Andrew Soliz

[Rod Ciferri]

Dear educatedindian:

It is only you who speak of "hate", as our posts between eachother will reveal.  Also, the answer to the question you seek is in this thread already. 

<<We asked him why he claims Vernal Cross authorized him to do sundances>>

No, you neither asked him why he claims Vernal authorized him to do sundances, nor did you prove he ever made such a claim.  I'm not aware that Andrew leads sundances at all, much less sundances authorized by Vernal. 

In that regard you never asked him a question, rather, you asked him to explain the statement of Darlene Cross contained in the link you posted. 

Given that you give no proof of him making the claim that "Vernal authorized him to do sundances", I'm not sure what anyone would explain about the statement in the link you posted - it speaks for itself - and what it says is "No part of  Vernal's hochoka was passed on.  All of his hochoka remains with the family and when he passed away he took his power with him.  Anyone who claims otherwise is subject to arrest and imprisonment under federal law". 

Please direct me to Andrew's statement that he claims Vernal's hochoka. 

Andrew has told you himself that he has permission to do what he does and he refers to Darlene and Michael Cross as giving him that permission. 

Andrew has told you himself:  "Michael Cross is a very well respected Medicine Man in his own right..."

So, where do you get from any of this that Andrew has claimed Vernal Cross authorized him to do sundances?

I won't even bother Andrew to try to get him to "explain" the statement of Darlene Cross.  It's clear to me that it speaks for itself.  But, if you need some further explanation of it, perhaps you should ask the person who made the statement in the first place.

Mitakuye Oyasin.

[Rod Ciferri]

Dear Kathryn:

From my perspective, pain is part and parcel with healing.  It's easier to understand from an allopathic perspective.  It hurts to have cancer surgically removed from the body, but, later it feels good to be healed.  I believe it's the same thing in spiritual healing.  It's painful changing something that's been ingrained for a while, but after the changes have been made it feels better than before.  I hope that helps.

Mitakuye Oyasin.

[Rod Ciferri]

Dear Johnnie:

Mitakuye Oyasin.

[educatedindian]

Dear educatedindian:

It is only you who speak of "hate", as our posts between eachother will reveal.  Also, the answer to the question you seek is in this thread already.  

<<We asked him why he claims Vernal Cross authorized him to do ceremonies>>

No, you neither asked him why he claims Vernal authorized him to do sundances, nor did you prove he ever made such a claim.  I'm not aware that Andrew leads sundances at all, much less sundances authorized by Vernal.  

In that regard you never asked him a question, rather, you asked him to explain the statement of Darlene Cross contained in the link you posted.  

Given that you give no proof of him making the claim that "Vernal authorized him to do sundances", I'm not sure what anyone would explain about the statement in the link you posted - it speaks for itself - and what it says is "No part of  Vernal's hochoka was passed on.  All of his hochoka remains with the family and when he passed away he took his power with him.  Anyone who claims otherwise is subject to arrest and imprisonment under federal law".  

Please direct me to Andrew's statement that he claims Vernal's hochoka.  

Andrew has told you himself that he has permission to do what he does and he refers to Darlene and Michael Cross as giving him that permission.  

Andrew has told you himself:  "Michael Cross is a very well respected Medicine Man in his own right..."

So, where do you get from any of this that Andrew has claimed Vernal Cross authorized him to do sundances?

I won't even bother Andrew to try to get him to "explain" the statement of Darlene Cross.  It's clear to me that it speaks for itself.  But, if you need some further explanation of it, perhaps you should ask the person who made the statement in the first place.

Mitakuye Oyasin.

I suspect, in part because of your empty and repeated inappropriate use of a Lakota phrase you don't understand, there's little hope of getting through to you, but I'll try.

Pretty much everybody here can see you're full of anger and hate, close to downright rage, that anyone even dared question Mr. Soliz. And you project your emotions upon others.

That seems to be the reaction from Soliz's followers, first from his partner, who sounded somewhat like a child, telling me roughly "Um, you guys are gonna get it now."

And now from you. I pointed out there are some things unclear, and that you could help out Soliz by making them clear. Your reaction is to refuse to answer and then defend him with fluffy phrases.

Far from helping Soliz, you've hurt him. Just to be clear, no one ever mentioned Sundances, not me nor other nafps members. (We said "ceremonies" the same ones he advertises and sells online.) You were the first to do so, and now it only leads others to wonder if in fact Soliz is now abusing that ceremony as well.

Again, Soliz is not Lakota, nor of any other tribe that ever did the Sundance. Mayans and Pueblos never did.

He claims to be adopted, but the Lakota at nafps and elsewhere have said time and again being adopted does NOT give one the "right" to do Lakota ceremony.

Not only that, Darlene Cross had clearly and publicly stated Vernal never authorizd anyone. Soliz refuses to answer on that question, and now so do you. Instead you go on a strange tangent where you invent things I never said, and misread again and again what Soliz said in his own statement.

That's a shame. As I said before, you could have helped him but have instead hurt him and made him and his followers seem like they have something to hide.

I also find it interesting (but not surprising) you didn't even know Soliz claimed Vernal authorized him. So apparently someone only needs to claim to do Native ceremony and that's Ok by you.

Again, not surprising. I see online you speak of your belief in lightworkers and channeling. So that certainly undermines any claim of Soliz as a traditionalist. Again, this is just one more way you've hurt the cause of the man you came here to help.

[Rod Ciferri]

Dear educatedindian:

I see you take issue with my use of the word "hochoka".  Your concerns are well taken.  I believe I interpreted hochoka in too narrow a sense, i.e., as referring to the sacred circle formed by the arbor at sundance.  Since I interpreted it that way, I thought Darlene was referring to the inheritance of Vernal's power to do sundance in the way he had developed it as a medicine man.  When you asked for Andrew to explain Darlene's statement, I thought you were accusing him of leading sundances.  I realize my understanding was based on a mistaken narrow interpretation of the word, and I apologize for any misunderstanding I have caused because of it.

Mitakuye Oyasin.

[educatedindian]

Could you at least understand the "M-O" phrase Lakotas use, and not keep misusing it? They don't use it like "Hello" or "Have nice day". They don't even say it like Christians say "God bless you." It's used at certain times and places of ceremony, and not as casually as you misuse it.

Again, you seem to be dodging the question. Soliz is not Lakota and has no right to Lakota ceremony, and Vernal Cross never authorized him to do any ceremony or carry on in his name, as Soliz falsely claims. Darlene Cross stated no one was given the right by Vernal.

Why not just talk to Soliz and ask him to clear up what Darlene Cross has publicly stated, and the ceremony selling he does on his website?

[snorks]

Could someone explain to me the following:

From my reading, the poster is saying that there is some sort of current that is received when standing in the sacred circle.  This current is like what Reiki practitioners receive to practise their Reiki.  Therefore the current can be passed on to others.  Is my reading wrong?  If so, I apologise.
-----------------
Dear educatedindian:

I see you take issue with my use of the word "hochoka".  Your concerns are well taken.  I believe I interpreted hochoka in too narrow a sense, i.e., as referring to the sacred circle formed by the arbor at sundance.  Since I interpreted it that way, I thought Darlene was referring to the inheritance of Vernal's power to do sundance in the way he had developed it as a medicine man.  When you asked for Andrew to explain Darlene's statement, I thought you were accusing him of leading sundances.  I realize my understanding was based on a mistaken narrow interpretation of the word, and I apologize for any misunderstanding I have caused because of it.

[Rod Ciferri]

Dear educatedindian:

I understand the Lakota "M-O" phrase, as you call it, to mean "we are all related" in English, and I use it assuming it means that.  I am certainly not using it to say "Hello" or "Have a nice day" or "God bless you".  I am using it knowing it is perhaps the most profound statement of fact ever made in human history. 

Perhaps you could explain what makes you jump to the conclusion that I am using it "casually". 

You appear to speak from great authority when you criticize me, for the use of a word, or the way I use a word, yet you say precious little in educating me about it.  I am puzzled why you don't clearly explain the meaning of the words I use and the correct context in which I use them, instead you jump to conclusions:

<<I suspect, in part because of your empty and repeated inappropriate use of a Lakota phrase you don't understand, there's little hope of getting through to you>>

Rather, it would be more respectful, make more sense logically and serve to educate others if you explained which words I'm using inappropriately and in an empty way and how I am doing so, so that I can correct my alleged misunderstanding. 

To be fair, you did explain a little bit to me, such as saying "M-O" is used only in ceremony, and not casually.  You've gotten through to me on that point, I can assure you.  In order to not further - unwittingly – antagonize you, I will no longer use it here. 

However, if it is important for you to know where I'm coming from - everything I do and every moment I do it in is sacred to me.  All is sacred to me because I know that within me.  Lakota spirituality resonates deeply with me because it shows me that cultures other than mine feel we are all related.  If we are all related, there is nothing that is not sacred.  I don't need to co-opt another culture's language or religion or way of life to know that.  I know that just by existing.

<<Why not just talk to Soliz and ask him to clear up what Darlene Cross has publicly stated, and the ceremony selling he does on his website?>>

I won’t because I'm not willing to cop to your non-sequiturs embedded in the statement above.  You have utterly failed to prove Andrew is somehow claiming Vernal passed on his hochoka to him – even as you admit Andrew was not among the wrongdoers identified by Darlene. 

I am satisfied with what Andrew has said – he has permission to do what he does.  Since you are the one who isn’t, why don’t you ask Darlene and Michael Cross directly about these things?

[Rod Ciferri]

Dear snorks:

That's interesting, but I confess I know nothing about Reiki.  I wasn't saying that there is "some sort of current that is received when standing in the sacred circle" that can be then "passed on to others". 

I was saying that I thought Darlene was referring to Vernal's "power" as a medicine man to conduct sundance in the manner in which he had conducted it.  I then realized I may have been interpreting the word "hochoka" in too narrow a sense, leading me to perhaps misinterpret what Darlene meant. 

However, I realize something akin to what you have said may be happening at sundance.  I'm just not the one qualified to make that determination.

Peace to you,

Rod

[Smart Mule]

Dear educatedindian:

I understand the Lakota "M-O" phrase, as you call it, to mean "we are all related" in English, and I use it assuming it means that.  I am certainly not using it to say "Hello" or "Have a nice day" or "God bless you".  I am using it knowing it is perhaps the most profound statement of fact ever made in human history. 

Perhaps you could explain what makes you jump to the conclusion that I am using it "casually". 

Hello Rod,

Why do you feel that the specific phrase being discussed is perhaps the most profound statement of fact ever made in human history?  How would you explain the phrase as you have been taught or have interpretted?

You appear to speak from great authority when you criticize me, for the use of a word, or the way I use a word, yet you say precious little in educating me about it.  I am puzzled why you don't clearly explain the meaning of the words I use and the correct context in which I use them, instead you jump to conclusions:

<<I suspect, in part because of your empty and repeated inappropriate use of a Lakota phrase you don't understand, there's little hope of getting through to you>>

Rather, it would be more respectful, make more sense logically and serve to educate others if you explained which words I'm using inappropriately and in an empty way and how I am doing so, so that I can correct my alleged misunderstanding. 

There are a number of Lakota speakers on this forum.  Not a single one of them close posts made on the internet with that phrase.  The People I know who are from Lakota communities to not use the phrase in conversation, not even the People who are considered to be spiritual leaders.

To be fair, you did explain a little bit to me, such as saying "M-O" is used only in ceremony, and not casually.  You've gotten through to me on that point, I can assure you.  In order to not further - unwittingly – antagonize you, I will no longer use it here. 

I think that simply stating the facts as to the proper use, without getting into the discussion of when and how such a phrase is used, is appropriate.  It is not educatedindians place to teach certain aspects of protocol, especially not on the internet.

However, if it is important for you to know where I'm coming from - everything I do and every moment I do it in is sacred to me.  All is sacred to me because I know that within me.  Lakota spirituality resonates deeply with me because it shows me that cultures other than mine feel we are all related.  If we are all related, there is nothing that is not sacred.  I don't need to co-opt another culture's language or religion or way of life to know that.  I know that just by existing.

If everything is sacred it should be treated with respect, don't you think?  Do you think that taking something from another culture, when you don't know the traditional and tribally specific meaning behnd it to be respectful?

<<Why not just talk to Soliz and ask him to clear up what Darlene Cross has publicly stated, and the ceremony selling he does on his website?>>

I won’t because I'm not willing to cop to your non-sequiturs embedded in the statement above.  You have utterly failed to prove Andrew is somehow claiming Vernal passed on his hochoka to him – even as you admit Andrew was not among the wrongdoers identified by Darlene. 

I am satisfied with what Andrew has said – he has permission to do what he does.  Since you are the one who isn’t, why don’t you ask Darlene and Michael Cross directly about these things?

He has permission to do what he does?  Do you think that it is permissable to charge people for healing when that is not part of the culture that he is supposedly learned in?  Why do you think it is proper for people who are not Lakota to charge for something that the Elders and Healers give freely?

[Rod Ciferri]

Dear sky:

The term we have been discussing is the most profound statement of fact ever made because I know it to mean that even if there someone disagrees with me, even if someone does something "out of protocol", even if that person outright intends to destroy me - that person is part of the Creator, as am I and everything in Creation. 

In my humble opinion, the time in which all "ceremony" infuses every moment of every person's day is rapidly approaching.  No longer will one be able to act one way in ceremony and the opposite outside of ceremony.  The Lakota did not tell me that;  I know it in my heart. 

While you and educatedindian have been busy taking me to task on the use of a word, I have been here only to get across my belief that Andrew has helped people who needed it. 

Will you be the one to try to take away the effect of all that good work because of a breach of protocol?  Can you?  Do you think, if there has been such a breach, that the Spirits would have allowed the work to be successful in the first place?

Is it your understanding that it is not the protocol of medicine men to accept donations for their efforts and that it is not protocol for the one asking for help to offer one?  Do you even acknowledge that Andrew has already stated here that he is not a medicine man?   Does it not factor into your fraud investigation that one who is a real medicine man from a lineage of medicine men is Andrew's brother? 

Most importantly, have you heard from anyone claiming they were hurt by Andrew?

[Smart Mule]

To avoid a semantics tangent I've sent you a pm.

[earthw7]

I read the whole post
Why is it when we as Lakota people say this is not right; that those who use our
words with very little understanding what they really mean, they tend to think that it is their
right to STEAL-ABUSE my culture and my language. When we say a person is doing
wrong we have a roupie-white guy step up to say this is a good person as he charges money
for what should be free among the people. If he was a real person and one who cared about the Lakota
people he would live among the people and help them instead of taken white people
money. He has been taught nothing because if he was he would not be doing what he
is doing.  YOU--- Rod Ciferri have the gall to tell us what our cultural ways are.................
They you want to tell us what our words mean-see this is what happens when these
people come in to to steal our culture.  Oh I did knew Vernal and he had ghost medicine
why would anyone want to steal that, he did not teach or leave his medicine to anyone.
Why is it when a person died you have these people stepping up to say they have been taught
by him.  If you know our ways you are required to have four witness to prove what you are saying is true. who are his witness?
Please dont tell me you know my culture and langauge by using my culture that makes you a person who would steal from another

[educatedindian]

Dear sky:

The term we have been discussing is the most profound statement of fact ever made because I know it to mean that even if there someone disagrees with me, even if someone does something "out of protocol", even if that person outright intends to destroy me - that person is part of the Creator, as am I and everything in Creation.  

In my humble opinion, the time in which all "ceremony" infuses every moment of every person's day is rapidly approaching.  No longer will one be able to act one way in ceremony and the opposite outside of ceremony.  The Lakota did not tell me that;  I know it in my heart.  

While you and educatedindian have been busy taking me to task on the use of a word, I have been here only to get across my belief that Andrew has helped people who needed it.  

Will you be the one to try to take away the effect of all that good work because of a breach of protocol?  Can you?  Do you think, if there has been such a breach, that the Spirits would have allowed the work to be successful in the first place?

Is it your understanding that it is not the protocol of medicine men to accept donations for their efforts and that it is not protocol for the one asking for help to offer one?  Do you even acknowledge that Andrew has already stated here that he is not a medicine man?   Does it not factor into your fraud investigation that one who is a real medicine man from a lineage of medicine men is Andrew's brother?  

Most importantly, have you heard from anyone claiming they were hurt by Andrew?

Mr. Ciferri, you seem to put an awful lot of effort into ignoring what's right in front of you, even after being told repeatedly.

Once again, Soliz himself claims Vernal Cross authorized him. That's his own words you've ignored at least three times now.

Once again, Darlene Cross herself says no one was ever authorized to do ceremony by Vernal.

That means the Cross family itself is harmed by Soliz, the very man adopted by them.

And yes, all those people going thru ceremonies that are not valid, that are not being done properly because they are unauthorized and pay to pray ceremonies, each of them have been harmed by Soliz, no different than a man who claims to be a priest but is not and then conducts Christian marriage or baptism ceremonies that are not valid.

My guess would be that the people harmed perhaps includes you, Mr. Ciferri. You sure seem to value the teachings from Soliz, but it's clear your understanding of Lakota tradition is far from accurate. Or you would know the very act of either demanding or offering payment for ceremony is wrong, corrupting, crass, and unspiritual. You have been harmed by being given falsehoods, and are now clinging very hard to those falsehoods.

Soliz's repeated claim that he does not call himself a medicine man means little since he basically has "set up a shingle" online claiming virtually the same thing, and charges for it. Medicine people do accept payment when it's freely offered from the heart afterwards, but demanding a set price is wrong, and going online to advertise is about as wrong as you can get.

Of course, you could solve all this quickly by asking him a simple question. But as we know, you absolutely refuse to do so. You'd rather stay ignorant of the matter. And you'd rather ignore what Natives, including Lakota, have told you, relying instead on the word of an adopted man of seemingly vague ancestry, when the Lakota repeatedly state adoption gives NO right to do ceremony. Period.

[Rod Ciferri]

To earthw7:

<<Oh I did knew Vernal and he had ghost medicine why would anyone want to steal that>>

Since we all seem to agree that Vernal never passed his medicine on, how is it possible to “steal” it?

BTW, in your opinion, is Vernal the only one in the history of the World to have ghost medicine?

For that matter, you must have known Vernal’s son Michael, right?  Do you think maybe he had ghost medicine as well – “independently” of his father (since his father didn’t pass on “his” medicine)?

<<we have a roupie-white guy step up to say this is a good person as he charges money for what should be free among the people>>

Guess neither you nor “educatedindian” can intelligently speak of what I have offered here.  You both need to put words into my mouth, that this forum proves were never uttered, and hallucinate meanings to my words that were never intended. 

You MAKE BELIEVE that a particular page on a website “proves” that Andrew charges for Lakota ceremony.  On the other hand you have me here stating that I’ve been helped by Andrew – and he never charged me, or even broached the subject of money.  Yet, my first-hand account isn’t good enough for you. 
Furthermore, you have NO ONE here with first-hand knowledge of Andrew purporting to offer Lakota ceremony for money.  You have me stating my FIRST-HAND experience that it’s not the case.  Yet, you prefer to PRETEND that I’m just making it all up to fit in with your hallucination of what it must be like to work with Andrew.

Let’s get this straight:

1.   You have never worked with Andrew, so everything you think happens working with him is just your best GUESS, SPECULATION AND HALLUCINATION.

2.   I HAVE worked with Andrew; as such I have real world experience that is the OPPOSITE of what you say. 

<<Why is it when a person died you have these people stepping up to say they have been taught by him>>

Why is this statement even relevant?  You say you have read over “the whole post”, do you mean you read this entire thread?  Because, if that’s what you mean, you have a serious reading comprehension problem and should try again.   You and educatedindian just PRETEND that Andrew claimed to be taught by Vernal.  You have a post here from Andrew that clearly does not say what you contend he said. 

Put up, or shut up!  When are you and educatedindian going to actually post FACTS to support your wild hallucinations?  I KNOW you never will, because it’s objectively not possible.  You’ve painted yourselves into a corner by making SUPPOSTITIONS that do not logically follow what is known.

And don’t think my calling your BS is telling you your “cultural ways” – it’s just pointing out your BS.

<<YOU--- Rod Ciferri have the gall to tell us what our cultural ways are.................>>

I answered Sky’s QUESTION of me.  I wasn’t just gratuitously telling everybody what Lakota culture is. 

YOU, earthw7, have the gall to MAKE PRETEND I’m telling you your cultural ways.

Sky asked me what I thought a particular Lakota word meant to ME.  I answered.  NEITHER YOU NOR “EDUCATED INDIAN” have told me it’s not what that word means.  Why don’t you tell me my definition of the word is NOT the actual definition?  If the word is from “your” culture, you should be able to tell me I’m wrong about its meaning, right?  Better yet, why don’t you educate me about what it really means?  That shouldn’t be so hard for you – after all, it’s “your” culture, right?

Also, FYI, I have the right to give my opinion anywhere and at any time.  This forum has the right to say I can’t speak here and kick me out.  Until then, I can and will speak my mind in a rational way.
 
<<If you know our ways you are required to have four witness to prove what you are saying is true. who are his witness?>>

BTW, when you say “our ways”, to whom are you referring?  I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and clear up your muddled reasoning for you.  Let’s assume you mean it is Lakota ways that require proof of four witnesses’ testimony.  Let’s further assume that contention is true.  I’m going to further assume that one of the witnesses cannot be the person about whom the opinion concerns.  So, Andrew’s opinion about himself posted here cannot be counted as a witness, right?  Let’s further assume that what you mean by “witness” is someone with personal knowledge about a particular thing –here, the thing is an opinion formed about Andrew by someone who actually spent time with Andrew (otherwise they cannot have personal knowledge). 

Then, you are correct that there have not been four witnesses to offer an opinion about Andrew based on personal knowledge. 

There have only been TWO -- Me and Carrie Woodburn.  Both those witnesses – the only witnesses to post here – have a positive opinion of Andrew.  Those who don’t have a positive opinion of Andrew – like yourself and educatedindian – ARE NOT WITNESSES.
 
So, there are two witnesses for Andrew and NONE against him.  That might not prove to you that Andrew’s a good guy, because you would need four witnesses for that, but it certainly points out the utter lack of witnesses that can say from personal knowledge that he’s not (opinions not based on personal knowledge or content on a website are HEARSAY and not good enough to be reliable).