OK Salmo,

I knew I could draw you out of the waters!

Please explain this:

Does this also mean that ANY treaty must be treated in the same fashion? Example: If we have a treaty that allows another government or "nation" to "share" a resource, does that allow the "other government" or "nation" to also "franchise" it rights out to others too? I think not!

Legally, " Nation to nation" means "nation to nation" and not "nation to another party"!

Legally, why would any other "nation or party" that marries into it get treated any differently under our nations Constitution rules?

The Constitution says; 1. Art. VI, cl. 2 of the United States Constitution provides:

The "Constitution . . . of the United States . . . and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

And: 6. ". . . [The] [treaty] negotiations were with the tribe. They reserved rights, however, to every individual Indian, as though named therein. . . . And the right was intended to be continuing against the United States and its grantees as well as against the State and its grantees." n11 That those rights are also reserved to the descendants [*332] of treaty Indians, without limitation in time, excepting as Congress may determine, has been recognized and applied by the United States Supreme Court from the first to the latest decision of that court involving Indian treaty fishing rights. "


If it can be proven that these tribes came from our "original blood lines", why wouldn't we be allowed to legally share what they have? I don't know for sure, but I believe that the Boldt decision only cover "tribes" that signed the treaties and not the "people" who were in the tribes. So if we can show by the use of DNA that these tribes came from us…then they are us; and us is them!

I don't know for sure, but I would bet you that you could make one hell of a legal argument out of this. They never even knew what DNA was when the tribes brought these issues up in the courts, and I believe that it could now stand up in a new legal hearing.

IF "OJ" CAN GET OFF by using DNA, than DNA should WORK HERE TOO!!!

Legally, what made a tribe a tribe before the treaties were signed? How did one tribe recognize another tribe? Since they didn't keep "records" of who was who, was it by blood lines, or what?

When the treaties were signed in the 1800, no one knew where anyone was from. So if you could show that you had the same amount of matching DNA that they now have, what's stopping you from claiming "ancestral" rights of being an original tribe member?


Happy New year Turkey!

Cowlitzfisherman