Access Dispute Owner Vs Band
-
- Board Meister
- Posts: 477
- Joined: Nov 21st, 2009, 6:02 pm
Re: Access Dispute Owner Vs Band
dontrump wrote:Constant personal bitterness of the past perceived wrongs and continual chip on one ones shoulder all the while
only expecting respect for your side and constantly blaming the other will not only further anything and will further divide
*removed*
This lady in OK falls has every right to protect and stand up for what she feels is the correct ruling
If she was in a battle of non natives on this deal authoritys would have forbade trespass by such until it was clarified legally
why does this same rule not apply to natives in this case I ask of you????? seeing you want to be equal to others
Dontrump:
If there is bitterness, it is justified due to a century and a half of colonization and subjugation. To believe otherwise is just your willful ignorance. And to believe that there isn't ongoing racism that deserves attention is your willful blindness, which helps nothing.
The lady in OK falls is currently in the wrong. The news story states that both the Provincial Government re: crown land and the Land Titles survey re: her property show that it is NOT her land and there is NO trespass, in fact SHE is trespassing by refusing access. It IS legally clear, just not in her favour and she is the one disputing it by attempting change the current survey.
-
- Grand Pooh-bah
- Posts: 2623
- Joined: Feb 20th, 2016, 10:39 am
Re: Access Dispute Owner Vs Band
If there is bitterness, it is justified due to a century and a half of colonization and subjugation. To believe otherwise is just your willful ignorance. And to believe that there isn't ongoing racism that deserves attention is your willful blindness, which helps nothing.
There u go again and that's my point calling people ignorant and the lot because you say its so? My point to you(others got it)
is that we don't care what went on 150 year ago or 100 years.its over, build a bridge. If U stay bitter like you then in the end the only bitter person is still only you
The lady says her certificate says shes in the right the government did a resurvey and did it wrong(her story) now shes having it resurveyed (her claim) it will be interesting to see who prevails
Not my fight just find it all interesting
- GordonH
- Сварливий старий мерзотник
- Posts: 38862
- Joined: Oct 4th, 2008, 7:21 pm
Re: Access Dispute Owner Vs Band
dontrump wrote:There u go again and that's my point calling people ignorant and the lot because you say its so? My point to you(others got it)
is that we don't care what went on 150 year ago or 100 years.its over, build a bridge. If U stay bitter like you then in the end the only bitter person is still only you
The lady says her certificate says shes in the right the government did a resurvey and did it wrong(her story) now shes having it resurveyed (her claim) it will be interesting to see who prevails
Not my fight just find it all interesting
If those fishing stayed on or below the high water mark plus that damn is government property, nothing this homeowner can do
Since crown land near bodies of water go to high water mark.
I don't give a damn whether people/posters like me or dislike me, I'm not on earth to win any popularity contests.
- Dawnland
- Board Meister
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Aug 13th, 2009, 10:38 am
Re: Access Dispute Owner Vs Band
dontrump wrote:There u go again and that's my point calling people ignorant and the lot because you say its so? My point to you(others got it)
is that we don't care what went on 150 year ago or 100 years.its over, build a bridge. If U stay bitter like you then in the end the only bitter person is still only you
The lady says her certificate says shes in the right the government did a resurvey and did it wrong(her story) now shes having it resurveyed (her claim) it will be interesting to see who prevails
Not my fight just find it all interesting
So what I don't understand, and maybe someone of your position can explain, why it is acceptable to criminalize the First Nations for being there within their legal right? Even if the certificate was wrong, her fight shouldn't be with the First Nations, it should be with the government for screwing up. The First Nations had NOTHING to do with the first or second survey. More accurate reporting would have covered that, no? Who benefits from allowing her unsubstantiated claims to be broadcast?
All those posters who villainize First Nations in this thread, why not point the finger at the government? The First Nations have not been served with any injunction to prevent them from fishing until it is worked out. So why stop fishing? The First Nations used access south of her property, in the river, then through crown land. The ONA Fisheries Dept has been using that route since she first banned access. It is the legally recognized property lines being followed. If she has a problem with it, it shouldn't have anything to do with the First Nations, she has to get it fixed herself, what does she expect to accomplish by attacking people who have been told by the government authorities that they have a right to be there. What does she want the First Nations to do about it? Why attack them? And why support her position? Criminalize people who are following the law...SMH
- onestop67
- Guru
- Posts: 9531
- Joined: Sep 10th, 2006, 11:12 pm
Re: Access Dispute Owner Vs Band
*removed*
Last edited by ferri on Jul 29th, 2016, 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: personal attack
Reason: personal attack
- onestop67
- Guru
- Posts: 9531
- Joined: Sep 10th, 2006, 11:12 pm
Re: Access Dispute Owner Vs Band
*removed*
Last edited by ferri on Jul 29th, 2016, 8:58 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: personal attack
Reason: personal attack
-
- Grand Pooh-bah
- Posts: 2623
- Joined: Feb 20th, 2016, 10:39 am
Re: Access Dispute Owner Vs Band
Dawnland wrote: So what I don't understand, and maybe someone of your position can explain, why it is acceptable to criminalize the First Nations for being there within their legal right? Even if the certificate was wrong, her fight shouldn't be with the First Nations, it should be with the government for screwing up. The First Nations had NOTHING to do with the first or second survey. More accurate reporting would have covered that, no? Who benefits from allowing her unsubstantiated claims to be broadcast?
All those posters who villainize First Nations in this thread, why not point the finger at the government? The First Nations have not been served with any injunction to prevent them from fishing until it is worked out. So why stop fishing? The First Nations used access south of her property, in the river, then through crown land. The ONA Fisheries Dept has been using that route since she first banned access. It is the legally recognized property lines being followed. If she has a problem with it, it shouldn't have anything to do with the First Nations, she has to get it fixed herself, what does she expect to accomplish by attacking people who have been told by the government authorities that they have a right to be there. What does she want the First Nations to do about it? Why attack them? And why support her position? Criminalize people who are following the law...SMH
The way I read and understand the situation she could care less if the Indians net fish. She is against ANY PERSON of any ethnic background and or colour from crossing her property to do so or do anything
Last edited by ferri on Aug 1st, 2016, 12:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: fixed quote
Reason: fixed quote
- Dawnland
- Board Meister
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Aug 13th, 2009, 10:38 am
Re: Access Dispute Owner Vs Band
dontrump wrote:The way I read and understand the situation she could care less if the Indians net fish. She is against ANY PERSON of any ethnic background and or colour from crossing her property to do so or do anything
Seriously? After 5 pages of colorful dialogue, 7 news articles, racist posts and my reply above, I ask again, 'Why is anyone' making this a First Nations fishing/trespass issue. Why isn't the issue about her being too lazy to get the certificate redone?!
=oh yeah, because she has already been told she's wrong but because she's blaming First Nations for something, we can make her BS story front 'Fricken page news.
-
- Grand Pooh-bah
- Posts: 2623
- Joined: Feb 20th, 2016, 10:39 am
Re: Access Dispute Owner Vs Band
Because in this case the only people she has found (so far) is the indians trespassing in her opinion
but as one can cleary read in my last I am 100% sure she would be *bleep* at anyone trespassing on her property
no matter what they were up to
but as one can cleary read in my last I am 100% sure she would be *bleep* at anyone trespassing on her property
no matter what they were up to
- Dawnland
- Board Meister
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Aug 13th, 2009, 10:38 am
Re: Access Dispute Owner Vs Band
dontrump wrote:Because in this case the only people she has found (so far) is the indians trespassing in her opinion
but as one can cleary read in my last I am 100% sure she would be *bleep* at anyone trespassing on her property
no matter what they were up to
Only. In. Her. Mind.
So, like I said, why support her, why villianize the First Nations. It is only in her perception that there is a violation, so why does she get to slander the local people?? What make her right? What gives her the air time? If she was slandering everyone, Kent would have walked away from the story and thought she was a loonie or at least asked, "If it was such an issue for you, why haven't you gone to court or got a new survey?" But because she feels terrified by First Nations fishing NEAR her property, she gets air time, and then it's 'light the pitchforks' time. The middle-ages called, "They be wantin' their livations back. You've 'ad enouf".
-
- Grand Pooh-bah
- Posts: 2623
- Joined: Feb 20th, 2016, 10:39 am
Re: Access Dispute Owner Vs Band
Dawnland wrote:Only. In. Her. Mind.
So, like I said, why support her, why villianize the First Nations. It is only in her perception that there is a violation, so why does she get to slander the local people?? What make her right? What gives her the air time? If she was slandering everyone, Kent would have walked away from the story and thought she was a loonie or at least asked, "If it was such an issue for you, why haven't you gone to court or got a new survey?" But because she feels terrified by First Nations fishing NEAR her property, she gets air time, and then it's 'light the pitchforks' time. The middle-ages called, "They be wantin' their livations back. You've 'ad enouf".
like I said for all to read? she never villianised anyone ? people used what she feels is her property
the suggestion the news reporter would have walked away if she was not mad at non Indians if they crossed her property is ridiculous at best
Last edited by ferri on Aug 1st, 2016, 4:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: fixed quote
Reason: fixed quote
- Dawnland
- Board Meister
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Aug 13th, 2009, 10:38 am
Re: Access Dispute Owner Vs Band
dontrump wrote: she never villianised anyone
Just goes to show you never watched the video of the new story.
-
- Grand Pooh-bah
- Posts: 2623
- Joined: Feb 20th, 2016, 10:39 am
Re: Access Dispute Owner Vs Band
No I did not never new there was one out link for it?
- Bsuds
- The Wagon Master
- Posts: 54926
- Joined: Apr 21st, 2005, 10:46 am
Re: Access Dispute Owner Vs Band
dontrump wrote:No I did not never new there was one out link for it?
English please?
So I saw a bumper sticker today that said, I'm a Veterinarian so I drive like an animal.
I suddenly realised how many Proctologists are on the road!
I suddenly realised how many Proctologists are on the road!
-
- Walks on Forum Water
- Posts: 11639
- Joined: Sep 18th, 2009, 11:58 am
Re: Access Dispute Owner Vs Band
Dawnland wrote:, and then it's 'light the pitchforks' time. The middle-ages called, "They be wantin' their livations back. You've 'ad enouf".
To be accurate, I do not believe anyone lit pitchforks. I believe they lit torches and carried pitchforks during the time of Dr. Frankenstein. And, I also believe you are mixing the Middle Ages with southern KKK-speak and cockney.. But, your intent is clear.
You and 71 others Like this post