction over land use in the entire Haldimand Tract, as they did recently.

Certainly the 6 Nations have been consistently clear in asserting their right to jurisdiction over the entire land in the Haldimand Tract. I do not know however given the track record of the federal government, whetehr its offer in regards to the 4 claims within the Tract constitute full recognition of 6 Nations Sovereignty. I will only believe it when I see the federal government state that in writing or see that clearly spelled out in a legal decision by a Judge. I say that because my problem is the federal government continues to deny what it agrees to saying it really only agreed to something else far smaller in scope that what it semed to be saying.

For me as a lawyer when I negotiate with a party that constantly denies what it agrees to, I get a but skeptical. I do not think anyone who understands the history of the track record of the federal government in regards to how it negotiates could possibly trust it. I say that from a purely legal perspective not a political one.

Sovereign states and their governments tend to hold themselves above the laws they expect others to follow. The whole process of our laws creates a special status for the Monarch no one else can have. It also exempts our governments from following many laws these governments said they would follow.

The thing is when governments want to change their mind and break agreements, they simply create another law to say they can.

[Rue]

That's the key word isn't it? So, what do the natives own, if anything? One thing they don't have any claim to is mineral rights. This is a certainty. The land in question was purchased by Haldimand from the natives occupying the area and set aside for the mohawks and any other of the six nations that wished to live there. Once the land became crown land, the crown would have to specified the transfer of mineral rights for the natives to had a claim.

As to the question of ownership, the Haldimand Proclamation is unclear and left to interpretation. It proclaimed the six nations were to take possession of, settle upon and enjoy the land for ever. The problem is the word "possession" can mean ownership or usage without ownership. This is what left it up to interpretation. It may have been Haldimand's intent to grant title, but he left office the same year. When he left the the proclamation was still up for interpretation by the crown. The following year, Joseph Brant went to England and came home with compensation for the native's war effort, money for a church, but he failed to obtain a title. The King chose to interpret the proclamation as usage without ownership.

I see what you are saying but I think there is a solid legal arguement to make that the federal government does not have to specify the transfer of mineral rights for the native peoples to have a claim to them. You are technically correct as to your point but there are exceptions to this rule. You are also quite correct when you say possession can mean (or more acurrately stated, can be taken to mean) ownership or it could simply be considered usage without ownership. Again I think you are absolutely bang on explaining this ambiguity is at the pith and substance of the Haldimand legal dispute. Again your statement that Mr. Brant faield to obtain legal title is true as was the Monarch defining usage without ownership, but to me that is all a moot point.

See to me, I believe it is accurate to say no non native Canadian really owns land. What we do is lease it from the King or Queen. It sounds like we have title to it but its not absolute. Her Majesty owns the land and at her pleasure she allows us title to it over anyone else BUT her.

As well your federal, provincial and municipal governments can seize your land and not even compensate you.

Then there are some laws that allow for example the railway crown corporation in the name of the federal government the right to seize your land if next to a railway and there has been a spill or they need it for a disaster or some other reason.

Now we non natives believe in this concept of private ownership of land as evidenced by a piece of paper.

The problem is there is also an equally as legal valid system of laws as to land in aboriginal law. That system can be traced back to treaties flowing from King John and the Magna Carta Act.

The King may have walked into Canada and said, yoh listen up this is all mine do you hear me-but it wasn't that simple. That same King and many others in between having sex with their cousins and beheading people entered into numerous legal treaties with the native peoples recognizing natives as equals and that is precisely what it says in these treaties.

This notion natives sat around and said, yoh King John, its yours take it, is ludicrous.

In aboriginal legal systems and values no one person is said to own land. Humans don't own the planet -they are said to be guests on it. The planet is not a thing to own, it is a living organism or creature, humans share life with.

So all the concepts don't define control of the planet by ownership, it defines the customs and rules by how you interact with the planet. Native principles are holistic and collective, they do not fragment or break down into

individual rights because no one person owns land but on the contrary many must share it.

So when you try work with these two sets of legal realities they can be quite different and what we have a tendency to do is assume the Western British one is the only one-but its not. That British system we inherited in its treaties never attempted to extinguish aboriginal customs and collective rights. It may be that subsequent non native politicians have chosen to do so and pass subsequent laws to try rationalize ignoring the treaties, but they have no legal effect on extinguishing the treaties.

So most accurately put,w hen it comes to Haldimand, like many other land claims, you had the government encountering native peoples and trying to convince the native peoples to give up their collective right to access and use land. The native concept is not about owning it for one person, but sharing it for a people.

Our governments come along and say, here take money we want to give it to one person or persons. The native peoples never ever agreed to that. The government even admitted it lied and broke agreements over it. It has tried everything to pressure aboriginals to give up their rights because its no different then say the old tale of Satan trying to get your soul-Satan can't get it unless you consent to allowing him to have it-unless he can get you to consent to that, he can't get it. So the tale is he has to trick you into getting your consent. The government in this case, Lord knows they have tried, but the aboriginals have remained resolute and consistent in not consenting.

What we then have are subsequent governments trying to pass laws that ignore the old treaties hoping this will make them impractical to honour only that hasn't worked-all its done is create subsequent laws that try ignore treaties but can not legally.

So the Crown can pretend all it wants it has a prerogative of ownership over Haldimand or anywhere else but that is still subject to the treaties that same crown agreed to obliging it to also recognize the collective rights of the native peoples to it.

[noahbody]

quote name='jennie' date='Sep 20 2007, 10:53 AM' post='251562']

It was never 'owned' by the Crown. It was traditional Iroquois land. The Mississaugas understood that, though they did not refuse the government's compensation money when they were asked to move.

I have at the earnest desire of many of these His Majesty’s faithful allies purchased a tract of land from the Indians situated between the Lakes Ontario, Erie and Huron

- Haldimand Proclamation

Initially, the Mississauga Natives resisted the idea of accommodating former foes on their land until one chief, Pokquan, decided Natives would be better neighbours than European settlers. He was impressed with Brant and believed Brant's knowledge of the British could prove useful to his own people. Consequently, he persuaded the other sachems to agree to the sale. On behalf of the British government, John Butler negotiated with the principal "Chiefs of the Missasaga Nation" for the purchase of "the Spot of Land delineated on the Sketch"

This 'spot' of land comprising about 800,000 hectares (2,000,000 acres) stretched from the source to the mouth of the river and six miles deep on each side of the Grand River.

The grant was to replace land lost by the Six Nations Indians in New York State following the American Revolution. Butler said the Missasaugas consented to part with it "without any hesitation for which they received 1180 pounds paid to seal the bargain."

http://www.uppercanadahistory.ca/fn/fn5.html

It's pretty clear it was sold it to the crown.

No I would not because legally it depends what authority he was given by the Confederacy Council.

That remains to be established through negotiations. For example, the Confederacy says Brant did not have Power of Attorney from the Council for the deal he did in Moulton township. He went beyond his legal limits.

Joseph Brant was not a traditional Chief, and not an authority for the Confederacy, except as they authorized him.

It's not like he sold off the land all in one day. The Confederacy didn't have a problem with it back then. Regardless, the Six Nations would owe compensation equal to the value of the land if they were to try to get it back.

Edited September 20, 2007 by noahbody

[jennie]

quote name='jennie' date='Sep 20 2007, 10:53 AM' post='251562']

It was never 'owned' by the Crown. It was traditional Iroquois land. The Mississaugas understood that, though they did not refuse the government's compensation money when they were asked to move.

- Haldimand Proclamation

Initially, the Mississauga Natives resisted the idea of accommodating former foes on their land until one chief, Pokquan, decided Natives would be better neighbours than European settlers. He was impressed with Brant and believed Brant's knowledge of the British could prove useful to his own people. Consequently, he persuaded the other sachems to agree to the sale. On behalf of the British government, John Butler negotiated with the principal "Chiefs of the Missasaga Nation" for the purchase of "the Spot of Land delineated on the Sketch" [see map.]

http://www.uppercanadahistory.ca/fn/fn5.html

It's pretty clear it was sold it to the crown.

It's not like he sold off the land all in one day. The Confederacy didn't have a problem with it back then. Regardless, the Six Nations would owe compensation equal to the value of the land if they were to try to get it back.

It is not clear until the facts are resolved in negotiations.

The understandings of land possession are different in our two cultures, and that led to some misunderstandings.

The Confederacy did have a problem with a lot of the transactions, Joseph Brant's included, and has petitioned the government repeatedly from then until now.

If Joseph Brant was not authorized by the Confederacy for a particular transaction, then that transaction was not valid. The government knew the laws, and they knew that the consent of the community was required, and represented by the Council.

It is premature for you to be making these statements because those facts have not yet been established.

No, it is not clear at all that it was sold. It is only clear that the government wanted possession. Whether they gained possession legally has not been established.

Just reading your source, I find this inaccurate statement:

When Brant's military career ended, his career as a statesman began. Joseph Brant was a chief of chiefs. The Six Nations made up of the Mohawks, Senecas, Oneidas, Cayugas, Onondagas and Tuscaroras formed a confederacy of Natives on the continent of America and Brant was their chief. Each tribe had its own chief, but Brant was the chief of the united tribes.

Brant was an appointed adviser and spokesperson for the Confederacy, but he was not a traditional Chief, and he was not "chief of chiefs". This is a misunderstanding perpetuated by the government to try to validate his transactions.

I repeat: Jopseph Brant was not a traditional Chief of the Confederacy, but an appointed spokesperson.

Edited September 20, 2007 by jennie

[jennie]

I believe your very last sentence is accurate. I do not think it has done anything legall other then create a process to attempt to balidate the 4 claims. I don't think it is wide enough to encompass the entire Tract issue although it might be a basis for a formula of settlement that could. How much precedent this has and how wide it can be legally applied is really an open question.

That is the problem with law. It doesn't always provide the specific clear cut answers we ideally would want it just points you in the direction of more discussion to get to that eventual agreement.

I have to disagree, somewhat Rue.

The offer ($125m) was made several months ago by the government, based on Six Nations claim to the Haldimand Tract, via the Haldimand Proclamation.

Perhaps I am not being clear, but I am trying: The only way the government would consider those four claims valid is if they accept the Haldimand Proclamation as valid.

Now every other piece of land or claim has to be defended according to the legality of each transaction, so I am not suggesting that they now 'own' the Haldimand Tract.

However, the Haldimand Proclamation must have already been accepted as valid by the government in order for them to make the offer on those four claims in the tract.

Edited September 20, 2007 by jennie

[ScottSA]

It is not clear until the facts are resolved in negotiations.

The understandings of land possession are different in our two cultures, and that led to some misunderstandings.

ROTFLMAO! I love this. In fact, it's the ticket out of every mess we've ever been in! Hey colonialism never happened; it was just a misunderstanding between cultures...we thought all those Zulus running at us with Iklwas and all those Bengalese running at us with sabres were just happy to see us. Slavery? Well, African literacy wasn't high back in the day, and no one knew Swahili, so, well, err, we just thought Black folks meant "we want to pick cotton for room and board." Shucks, how were we supposed to know they meant something else? Hiroshima? In our culture backyard campfires are well thought of as a pastime...

[kengs333]

That same King and many others in between having sex with their cousins and beheading people entered into numerous legal treaties with the native peoples recognizing natives as equals and that is precisely what it says in these treaties.

What relevance does it have? It's nothing in comparison to what Inians are known to have done, or the ancient Israelites, for that matter.

This notion natives sat around and said, yoh King John, its yours take it, is ludicrous.

King John reigned from 1199 to 1216, the fact that you'd make such a statement is even more ludicrous.

[jennie]

ROTFLMAO! I love this. In fact, it's the ticket out of every mess we've ever been in! Hey colonialism never happened; it was just a misunderstanding between cultures...we thought all those Zulus running at us with Iklwas and all those Bengalese running at us with sabres were just happy to see us. Slavery? Well, African literacy wasn't high back in the day, and no one knew Swahili, so, well, err, we just thought Black folks meant "we want to pick cotton for room and board." Shucks, how were we supposed to know they meant something else? Hiroshima? In our culture backyard campfires are well thought of as a pastime...

Are you related to Mel Lastman?

[kengs333]

I ask myself why do I even bother posting replies to jennie's crackpot posts? It's next to useless trying to have any sort of reasoned discussion with her (or him), so what can be gained?

[jennie]

Certainly the 6 Nations have been consistently clear in asserting their right to jurisdiction over the entire land in the Haldimand Tract. I do not know however given the track record of the federal government, whetehr its offer in regards to the 4 claims within the Tract constitute full recognition of 6 Nations Sovereignty. I will only believe it when I see the federal government state that in writing or see that clearly spelled out in a legal decision by a Judge. I say that because my problem is the federal government continues to deny what it agrees to saying it really only agreed to something else far smaller in scope that what it semed to be saying.

For me as a lawyer when I negotiate with a party that constantly denies what it agrees to, I get a but skeptical. I do not think anyone who understands the history of the track record of the federal government in regards to how it negotiates could possibly trust it. I say that from a purely legal perspective not a political one.

Sovereign states and their governments tend to hold themselves above the laws they expect others to follow. The whole process of our laws creates a special status for the Monarch no one else can have. It also exempts our governments from following many laws these governments said they would follow.

The thing is when governments want to change their mind and break agreements, they simply create another law to say they can.

That is the way they seem to work - "constantly denies what it agrees to". very well put.

I have no illusions that the feds have recognized sovereignty as in the Haldimand Proclamation, but 4 claims have been, all of which must be tied to that document.

As for breaking agreements ... I think in this case it would require a constitutional change wouldn't it? I don't see that as being very easy, but you never know!

Policy can change, though, and the feds are still trying to rely on their policy that once land is developed and occupied, it cannot be returned. It kind of explains the rash of development, I think.

[jennie]

What relevance does it have? It's nothing in comparison to what Inians are known to have done, or the ancient Israelites, for that matter.

King John reigned from 1199 to 1216, the fact that you'd make such a statement is even more ludicrous.

Are you a history buff? I am always curious what life was like in Europe at the time of North American conquest.

[jbg]

Are you a history buff? I am always curious what life was like in Europe at the time of North American conquest.

Apparently good enough that the best of Europe came here.

[kengs333]

Are you a history buff? I am always curious what life was like in Europe at the time of North American conquest.

Where to begin, but I'm really not interested in wasting my time or energy typing out lengthy factual posts that will simply be ignored or dismissed with some ignorant one-liner.

Incidently, the term "conquest" is a misrepresentation of what occurred, and as a person of European decent makes me feel bad because it implies that Europeans inherently acted with sinister and malicious intent. In fact, Europeans simply came to North America seeking to trade on a friendly basis, and that hostility on the part of the "native" inhabitants is what changed the dynamic of the relationship.

Edited September 21, 2007 by kengs333

[noahbody]

Brant was an appointed adviser and spokesperson for the Confederacy, but he was not a traditional Chief, and he was not "chief of chiefs". This is a misunderstanding perpetuated by the government to try to validate his transactions.

I repeat: Jopseph Brant was not a traditional Chief of the Confederacy, but an appointed spokesperson.

Brant Deposition, 1805.

Copy of a letter from the Chiefs of the Six Nations to Captain Parrish related to the deposition of Captain Brant in possession o.t.t.p.? in ( ceishok?of oBbuffalo)

Onondaga Village of Buffalo, March 30, 1805.

Brethren. It is (erst?) a few words that we, the Six Nations, wish to inform at this time, it is what have been saying at our fireplace in Buffalo Creek. As it is customary for the Six Nations to call Councils for the misconduct of chiefs so as to have all faults related here before such councils, we have learned from information that Captain Brant has not conducted himself to the satisfaction of the Six Nations and according to our Indian customs he is no more a chief. And we the Six Nations all of us agree is no longer to be noticed as a chief in the Six Nations. The following are the names of the principle chiefs in the Six Nations.

It would seem he was recognized as a chief by the Six Nations, wouldn't you agree?

[jennie]

It would seem he was recognized as a chief by the Six Nations, wouldn't you agree?

Yes you are right ... a Pine Tree chief (adviser, spokesperson, sometimes given Power of Attorney),

appointed positions for specific purposes.

http://www.indigenouspeople.net/iroqcon.htm

The Constitution of the Iroquois Nations

The Great Binding Law

GAYANASHAGOWA

1. I am Dekanawidah and with the Five Nations' Confederate

Lords I plant the Tree of Great Peace.

...

Election of Pine Tree Chiefs

35. Should any man of the Nation assist with special ability

or show great interest in the affairs of the Nation, if he

proves himself wise, honest and worthy of confidence, the

Confederate Lords may elect him to a seat with them and he may

sit in the Confederate Council. He shall be proclaimed a 'Pine

Tree sprung up for the Nation' and shall be installed as such

at the next assembly for the installation of Lords. Should he

ever do anything contrary to the rules of the Great Peace, he

may not be deposed from office -- no one shall cut him down --

but thereafter everyone shall be deaf to his voice and his

advice. Should he resign his seat and title no one shall

prevent him. A Pine Tree chief has no authority to name a

successor nor is his title hereditary.

He was not 'chief of chiefs' as portrayed, nor eligible to be that, and not one of the traditionally chosen chiefs.

He was a spokesperson, and a favourite of the British/colonialist government.

And as you posted, he was eventually deposed by the Confederacy.

Edited September 21, 2007 by jennie

[noahbody]

It is not clear until the facts are resolved in negotiations.

This actually went to the Supreme Court 30 years ago. http://www.citizensofcaledonia.ca/HaldimandTract.htm

Guess who was right?

Here's a hint: Me

Edited September 21, 2007 by noahbody

[jbg]

Where to begin, but I'm really not interested in wasting my time or energy typing out lengthy factual posts that will simply be ignored or dismissed with some ignorant one-liner.

I don't ignore. I learn from all posts, and your answer, though nominally to a poster, is really for all. PM's serve the function of a direct response.

[jennie]

This actually went to the Supreme Court 30 years ago. http://www.citizensofcaledonia.ca/HaldimandTract.htm

Guess who was right?

Here's a hint: Me

128 ISAAC v. DAVEY (183)

Correct me if I am wrong, but the question here had to do with whether the Confederacy was the legal government and held the land in fee simple.

I don't believe 'fee simple' is an issue at present, btw, but it was concluded here that the land was not held in fee simple, but rather ...

... the tract in question is still vested in the Crown,

So far so good ... but ... what is at issue now is this:

subject to the exercise of traditional Indian rights,

Those traditional rights are being exercised now:

- The right to reclaim traditional land via negotiations, where warranted.

- The right to consultation about uses of disputed land while negotiations proceed ... for years.

I don't see that this invalidates anything of the present negotiations.

Are you saying that the feds should not be negotiating?

What am I missing?

[noahbody]

Yes you are right ... a Pine Tree chief (adviser, spokesperson, sometimes given Power of Attorney),

appointed positions for specific purposes.

http://www.indigenouspeople.net/iroqcon.htm

The Constitution of the Iroquois Nations

The Great Binding Law

GAYANASHAGOWA

1. I am Dekanawidah and with the Five Nations' Confederate

Lords I plant the Tree of Great Peace.

...

Election of Pine Tree Chiefs

35. Should any man of the Nation assist with special ability

or show great interest in the affairs of the Nation, if he

proves himself wise, honest and worthy of confidence, the

Confederate Lords may elect him to a seat with them and he may

sit in the Confederate Council. He shall be proclaimed a 'Pine

Tree sprung up for the Nation' and shall be installed as such

at the next assembly for the installation of Lords. Should he

ever do anything contrary to the rules of the Great Peace, he

may not be deposed from office -- no one shall cut him down --

but thereafter everyone shall be deaf to his voice and his

advice. Should he resign his seat and title no one shall

prevent him. A Pine Tree chief has no authority to name a

successor nor is his title hereditary.

He was not 'chief of chiefs' as portrayed, nor eligible to be that, and not one of the traditionally chosen chiefs.

He was a spokesperson, and a favourite of the British/colonialist government.

And as you posted, he was eventually deposed by the Confederacy.

I think "chief of chiefs" may be a figure of speech. He was also called Indian King in Britian. I do think it is naive to dismiss him as a mere spokesperson. Yes, he was deposed. Guess the traditional chiefs had no problem with breaking their own laws.

[jennie]

I think "chief of chiefs" may be a figure of speech. He was also called Indian King in Britian. I do think it is naive to dismiss him as a mere spokesperson. Yes, he was deposed. Guess the traditional chiefs had no problem with breaking their own laws.

I see what you mean ... 'may not be deposed' ... but perhaps that was merely a choice of words.

I do not intend to sound dismissive of Joseph Brant. He was in many ways a great man, and very well received in the Colonial culture. But he apparently did eventually overstep the authority granted to him by the Confederacy Council.

Edited September 21, 2007 by jennie

[Posit]

It would seem he was recognized as a chief by the Six Nations, wouldn't you agree?

So here we'll back the truck up. Everything that follows stems from the incorrect answer to this.

Brant could have been designated a "Pine Tree" chief however, there is no record of him ever being raised up. If he had their would have been a wampum created for his installation. And if he was it still neither authorized him to speak on behalf of the Mohawks, or the Confederacy or to hold power of attorney over anyone. A Pine Tree is nothing more than an advisor to the Confederacy and is allowed to speak in Council and Caucus. While they cannot be deposed, the usual response to a Pine Chief once he was cut down was to simply ignore his suggestions. Thus he still formed part of the council but had no voice in which to influence it.

No Royaner (which I am told means "he has been raised")could speak for the Confederacy on any issue. Instead there had to be at least 3 Royaner, and their Clan Mother present in every discussion. National decisions - among the Mohawk as example - had to be made and presented at a National Council of the Mohawk and only then a delegation selected by the National Council could be sent to sign the deal. This same process was emulated by the Confederacy Council and the British were well aware of the process having dealt with the Confederacy on many occasions previously. Secondly, by the time Six Nations moved back to the Haldimand, they were accustomed to writing the minutes of their Council meetings and no where in their records do they show Brant with power of attorney to sell land to the British.

In fact there are copies of correspondence sent to and received from the British along with the minutes of meetings from the 1800's that clearly indicate that the Council had refused to sell land, and they were insisting that the squatters be removed - forcibly if necessary - from the tract of land. Contained in the records are also copies of letters whereby the British had guaranteed they were doing everything possible to keep settlers out of the are but that they had difficultly with "land barons and men of ill character" selling the land to unsuspecting immigrants. There was no authority either by Confederacy law or British law that allowed the illegal land sales to stick.

Brant was accused by the Confederacy of brokering land leases to which the Confederacy neither authorized or initiated and after the first couple leases and a noticeable difference of opinion, Brant was "cut down" by the Confederacy Council. Shortly after in shame Brant exiled himself to Hamilton.

History shows that the Indian Agents were heavily involved in embezzling the Six Nations trust, as well as selling lands and producing dubious documents. And as the crime was perpetuated by the government and under the nose of the government, there s a legal case for a return of lands and/or fair market payment for all those lands illegally taken or squatted on.

[AngusThermopyle]

I don't believe any reasonable person would deny that there are questions to be resolved relating to shady deals, thats pretty much a given.

I think what people object to is the methods being employed by Natives. People are tired of the violence and destruction exhibited, the "I'm above the law" attitude. The boasts of invincibility from these thugs. It's easy to be invincible when no one is allowed to touch you.

I used to be sympathetic toward the natives cause but because of this sort of behaviour I no longer am. Ridiculous demands such as they make ("give us a trillion dollars") tend to alienate people in hurry.

[noahbody]

So here we'll back the truck up. Everything that follows stems from the incorrect answer to this.

Brant could have been designated a "Pine Tree" chief however, there is no record of him ever being raised up. If he had their would have been a wampum created for his installation. And if he was it still neither authorized him to speak on behalf of the Mohawks, or the Confederacy or to hold power of attorney over anyone. A Pine Tree is nothing more than an advisor to the Confederacy and is allowed to speak in Council and Caucus. While they cannot be deposed, the usual response to a Pine Chief once he was cut down was to simply ignore his suggestions. Thus he still formed part of the council but had no voice in which to influence it.

If you read their Constitution it states "Should any man of the Nation assist with special ability." Some people would like to limit this to mean only a translator, but it does not. There is record of him being raised.

[noahbody]

There was no authority either by Confederacy law or British law that allowed the illegal land sales to stick.

Any land deal for which the Condederacy accepted payment should be considered a contract. For any of such land to be returned, the Conderacy should be required to pay back its market value. Agree?