Dakota Sovereignty Challenged

Sovereignty is being challenged by both the Canadian and the Dakota governments. The question has been asked of the Dakota, "How are the Dakota Sovereign?" The Dakota have also asked Canada the same, "How is Canada Sovereign?" 

To answer the question as to how the Dakota people remain sovereign; 1. We have retained our language 2. We have retained our people 3. We have retained our laws 4. We have retained our land 5. We have retained our government

Dakota sovereignty is Creator given, Canadian sovereignty is man made.

Sovereignty In the Attorney General of Manitoba's Supplementary Motion, pg 16, the arguments for sovereignty, paragraph 46 reads, "The defendants assert that they are not bound by provincial law because they did not relinquish their sovereignty through treaty. In essence they argue that the Dakota people are a sovereign nation that is not subject to the rule of law in Canada. With respect, no court has countenanced such an argument."

If no court has countenanced such an argument, what is the provinces legal basis for assuming sovereignty over the Dakota people? An email dated August 8, 2012 contains the following excerpt: "The Crown is willing to concede that the Dakota people used or occupied southern Manitoba prior to Confederation and before the assertion of Crown sovereignty. The Crown is also willing to concede that the Dakota First Nations of Manitoba have not signed treaty with Canada ceding any asserted rights or title to any land in southern Manitoba." Canada and the Provinces did not acquire Dakota territories legally as outlined in Book H of their evidence package, the "J.A.N Provencher investigation. Therefore the natural resource revenue has provided for the Dakota people in the form of Contribution and Transfer Agreements between Canada, the Provinces, and the Dakota people. Health, education, infrastructure, hydro, communications, govt services, etc, have all been paid for by our natural resources revenue. In addition to the concessions, it should be noted that the phrase "and before the assertion of Crown sovereignty" brings into question as to when the Crown assumed sovereignty.

Book D of the Dakota evidence package includes Judge William B. Coltman's "Confidential Report L dated May 20, 1818, outlining his concerns as a sitting judge in "Indian Territory" to which Crown title had not been acquired. Page 17 of the Supplementary Motion, paragraph 47 includes the following: "There was from the outset never any doubt that sovereignty and legislative power, and indeed the underlying title, to such lands vested in the Crown." R vs. Sparrow [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075 at 1103, 1110 [tab 23]

The phrase "at the outset" indicates a belief that Crown title existed upon arrival to continent. In Book E. Verbatim transcripts of the British Parliamentary Select Committee of 1857 show that the Hudson's Bay Charter of 1670 did not signify title to the land.

While there is no accepted definition of sovereignty in international law, it is accepted that foreign sovereignty rules originated from the Westphalia peace treaties of 1648. Page 19, paragraph 51 of the Supplementary Motion reads: "The principle of sovereign integrity dictates...the Crown and in turn, Canada fall under these international rules.

Accordingly, in order to for a people to acquire sovereignty on a foreign land, there would have to be no human beings residing there. This raises the final question. What is the definition of an aboriginal and is an aboriginal considered a human being?

Regardless of English definitions, the Dakota remain Dakota people. So to answer the question as to how the Dakota people remain sovereign; 1. We have retained our language 2. We have retained our people 3. We have retained our laws 4. We have retained our land 5. We have retained our government

Dakota sovereignty is Creator given, Canadian sovereignty is man made.

The Dakota have never been refugees in Canada and have never ran from any battle in history. They existed on both sides of the 49th parallel long before any border was imagined.

R vs. Williams is about aboriginal sovereignty and Crown sovereignty trumps aboriginal sovereignty. The Dakota\Lakota in Saskatchewan and Manitoba were offered 60.3 million as stated in Michael Roy's letter dated July 25, 2007, "It is Canad's position that the Dakota\Lakota First Nations do not have aboriginal rights in Canada, nor do the historical facts give rise to a treaty adhesion claim; therefore, the only remedy I can recommend to the Minister, to address the objectives listed in the Lakota\Dakota proposal dated Oct 17, 2007n is to make a financial offer to assist the First Nations in meeting those objectives. I am prepared to recommend to the Minister, that an offer of 60.3 million in total for the 9 Dakota\Lakota First Nations in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, be made, to address the objectives identified in your proposal. Canada's proposal lays out the offer on a First Nation basis, 6.7 million per First Nation, and is set out below in the order of the elements laid out in your proposal."

The Dakota\Lakota rejected the offer and have since produced profound evidence that can change Canada on a much greater level.


Showing 1 reaction

  • Bill Monture
    commented 2015-02-16 18:15:53 -0800
    I been saying that for years more of r people need to read this