dal has it right on the button - go back little more than 10 years and all one can find is six nations demanding for money because they knew they surrendered it. Weird how the same people that sued for mismanagement of funds for land sold say that they never sold the land after they didn't reap wealth from the court case.... and then claim that they don't understand where the gvt is coming from... That argument is a little too fallacious for common sense.
Its convenient to say "proper protocol" but really only assert what "the intent" of the surrender was. Indeed, there were several meetings between crown officials and the chiefs to which proper protocol - as far as anyone today can tell - was followed during the surrender's signing. Your "abuse" by trustee agents is referring to the expectation that the crown's fiduciary responsibilities of the monies profited from the sale by the natives was to never lose money and only grow....
proper protocol was not followed from the crowns side on bringing about indian land surrender,which you seem to conviently forget or mentioned !These agents or trustress who were supposed to look out for indians interest were not honouring thier trusted position in fact many abused this trust to thier own finicial gain ! The intent was to surrender the town plot so that all other squatters and non natives were to remove themselves from the rest of indian lands !the crown never upheld thier part
However IRONTIMU - you either neglect to mention, or are uninformed about - Six nations surrendered the land in 1844. The cat and mouse game between claiming that earlier treatises give them the right to the land, but later treatises like the 1844 lack the same legal power doesn't work when logic - the kind found in a court room - is applied. Hence why six nations have never actually claimed ownership of the land (in 1995, the claim was the mismanagement of funds from selling the land)in court.
The city of Brantford knows that this is Six Nations territory but they still push development through! The amicus report for the Brantford injunction states that Eagles nest is their territory!The city council still engages in unlawful conduct and unethical practices!!!!Go Floyd and Ruby go!
read the amicus report ,it will clear up any misunderstandings yous might have as to who still owns the land !!!
this report details why the natives still own the land and not your corrupt crown .
tarrzaan 2 years ago
dal has it right on the button - go back little more than 10 years and all one can find is six nations demanding for money because they knew they surrendered it. Weird how the same people that sued for mismanagement of funds for land sold say that they never sold the land after they didn't reap wealth from the court case.... and then claim that they don't understand where the gvt is coming from... That argument is a little too fallacious for common sense.
sensbetterthanleafs 2 years ago
Its convenient to say "proper protocol" but really only assert what "the intent" of the surrender was. Indeed, there were several meetings between crown officials and the chiefs to which proper protocol - as far as anyone today can tell - was followed during the surrender's signing. Your "abuse" by trustee agents is referring to the expectation that the crown's fiduciary responsibilities of the monies profited from the sale by the natives was to never lose money and only grow....
dalhousieuniversity 2 years ago
proper protocol was not followed from the crowns side on bringing about indian land surrender,which you seem to conviently forget or mentioned !These agents or trustress who were supposed to look out for indians interest were not honouring thier trusted position in fact many abused this trust to thier own finicial gain ! The intent was to surrender the town plot so that all other squatters and non natives were to remove themselves from the rest of indian lands !the crown never upheld thier part
tarrzaan 2 years ago
However IRONTIMU - you either neglect to mention, or are uninformed about - Six nations surrendered the land in 1844. The cat and mouse game between claiming that earlier treatises give them the right to the land, but later treatises like the 1844 lack the same legal power doesn't work when logic - the kind found in a court room - is applied. Hence why six nations have never actually claimed ownership of the land (in 1995, the claim was the mismanagement of funds from selling the land)in court.
dalhousieuniversity 2 years ago
The city of Brantford knows that this is Six Nations territory but they still push development through! The amicus report for the Brantford injunction states that Eagles nest is their territory!The city council still engages in unlawful conduct and unethical practices!!!!Go Floyd and Ruby go!
IRONTIMU 2 years ago