Mohawks Of Kanehsatake Proved Right!

[MHz]

Actually it's an article on how this will impact commercial fisheries legislation. It's commentary on legal findings, not how Admiralty law is applied to Treaties. lol.

Part of it is to make sure a treaty can't be used to get first right in a commercial enterprise. That means defining what is in the treaty and what is not.

Limited Scope of Treaty Promises
In finding in favour of Donald Marshall, the court was careful to point out that this treaty right was not without its limits. For example, in rejecting an argument that the Crown was in breach of an obligation to continue to supply licenced traders and truckhouses, the courts said “[t]he appellant cannot , with any show of logic, claim to exercise his treaty rights using an outboard motor while at the same time insist on restoration of the peculiar 18th century institution know as truckhouses.”
The court also addressed the concern that its decision “could lever the treaty right into a factory trawler in Pomquet Harbour gathering the available harvest in preference to all non-aboriginal commercial or recreational fishermen.” In doing so, it pointed out that the treaty only gave a right to trade for “necessaries”. In a modern day context, this translates into a right to earn a “moderate livelihood”. It said that a moderate livelihood “includes such basics as ‘food, clothing and housing, supplemented by a few amenities’, but not the accumulation of wealth.” It also added that catch limits that could reasonably be expected to produce a moderate livelihood at present day standards could be established by regulation.

 

[CDNBear]

Part of it is to make sure a treaty can't be used to get first right in a commercial enterprise. That means defining what is in the treaty and what is not.

Limited Scope of Treaty Promises
In finding in favour of Donald Marshall, the court was careful to point out that this treaty right was not without its limits. For example, in rejecting an argument that the Crown was in breach of an obligation to continue to supply licenced traders and truckhouses, the courts said “[t]he appellant cannot , with any show of logic, claim to exercise his treaty rights using an outboard motor while at the same time insist on restoration of the peculiar 18th century institution know as truckhouses.”
The court also addressed the concern that its decision “could lever the treaty right into a factory trawler in Pomquet Harbour gathering the available harvest in preference to all non-aboriginal commercial or recreational fishermen.” In doing so, it pointed out that the treaty only gave a right to trade for “necessaries”. In a modern day context, this translates into a right to earn a “moderate livelihood”. It said that a moderate livelihood “includes such basics as ‘food, clothing and housing, supplemented by a few amenities’, but not the accumulation of wealth.” It also added that catch limits that could reasonably be expected to produce a moderate livelihood at present day standards could be established by regulation.

No sh!t?

You keep reading that article, I downloaded the pdf of the actual Supreme Court case and am presently reading it.

From what I've seen so far, no Admiralty Law was applied. Just Contractual, Constitution and Treaty Law.

This article is a legal/opinion piece.

So let me ask you this...what does this have to do with your babbling about Admiralty law and the UCC?

Or at the very least, what the hell does it have to do with the theft, waste, corruption and abuse of law that formulated in the events of January 12th 2004?

 

[L Gilbert]

"The part of the treaty relied upon by Donald Marshall, was the trade clause. This provided as follows:

And I do further engage that we will not traffick, barter or Exchange any Commodities in any manner but with such persons or the managers of such Truck houses as shall be appointed or Established by His Majesty’s Governor at Lunenbourg or Elsewhere in Nova Scotia or Accadia.

​

After reviewing a great deal of historical evidence, the trial judge concluded that the British wished the Mi’kmaq to continue their hunting, fishing and gathering lifestyle so as to avoid them being a long term burden on the public treasury. "

What would you call this example? The article has many more similar examples. What dictionary would be used to define what the bolded letters below actually refer to.

The majority decision of the Supreme of Canada written by Mr. Justice Binnie, reached the opposite conclusion. After emphasizing the need to uphold the honour of the Crown when interpreting treaties, he concluded that the interpretation advocated by the trial Judge and Madame Justice Mclachlin left the Mi’kmaq with an “empty shell of a treaty promise.” He concluded that the Mi’kmaq treaty right to fish and trade survived the discontinuance of the exclusive trading arrangement with the British.

That would seem to mean, find the Crown (Government of Canada in this case) as the party that wins.

You are as clear as MUD. You make a comment about UUC. Then you change it to UCC, say they are a bunch of lawyers, and then mention that they rule on the contexts of treaties. Now you say this trial judge ruled on something. Make up your mind, please.

 

[CDNBear]

You are as clear as MUD. You make a comment about UUC. Then you change it to UCC, say they are a bunch of lawyers, and then mention that they rule on the contexts of treaties. Now you say this trial judge ruled on something. Make up your mind, please.

Since you're into asking for the impossible, why don't you ask Jesus to come back while you're at it.

;-)

 

[MHz]

On my first post I asked what law covered the sale of tobacco, I'm still waiting to find that specific one. Saying export didn't narrow the search down much.

 

[CDNBear]

On my first post I asked what law covered the sale of tobacco, I'm still waiting to find that specific one. Saying export didn't narrow the search down much.

The UCC doesn't cover it in Canada. It doesn't cover anything beyond the borders of the US. It's an American legal streaming system.

So what would you like to know?

Instead of running around trying to gather convoluted articles to make yourself look smart, why not try researching.

I just found a whole litany of info on Tobacco legislation.

 

[L Gilbert]

........
Or at the very least, what the hell does it have to do with the theft, waste, corruption and abuse of law that formulated in the events of January 12th 2004?

..... and cigarettes?

 

[CDNBear]

..... and cigarettes?

Good point!

 

[MHz]

..... and cigarettes?

You too? Read the whole linked article or this thread

The UCC doesn't cover it in Canada. It doesn't cover anything beyond the borders of the US. It's an American legal streaming system.

Admiralty and Maritime Law Guide - Maritime Law by Country

 

[CDNBear]

On my first post I asked what law covered the sale of tobacco, I'm still waiting to find that specific one. Saying export didn't narrow the search down much.

Summary of the Canadian Tobacco Act

The Federal Tobacco Act regulates, manufacturing, sale, distribution, possession, consumption etc.

Revenue Canada still controls the taxation thereof and the import and export of related tobacco products.

 

[CDNBear]

You too? Read the whole linked article or this thread

I/we did, and it has nothing to do with cigarettes, nor Admiralty Law being applied to Treaties.

It was merely placed on a site regarding Admiralty Law, because of the implications the Contractual, Constitutional and Treaty Law, as applied by the Supreme Court of Canada, will have on Commericial Fisheries, which are governed in part by Admiralty Law.

For gawd's sake how can you not see that? Are you really that dumb?

Admiralty and Maritime Law Guide - Maritime Law by Country

And what the hell is that supposed to prove? That you can cut & paste links?

 

[MHz]

Post #41

Quoting MHz For the very last time, my original link does mention cigs. Click and search for anything in the quote below'
"Their mission was to take down the Police Commission,
the police force, the cigarette trade, take over the police station and
council house and to bring the Mohawks into submission. ?

Censored and underreported News: Canada's 'Indian Affairs' Financed War Machine to Attack Kanehsatake Mohawks

My post did not include the whole article.
​

Well I'll be damned, I stand corrected. My apologies.

Now, do you think that that one three word statement is the gist of the article?

 

[L Gilbert]

Good point!

lol It was a joke. The point was to arouse laughter.

 

[L Gilbert]

You too? Read the whole linked article or this thread


Admiralty and Maritime Law Guide - Maritime Law by Country

It was a joke. The point was to arouse laughter.

 

[CDNBear]

Now, do you think that that one three word statement is the gist of the article?

No. Do you?

How about the other questions I just asked? Got an answer for them?

lol It was a joke. The point was to arouse laughter.

I thought so, now I don't feel so bad for laughing...;-)

 

[L Gilbert]

Post #41

Quoting MHz For the very last time, my original link does mention cigs. Click and search for anything in the quote below'
"Their mission was to take down the Police Commission,
the police force, the cigarette trade, take over the police station and
council house and to bring the Mohawks into submission. ?

Censored and underreported News: Canada's 'Indian Affairs' Financed War Machine to Attack Kanehsatake Mohawks

My post did not include the whole article.
​

Well I'll be damned, I stand corrected. My apologies.

Now, do you think that that one three word statement is the gist of the article?

I don't but you went on about cigarettes as if the topic of cigarettes explained everything about what was in your link. Again, that's what brought about my analogy regarding compression not describing the functions of an engine.
Like I said, clear as mud.

 

[MHz]

I don't but you went on about cigarettes as if the topic of cigarettes explained everything about what was in your link. Again, that's what brought about my analogy regarding compression not describing the functions of an engine.
Like I said, clear as mud.

Actually I thought the issues of taking over the police station was more important. I wanted to clear up the little point of were they (the current police that were about to be invaded) lax or harsh towards the tobacco part of the equation.
I can see why 4/5 posts were bears. The lesson here is don't ask the the experts (Bear) as a small question will get a few pages of emoticons. Later

 

[CDNBear]

Actually I thought the issues of taking over the police station was more important. I wanted to clear up the little point of were they (the current police that were about to be invaded) lax or harsh towards the tobacco part of the equation.
I can see why 4/5 posts were bears. The lesson here is don't ask the the experts (Bear) as a small question will get a few pages of emoticons. Later

Seeing as I'm not the only one that sees you have a communication and comprehension issue. I think blaming me for your issues is a tad silly.

Especially since you never actually asked that question, not in any coherent way anyways.

But hey, don't let reality get in the way of skirting personal responsibility.

 

[CDNBear]

MHz, does this mean you're tired of having your ass handed to you and give up trying to pretend to know what you're talking about?

 

[CDNBear]

Yep, I guess so.