Monday, 30 June 2014

Reporter Provides Erroneous Information in Comments to a Letter to the Editor of the Brantford Expositor

It was interesting to see a newspaper reporter, in this case from "Two Row Times" (TRT), comment on a Letter to the Editor submitted to another newspaper, specifically The "Brantford Expositor" (Expos) - by in this case submitting his own Letter to the Editor of the Expos entitled, Caledonia Barricade serves Purpose.  I don't know that I have ever seen that occur before.  Generally a reporter needs to maintain their independence and at least give the appearance of objectivity as a member of the media.  So when I saw the name JW, it tweaked my curiosity as to why, as a reporter for TRT, Mr. W would compromise professional standards or guidelines, and whether he had "crossed a professional line".  To be absolutely frank, I don't know if this is considered appropriate in media circle, I am only extrapolating from guidelines and standards in my own profession.  It would not have been as troubling if the letter was factual, but instead it was replete with unsupported opinions, and serious errors in fact.

The letter in question can be found here.

First some background.  JW, a non-Native person residing in Brantford, used to be a reporter and photographer with the Reserve newspaper "Tekawenake".  When the latter folded somewhat more than a year ago Mr. W and colleague TK, a White radical Communist - Anarchist who has caused untold suffering in Caledonia, became associated with a start up newspaper, "Two Row Times".  As it now stands Mr. W is a reporter, and Mr. K has risen in the ranks to become a General Manager and Editor of the Six Nations and "Dish with One Spoon" territory newspaper which competes with "Turtle Island News", which maintains that they are the only Reserve newspaper.  I don't suppose that it would be "fair game" to include any information that I overheard Mr. W say to another non-Native in a local restaurant about his situation, so that will not be included here.

The primary focus of the present blog posting is to challenge the factual content of Mr. W's (JW)letter.  I will do this by quoting from the Letter, then will offer sourced information to content.  In my opinion what was written by JW is largely Six Nations propaganda - the party line.  In italics below are excerpts from the letter by JW, then to be followed by my comments and evidence.

1)  Cam Martindale's letter published last Friday Shows that he is one of so many Canadians who have no idea what is going on around them. The key to understanding Six Nations is that they are not Canadians, but rather a distinct and sovereign people with a constitution that precedes ours by about 1,500 years.

I have been unable to locate Mr. Martindale's letter, however, the allegation of the latter's ignorance is going to be attenuated when examining JW's written assertions.  As to the comment that Six Nations people "are not Canadians" that is nothing but a political statement of politically correct dogma.  In fact Six Nations and all who live within Canadian boundaries and who are subject to Canadian jurisdiction are de facto Canadians.  Six Nations are subject to Canadian laws and any Criminal Code violations will result in the same sentence as any other Canadian.  Six Nations accepts Transfer Payments and Welfare from the Federal Government of Canada - so if they are not Canadian, they need to return a lot of money - and with interest. 

Six Nations are not aboriginal to Canada.  Their homeland is in what is today Upstate New York, United States of America.  So Six Nations are immigrants and refugees just as the White United Empire Loyalists who departed American territory after the Revolution.  The argument about sovereignty is specious.  There is not a shred of evidence to support it - but it is widely believed to be true.  Six Nations were given "occupancy rights" by virtue of the Haldimand Deed, but the title to the land was and is vested in the Crown and its successors.  It is true that in the 1640s the then Five Nations (including my own ancestors) committed an act of genocide, destroying all of the Nations residing in Southwestern Ontario.  However, attempts to settle or lay claim to the land from the 1680s was net with increasing hostility from the Mississauga and their neighbours (including the remnants of the Huron / Wendat who escaped the attempt at complete annihilation in the 1640s) such that by 1700 all 8 Five Nations settlements north of Lake Ontario had been destroyed and their surviving inhabitants pushed back to the aboriginal lands in what is today Upstate New York.  In each and every document or council dating from 1700 onward, the Six Nations recognized the sovereignty of the Crown and "His Majesty the Great King of England".  Never once has the Crown or its legitimate agents questioned that the Six Nations were subjects of the King - it was true of all within the lands claimed by Great Britain, just as the same situation was true of the lands claimed by the King of France (lands that ultimately came under the sovereign control of the British Crown).  I have written about this matter in numerous postings, with examples and sources.  So the claim that Six Nations (all 23,000 on and off Reserve) are a sovereign people is only wishful thinking, and of relatively recent origin.  It is the Mississauga, from whom Governor Sir Frederick Haldimand purchased the Grand River (Haldimand) Tract - it is the Mississauga (e.g., those residing on the New Credit Reserve near Hagersville) who are aboriginal to the Caledonia and surrounds area.

As to the antiquity of their Constitution.  First, it was never recorded until the mid 19th Century, so we do not know how much has changed since the founding of the "League" or "Confederacy".  One thing is absolutely certain though, and that is that JW's dates are nothing by a stab in the dark.  For those who want to look at hard evidence, there is nothing in the archaeological record to suggest the timeline proposed by JW - that the League was formed about 500 AD at which time a "Constitution" was established.  Anyone who wants to check out the facts here would be well advised to read a summary text by the doyen of Upstate New York archaeology (a man I know and respect), Dean R. Snow.  His book which is part of "The Peoples of America" series is entitled, The Iroquois, Oxford UK & Cambridge USA, Blackwell Publishing, 1996.

The data shows that the ancestors of those who would become the Five Nations began to arrive from what is today Central Pennsylvania circa 900 AD.  So not only are Six Nations not aboriginal to Southwestern Ontario, they are not entirely aboriginal (depending on definition) to Upstate New York.  They came from somewhere else, just like everyone else over the years - via migration.  At this time a new people arrived in Upstate New York, but with many of the pottery traditions continuing for some time - likely because the females of the defeated groups were incorporated into the Five Nations by adoption - a practice that extended into modern times.  So we are talking about 1100 years ago when the Five Nations made their first appearance as immigrants, displacing the former occupants.  The archaeological record shows increasing violence over time (cannibalism via cut marks on human bones; and torture, for example fingers severed and tossed among the garbage thrown over the palisade walls).  With the selection of sites for defense and the surrounding of villages with increasingly more substantial palisades we have evidence of warfare likely between the peoples who were to become the Five Nations.  Then, around 1500 AD there is a shift in settlement patterns suggesting that warfare was less of a concern (villages on flatlands and without palisades).  It would seem that about this time, say beginning circa 1400 AD a peace accord between those who would become the Five Nations was established.  As Dr. Snow concludes, Both Iroquois oral tradition and archaeological evidence for endemic warfare suggest that the League could not have formed prior to around 1450, and the process completed by around 1525 (p.60).  After this their violence was then directed outward toward neighbours not under the Great Tree of Peace - resulting in the wholesale destruction of the people in Huronia, the St. Lawrence Valley, Lake Erie shores, and down the Susquehanna River. 

2)  In speaking of Surrey Street JW states that,  a young Caledonia man drove a van down that same road at high speed and crashed it into the house where Six Nations people were sleeping, narrowly missing the gas meter. Those in the house administered first aid until the ambulance got there.  In fact, there is a lot more to this matter than the selective information presented here.  It was part of the ongoing chaos at the former Douglas Creek Estates site, which has included a number of rapes, assaults and other acts of violence.  The situation described by JW was kept out of the mainstream media - the only information I can find via google is on Six Nations Solidarity sites (hardly a reliable source) such as here.  It may have been reported in "Turtle Island News", or the now defunct "Tekawenake", but their content is not on google and my hard copies would have been recycled years ago.  What I recall is that the incident  involved not a White person as JW alludes, but a young Native male who was apparently bent on committing suicide, but the name of the injured person was withheld to protect the family.  Fortunately he failed, but this is a reflection of the horrors that have gone on here, perpetuated by Six Nations members and their invited outsiders, not the people of Caledonia.  That one single house is a microcosm or reflection of the social dysfuction that afflicts much (certainly not all) of the Reserve Community.

3)  A firebomb burned down the first structure built where the barricade is now. A nearby smoke shop, with people inside, was firebombed. A trailer was firebombed. as well.  Well, I live here and this is news to me.  Any "firebombing" has been perpetrated by Six Nations members or their supporters (see Blatchford or any of the local newspapers) - for example the arson incident which resulted in the complete burning of the Stirling Street Bridge which crosses the railway tracks - which is to this day closed.  That was well reported and here is a picture:

Here is another picture of the April 2006 riot by Six Nations and their supporters, where fire was involved in the form of a tire fire in the middle of Argyle Street, Caledonia:

Where is it reported that a structure built where the barricade sits now was firebombed, and if it was, where is the evidence as to who committed the act?

The smoke shacks are clustered around the former Douglas Creek Estates, and most are illegally situated on Hydro One land.  There is a smoke shack that may have burned on the Caledonia bypass near the stub of the Hydro One tower demolished by militants to use as a barricade - at least there is a lot of rubble around the new one - but it is well known that that there is no love lost between "business rivals" in the smokes trade.  Where is the evidence that anyone from Caledonia had anything to do with these alleged incendiary acts.  This is very irresponsible reporting.  Wait, technically it is not reporting, just a "letter to the editor" and hence you can say what you want and not have to provide evidence - under the guise of "opinion" and "free speech".  There is the freedom to lie too - although one may get caught in the lie and then later have to take responsibility in some manner.


Thursday, 26 June 2014

Legal Representatives for All Parties Agree, Six Nations Have No Valid Claim for Land, Only Money

It appears that there is a major disconnect between the legal teams representing Six Nations in so called "land claims", and some or most of the Six Nations members.

If you ask, as I have, any Six Nations member who shows up at the former Douglas Creek Estates when for example Gary McHale makes an appearance, what the true concern is, they will say the return of "stolen" land.  Many or most are under the impression that the Haldimand Deed gave them (or should have given them) rights as a sovereign people to do with the land as they pleased.  Thus they reject (or do not understand, or are unaware of) repeated rulings by various levels of the local, Ontario and Canadian (formerly Crown) Courts as it relates to land ownership.  So once again, perception rears its ugly head and many people are completely misguided because they not only do not know the legal rulings, but neither the facts upon which they are based.

In the video clip of the interview of Sun News with Gary McHale (25 June 2014), the latter asserts that time and again the Courts have universally agreed that disagreements relating to the land claims submitted by Six Nations in 1987 are not about the legal title of land ownership, but only about monetary compensation for perceived damages dating back 170 years.  It is time for me to make further specific inquiries.

Historical Record from 1841:  I have spent considerable time presenting the facts (documentation arising from the time before Confederation in 1867) which are freely available at the Library and Archives Canada (with microfilm copies at the Woodland Cultural Centre near Brantford) in various postings to this blog.  I have seen the original documents and assessed the content of the Council Minutes accompanying each surrender, the surveyor's records, the land inspection returns, and as well have obtained copies of other relevant documents such as the personal papers of the "Colonial" officials (e.g., Superintendant David Thorburn) charged by the Crown with the responsibility of ensuring that the duties of the Crown to the Six Nations are properly maintained.  My efforts have shown that there are no irregularities in the surrender of the lands within the Haldimand Tract with the exception of those parcels that the Chiefs, during the 1840s, wished to have set aside for the Six Nations as a Reserve so that they could live together as a people.  At the time there were farms and communities of White people.  Some of the White and Black people were mere squatters with no legal title, others had purchased the "improvements" of one or more Six Nations members and had deeds from them, and there were those who had legally recognized Patents stemming from 999 year leases granted by Chief Joseph Brant who was given Power of Attorney by the Six Nations Chiefs.   The result was that there were Six Nations groups interspersed as a patchwork quilt along the Grand River, extending back to the line shown in the survey accompanying the Haldimand Deed (1784) and Simcoe Patent (1793).  The record shows that the Government officials were concerned that the Six Nations would be so scattered that their existence as a community was in jeopardy.

The Six Nations Chiefs in 1840 were well aware of the problem, and in many cases frustrated not only at the White squatters, but their own people who made a practice of hopping from plot to plot of land, selling each after clearing a few acres then moving on to repeat the process.  The result was a demographic shift whereby there were as many non-Natives as Six Nations members residing on the Grand River Tract.  The only viable solution, other than moving west to unoccupied lands on for example Manitoulin Island en mass (an option that was considered), was to consolidate.  Since no one considered mass eviction of Whites as a viable solution since the large number of residents would need to be compensated for their improvements, and the monies taken from the Six Nations Trust account to pay for it. 

As I have noted before, the single most comprehensive published source on this subject, which includes copies of the original documents, is Charles M. Johnston, The Valley of the Six Nations: A Collection of Documents on the Indian Lands of the Grand River, Toronto, The Champlain Society, 1964.

On 5 January 1841, the Superintendent of Indian Affairs in Upper Canada, Samuel P. Jarvis, provided a very thoughtful consideration of all of the issues relating to the decision to form a compact Reserve in his presentation to a delegation of Mohawk Chiefs at a meeting in Toronto.  While Jarvis has been criticized for his handling of the Trust Account, it was his assertion that the lands should not be assigned in fee simple that resulted in a Reserve which boasts of vibrant Six Nations community to this day.  Had the lands been granted to each head of family in fee simple, the individuals had every right to sell their lands to the highest bidder.  This is precisely what happened in a number of American jurisdictions with the result that today there is no Reserve lands, or only parcels of land scattered randomly among the holdings of non - Members.  Jarvis suggested that all Six Nations families should have the right to remain on their present holdings, and move to the consolidated Reserve at a later date if they so chose.  So all of the available lands would be assigned to the Crown to be sold and the monetary advantage given to the Six Nations, with the exception of the farms at present in their actual occupation and cultivation, and of 20,000 acres as a further reservation (p.191).  The Chiefs at this time were in agreement, but asked that lands in the Johnson Settlement  be exempted unless conforming to their specific wishes.  This stipulation would change before everything was finalized prior to 1850.

On 18 January 1841 the "General Surrender" or "Surrender of Lands by the Six Nations" was read to the Chiefs and Warriors of the Six Nations upon the Grand River in full Council assembled at Onandaga Council House.  It was signed by members of each Nation (including two Mohawks).

Although the initial agreement, which is accepted to this day by the Federal Government of Canada as a binding agreement, stated that 20,000 acres would be reserved such that every head of family could be assigned from 100 to 200 acres of land, the Chiefs changed their minds many times between 1841 and 1848 when agreement was reached in the last remaining parcel (the Burtch Tract).  The total "land mass" which comprises the Six Nations Reserve today is about 46,000 acres, which is over double the amount noted in the original agreement of 1841.

Ultimately the choice was made of lands where there were no Brant Leases, and evicting the relatively few individuals residing there would make this choice of the primary focus of the consolidated settlement the most reasonable.  The initial choice, one that met the criteria, was Tuscarora Township.  Over the years between 1841 and 1848 there was a lot of back and forth, and ultimately the final choice was Tuscarora, plus lands between Onondaga and Middleport in Onondaga Township (both in Brant County), and a single strip of land six lots wide at the far eastern margin of Oneida Township in Haldimand County.  Finally there was a 200 acre parcel known as the "Glebe Lands" around the Mohawk Institute and the Mohawk Chapel - which remain as part of Indian Reserve 40 (Six Nations), noted as 40b. 

Evidence for the Surrender of DCE / Kanonhstaton in 1845:  The best source for the primary source documentation of each transaction between 1841 and 1848 is the 2009 report to the Corporation of the City of Brantford by Joan Holmes & Associates as found here.  It should be noted that the  contentious lands along the Plank Road, the subject of so much acrimony today, including the location of the former Douglas Creek Estates, are specifically noted as being surrendered to the Crown on 17 September 1845 by the 66 Chiefs in Council who signed the document. 

Land Claims in 1987:  Six Nations made no further claims on this land until the submissions by the Land and Resources Department of the Six Nations Band Council in 1987 (see here). 

What Changed in 1995?:  By 1995 it was evident to Six Nations legal representatives that there would be no return of lands that were now lawfully patented by Crown Deed, and that the only recourse to any perceived and proven claims was monetary compensation (see here).  This has not stopped certain radical elements at Six Nations for making false claims of lands that were improperly sold and therefore must be returned to the Six Nations forthwith.  This despite the opinions of their own Counsel, and the facts as available in the archived documents.

Since 1995 Has the Federal Government Reaffirmed its View that there is No Validity to the Plank Road Claim(s)?:  The answer is yes.  For example in 2006, Federal Government representative Monique Dorion stated in no uncertain terms that, Ottawa was firm that there was no validity to the Plank Road claim (Christie Blatchford, Helpless: Caledonia's Nightmare of Fear and Anarchy, and How the law Failed All of Us, Toronto, Doubleday Canada, 2010, p.137).  Three years later,

"In a letter dated January 9, 2009, Chuck Strahl, the federal Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada said “the Government of Canada’s position is that the surrender of 1844 is valid”." (see here, p.11).

A Recent Court Case that Applies Directly to DCE / Kanonhstaton:  Evidence that to this day, the situation remains the same can be found in recent Court Injunctions issued against those who were blocking legal and lawful work on lands traceable back to a Crown Patent by developers who were attempting to build homes on their land.  A good example can be found in the conflict over Plank Road lands in Hagersville owned by John Voortman, and in the process of being developed by him.  He and his contractors were stopped from doing any work between October and December 2008 by the Haudenosaunee Men's Fire (HMF) led by Chief Alan MacNaughton.  Ultimately Mr. Voortman took the matter to Court and the following findings were made.  Only the key clauses are included.  The case was heard by Superior Court Justice Joseph Henderson, 3 April 2009.  The proceedings and conclusions have direct implications for the lands at DCE.  The full transaction can be found here:

[49] The position of the Six Nations Council is set out in their letter to Voortman’s counsel. Essentially, the Six Nations Council takes the position that the aboriginal interest in the land in the Hamilton-Port Dover Plank Road land claim was never lawfully surrendered to the Crown. But, in the legal action there is no claim for an interest in the land. That is, the Six Nations Council do not make a legal claim for possession of or return of the land. Rather, the 1995 legal action claims an accounting for all revenues that the Six Nations people should have received from the land.

[50] In summary, the Ontario Court of Appeal has found that there has been no conveyance of title to the Six Nations people, and the two recognized governing bodies of the aboriginal people, namely the Six Nations Council and the Six Nations Chiefs, have not made any claim for title to or possession of the property.

[51] Moreover, even if the HMF have the authority to speak on behalf of the Six Nations people, I note that there is no claim made by the HMF in this action or in any other action for the possession of or return of this property. The only request that the HMF have made with respect to the return of the lands is the demand that was made of Mr. Voortman Sr. at the meeting of December 21, 2008.

[52] Therefore, I find that there is no merit to the suggestion that the Six Nations people have a right to ownership of the property. I find that if there is an aboriginal claim it is for compensation for the loss of the usufructuary right regarding the property, not for title to the land.
[56] In the present case Voortman can trace its title back to the Crown Patents, and therefore, pursuant to the Chippewas case, Voortman’s title is presumed to be valid. That presumption is acknowledged by the Six Nations Council in its letter to Voortman’s lawyers. Moreover, even if the surrender of the Hamilton-Port Dover Plank Road land in this case is found to be invalid, given the decision in the Chippewas case, it is very unlikely that the court would set aside the Crown Patents.

[57] Therefore, I find that Voortman has a strong case to show that it is the legal owner of the property, and that Voortman is entitled to exercise its rights as the property owner. The arguments to the contrary are weak, and even if successful would not result in any change in the registered ownership of the property.

[76] I now wish to summarize my findings with respect to whether there is a serious issue to be tried. I accept that Voortman is the registered owner of the property and therefore is entitled to exercise its rights as owner. I accept that the Six Nations people have an ongoing claim regarding these lands, but that claim is not for title to or possession of the lands; rather it is for damages.


[84] Before I conclude I would like to emphasize the rule of law. All people in Canada are governed by the rule of law as confirmed in the preamble to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is, all people in Canada are required to obey the law. As a corollary, all people in Canada are entitled to know that every other person in Canada will be required to obey the law. If any person in Canada does not obey the law, the courts will enforce the law. In that way the public has some assurance that they can live in peace without fear of those who might choose to disobey the law.

[85] In the present case the representatives of the HMF delivered a message to this court that they did not accept the court process. Moreover, there was a veiled threat that if an injunction were to issue the HMF would have no choice but to continue their tactics of intimidation and criminal and civil disobedience. That threat does not alter or affect my decision today.

[86] The HMF clearly have a choice. An injunction will be issued today. The HMF may choose in good faith to abide by the injunction, live within the criminal and civil law, participate in peaceful demonstrations, and pursue whatever claim they believe they have through their own negotiations and/or court actions. They are not compelled, as was suggested, to disobey the injunction and engage in further criminal and civil misconduct.

[87] The rule of law means that the HMF will be required to obey any court order, just as any person in Canada would be required to obey a court order. The assertion of an aboriginal right does not permit any person, aboriginal or otherwise, to break the law.

[88] For all of the aforementioned reasons I find that Voortman is entitled to an Order for an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants from entering onto the property and from obstructing Voortman’s development of the property.

[89] I also declare that Voortman has title to and is the owner of the property, and as such is entitled to exclusive possession of the property. I make this finding so that no other group can come forward to occupy the property as the putative land owner.

[90] This Order will be enforced by the Sheriff of Haldimand County with the assistance of the O.P.P. I also order that Voortman and its designates may use reasonable force to prevent any person from trespassing upon the property, and to remove any trespasser from the property in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada.


So the simple question is, WHY ARE THE ACTIVISTS STILL OCCUPYING DCE AFTER 8 YEARS?  They are clearly contravening the law, and there is no possibility of the land being returned to Six Nations (the HCCC).  The above "Statement of Claim" of 1995 makes it evident that the only compensation that could be forthcoming to Six Nations is money.  The legal representatives of the Six Nations Elected Council have concluded that this is the only viable course of action.  Alas this does not stop rogue members from finding their own path and followers.  In particular, despite the ruling against the HCCC and Men's Fire, the Hereditary Council seems to have a short memory (from 2009) when they were given the clearest possible message via the Courts that their claim to land was without merit, and the Courts would not overturn what is registered in the Ontario Land Registry.  The only recourse is to push forward with monetary claims.  Of course the goal of the HCCC, and particularly their radical / enforcement arm, the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) is to twist the arm of the Province of Ontario and have the actual land at DCE returned to them as Reserve land.  If that ever happened it would make a travesty of the justice system, which to date has upheld the rights of land owners whose deeds can be traced back to Crown Patents, to ownership free of interference by groups such as the HMF. 

It would appear that without a shadow of a doubt, the legal and moral obligation of the occupiers is to remove themselves immediately and allow the legal system to determine whether there is any merit in the claim for monetary compensation for a matter extending back 170 years.  That is for the Courts to decide.


"Six Nations 'Does Not Support' Removal of Blockade"

Updated 4 July 2014.

I woke up this morning to find that overnight the online version of "The Sachem" (see here) included information about the title of this posting.  In addition an article in "Two Row Times" hard copy edition addressed the same topic, and later, articles in "Sun News" came to my attention.  All spoke of the response of Six Nations to the decision of the Haldimand County Council about removing the barricade blockading Surrey Street (a County road).  The content of each will be provided below:

1)  The Sachem, dated 25 June 2014 included an article entitled, Six Nations "does not support" removal of blockade.  Below I have included some quotes from the article which are coming from the elected counterpart (and bitter rival) of the hereditary council.  So the bottom line is that the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC) has weighed in with respect to the Haldimand County Council's unanimous decision to remove the barrier blocking Surrey Street in Caledonia. 

Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC) is “urgently (calling) on the (Haldimand) County Council to reconsider,” removing the blockade from the entrance way of Surrey Street in Caledonia, located at the former Douglas Creek Estates.

A press release was issued by SNEC shortly after 2 p.m. on Wednesday, June 25 following a release sent out the day previous by Haldimand County Council detailing its intentions.

SNEC’s statement in response to Haldimand County Council’s press release minced no words: “Six Nations Elected Council does not support the County Council’s decision… (SNEC) believes that Haldimand County’s decision and proposed actions will only serve to cause unnecessary problems by disrupting the peace that has been maintained there for some time.”

“Mayor Hewitt’s statement about ‘working with its neighbours’ and ‘moving forward in a unified fashion’ is contradictory to Haldimand County’s resolution to remove the ‘illegal blockades’ without first consulting with its neighbours in Six Nations. Actions speak louder than words and Haldimand County’s decision and proposed actions, if carried through, will only deepen the divide on all sides as opposed to creating unity.

“The provincial government has taken no meaningful action in the past eight years to resolve the Douglas Creek Estates Land claim. Six Nations Elected Council calls on the Haldimand County to refocus their efforts by working with Six Nations Elected Council to end the provincial government’s inaction.”

2)  Information from Two Row Times of 25 June 2014, Mayor Hewitt ups the ante at Kanonhstaton, p.3:

It appears that the reporter here does not believe that Mayor Hewitt is simply trying to clean up the site, and provide access along a County owned road.  The reporter appears to see deeper or more nefarious themes lurking in the background.  He, in my opinion, linked the action of Council to the, two recent provocative incidents created by Haldimand residents, Gary McHale and Randy Fleming a week apart which brought back memories of the 2006 shut down of Argyle Street.

The reporter (a White Brantford resident) goes on to say that, To cool the situation down at the time, David Peterson, former provincial Premier was sent in to negotiate a settlement, which eventually brought down the barricades.  That included promises to turn over disputed land in Burtch, Townsand and South Cayuga, which has yet to happen eight years later.

The move by Haldimand council has put the Six Nations community on high alert

3)  Information from Sun News of 25 June 2014, Native Band Opposes Removal of Long-Controversial Caledonia Blockade:

See here for the perspective of Sun News.  This article repeats much of what has been said in this and the previous blog postings.  It also states that the removal of the blockade may not happen, "without a fight".  Chief Ava Hill of the Elected Band Council (SNEC) stated that, she disagreed with that sentiment, and said removing the blockade would only "deepen the divide on all sides."

She blamed the federal and provincial governments for failing to negotiate, and wants to meet with provincial Aboriginal Affairs Minister David Zimmer.

The article also has a link to an interview with Gary McHale which provides excellent and accurate information.  In particular note the statement that the lawyers for Six Nations all agree that the disagreement that provoked the original uprising in 2006 is actually over the misappropriation of funds and other monetary matters, not a land claim - despite what many activists would have you believe.  I have elsewhere noted that the land claims were withdrawn by the Elected Council as of 1995, but that the Hereditary Council continues to maintain that it is a land claim.  Things get confused when former Elected Chief William Montour negotiated with Samsung, maintaining that Six Nations had unceded lands in Dunn and South Cayuga Township (an unsupported claim), in order to extract a very sweet deal worth $65 million over 20 years.  So Six Nations individuals from many walks are maintaining that the real issue is primarily over land - so things get further confused.

In the video Gary states that he wrote letters to each Councilor hoping to capitalize on the fact that elections were on the horizon.  He reportedly told them that he was prepared to picket their homes in order to make a point.  One wonders if this action influenced the Councilors in some manner.

Note that the picture at the header of the article shows former Six Nations Elected Chief William Montour, NOT Mayor Ken Hewitt as the caption indicates.

4)  Information from Two Row Times (TRT), July 2nd, 2014, p.7, The people say no to Hewitt's plan for Kanonstaton:

A bit late, but anyway, the White reporters at TRT have provided what can best be described as "predictable" reports on the reaction on some of the Six Nations residents, and their White supporters, to the plan of Haldimand County Council.  Clearly, there is an element, how large is impossible to say at present, who are locked in a time warp and still think that the former DCE is "ours", and that it is just a matter of a short while before the Ontario Government will be handing over "Kanonhstaton" to ........................ well, that part is not clear.  There is the legal entity (Six Nations Elected Council), and those who have usurped the process and have abandoned all pretense at recognizing anything except their own entrenched world view - the Hereditary Confederacy Chiefs Council "representatives" - the militant HDI and Men's Fire.  Anyway, back to the specific content of the article which states that, Plans are being made to respond to the intimidation of Caledonia provocateurs that have been harassing those at the Kanonhstaton site for the past few weeks.  But the plans are to fight hate with friendship, family and fun.  Well, that sounds lovely, but history teaches us that this is just spin, designed to gloss over the fact that violent militants still lurk behind the scenes ready at a moment's notice to spring into action and create another "Caledonia 2006".  Why would I say this?  HDI have threatened to initiate a wave of violence that would make 2006 pale in comparison (see up posting for more information).  Here the Two Row Society, a gathering of Onkwehon:we and non-Native supporters of Indigenous Rights and land claims, had recommended, that they reestablish the communication network to quickly alert Six Nations residents and allies if there should be any further provocations at the site by Gary McHale and others.  Those of use who call Caledonia and vicinity home know exactly what that means - militants will be streaming down 5th and 6th Lines (Stirling Street Bridge was torched by Six Nations activists in 2006 closing this access route permanently) ready to commit terrorist acts to defend their twisted world view.

Apparently, according to the White reporter, The controversial burned out trailer visible from Highway #6 will also remain in place as a memorial and reminder of the fire bombings against Six Nations during the hottest of times in 2006 and the summer of 2007.  Really.  I realize that some at Six Nations do blame "anti reclamation" forces for the burning, but there is no evidence as to the perpetrator.  As I have said so often, at Six Nations, belief trumps everything including the facts.  Click here to read what has been reported in a newspaper that is unlikely tainted by biases in the matter.  Where is there any report anywhere that any of the criminal arson acts were committed by anyone other than Six Nations members or their supporters?  I recall the tire fire on Argyle Street, the torching of the Stirling Street Bridge - all "accomplished" by Six Nations members.  The trailer was firebombed by Caledonia residents?  That is a bald faced lie unless this reporter, who has said the same thing in the past, can provide anything remotely resembling evidence that anyone outside of the Six Nations and supporter group committed incendiary acts.  Good luck.

This Two Row group outlined further plans involving camp outs and kumbaya stuff, but this just deflects from the plans for illegal acts such as, putting up a fence around the entire site ASAP.  Six Nations do not own this land, the Ontario Provincial Government owns the land.  If a Caledonia group decided that they were going to place a fence around Queen's Park, would that fly?  How about any Ontario owned land?  In the double standard world in which we much endure, Six Nations will almost certainly be permitted to put up the fence (probably funded by taxpayer dollars or the money HDI has extorted from developers in the heydays of 2006 to 2008), but should Caledonia residents do the same - surely people can predict what the response would be from the Ontario Government in their racist attempts to deal "firmly" with the non Native Status individuals.  I perhaps need to remind the Government and others that many who reside in Haldimand County are mixed descendants of Six Nations and early settler families who are not eligible for a precious Status Card with all its entitlements.  Thus Six Nations membership is to an extent arbitrary - some of that coming from Six Nations and some from Federal Government rulings which impact Six Nations rights to decide who is and who is not a member of the Community.

Bloggers Comments:  As I have maintained all along, the Provincial Government made a bad move in negotiating with terrorists, and the "agreement" was basically offering a bribe of lands that Six Nations had zero legal rights to, and that the Province happened to own and so could use as a bargaining chip.  I will have a lot more to say about this attempted sell out (without the authority of the Federal Government who has the say in any Aboriginal Affairs matter of any consequence), by our Provincial Government.  Basically, should the Provincial Government follow through on any of this under the table agreement, all hell will break loose - there is a lot at stake, but the matter needs to be addressed and the Six Nations given the "bad news".

First, a proposed "solution".  Points would be gained by Six Nations deciding to obey the law and taking proactive action - dismantling the barricade themselves.  Alas, this will never happen because it is the Hereditary Council who claims authority here.  They are not on speaking terms with the Elected Council, and cooperating with the latter would mean recognizing that they have some legitimacy in the governance of the Six Nations Reserve.  History shows that while potentially productive, due to politics, it will never happen.  Recently the Chief of the Elected Council stated that dismantling the blockade is a bad idea - so now we have the top brass for both Councils on board - although it would be a first if this translated to seeing the two bodies work together cooperatively.

Second, a comment on the Federal - Provincial potential overlap (conflict).  It is actually the Federal Government who would need to become involved.  Options including saying "you have no valid claim" (the truth), or deciding to transfer the land from the Ontario Land Registry system to the Indian Affairs Land Registry system which is under Federal jurisdiction.  So it is an illusion that the Provincial Government can make any binding decisions.  In a panic they bought out the developer after the riot in April of 2006, but it is Provincial land.  If they were for some politically motivated reason to decide to transfer the land to Six Nations, this would impact Haldimand County in a negative way with huge losses in tax revenue.

As to the content of the above article, what SNEC says will be supportive of the stance taken by their hereditary counterpart, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) whose enforcement and extortion arm, the Haudenosaunee Development Institute, has been in the forefront of the "reclamation" (theft) of the Douglas Creek Estates housing development.  They can make political hay by temporarily cooperating with their adversary.  While the HCCC has absolutely no official status (being replaced by an elected system in 1924), it carries moral authority as the supposed embodiment of  the traditional governance system dating back to time immemorial (although by 1924 showing inertia and severe dysfunction).  Of course "colonialism" was blamed for the latter issues.  There is a chronic shortage of personal responsibility at Indian Reserve 40, so with ample finger pointing, the accusation of "racism", the handmaiden of "colonialism", is the convenient attribution.  Six Nations are always (in their minds eye) the victims.  The concept is deeply ingrained in the psyche of Six Nations members on or off the Reserve - and many in the general population who have failed to do any meaningful research have bought into this world view.  Those of us who live here and have done their homework know that this is simply unfounded propaganda.

So what does SNEC have to say about the County's legal right to enforce the laws applicable to all within its jurisdiction?  True to form, they take the opportunity to assert bogus rights and pretend ownership of the former Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) when in fact the land was obtained by a violent insurrection perpetrated in April of 2006.  Despite the evidence that the land was surrendered in 1845 by 66 Chiefs in Council, and the fact that the "reclaimed" land is presently owned by the Provincial Government and duly registered in the Ontario Land Registry on title in the Cayuga Land Office, radical activists at Six Nations have held local people hostage for 8 years - dictating what can and cannot occur at DCE.  On the proximal surrounding land two contraband cigarette shacks and a hamburger outlet have been built.  The Provincial Government paid the legal owners $15 million to keep the land in limbo and allow the illegal occupation by Six Nations activists to continue since 2006.  In addition about $10 million was paid for OPP policing (much of it overtime), as well as millions more to those affected by the insurrection, including those brutalized and assaulted when all fetters of civilization were removed and Six Nations thugs and their White Communist - Anarchist supporters were given carte blanche to do as they pleased when the OPP refused to answer 911 calls to any areas where the rioters held sway.

So today, Six Nations wants the Provincial Government to turn over DCE to them (whether the HCCC or SNEC is a huge problem because each sees itself as the legitimate authority at Six Nations).  If they did so it would be tantamount to giving in to the demands of terrorists.  If Six Nations was given this land they would not be paying taxes to anyone.  The taxpayers of Ontario and Canada would be footing the bill.  The taxpayers of Haldimand County would have to pick up the tab on a yearly basis too.  The County as already lost 8 years of tax from the development, and if the land was put into Six Nations hands, and added to the Reserve land base, they would not be paying one penny in taxes (to Six Nations Council or Haldimand County) even though using infrastructure provided by the taxpayers of Canada.  Expect a major backlash when the entire tally is presented to the citizens of the County, the Province, and the country - with the realization that there will never be any income, only disbursements - and for ill gotten gains.  The land was surrendered 170 years ago, and there is not one shred of evidence to warrant a reconsideration of the purchase by the Crown.  Sour grapes and "Indian givers" is an apt description - if not politically correct. 

If this transfer is allowed to go through, it will be the thin edge of the wedge as it will set a precedent and encourage militants to grab other lands throughout the Haldimand Tract on some thin pretext or another.  It is fortunate that there is irrefutable evidence that Six Nations own no land beyond the present boundaries of today's Reserve.  However if the Federal Government will not stand by negotiated settlements and surrenders and the hard evidence in the Indian Affairs Papers (RG10 Series) at the Library and Archives Canada, and the Province won't honour the Ontario Land Registry system, no property is safe from the acquisitive eyes of Six Nations "grabbers".  Just as an example, they have decided to declare that the beautiful historic building on Edinburgh Square in Caledonia is, based on some twisted logic, their land.  I warn all from Port Maitland to Dundalk - Six Nations has its eyes on your land - it is only a question of when and how they will move to "reclaim" the land, and give it a new name - DCE is now Kanonhstaton (The Protected Place).  If DCE was ever given to Six Nations the floodgates would be opened!

It is time to take a stand, and fully support our County Council.  Whatever assistance they need we must be prepared to offer it and send the usurpers back to their own territory.  There is too much at stake for any compromise - particularly since the land was formally surrendered 170 years ago - and having to revisit this signed, sealed and delivered transaction so many years later is a grotesque insult and an immense waste of time and resources.


Wednesday, 25 June 2014

"Caledonia Blockade is Coming Down"

It was with immense joy that I read an article in the online version of "The Spec" (Hamilton Spectator, 24 June 2014) entitled, Caledonia Blockade is Coming Down (see here).  Oddly, the online edition of our local "Sachem" (see here), while including information about for example the expansion of the Kinsman parking lot in anticipation of the replacement of the 9 span bridge over the Grand River, has not yet included any other information from Monday's meeting of the Haldimand County Council - which was held behind closed doors.  It is also not in the hard copy of the newspaper, published Wednesday (today), perhaps the information about the blockade will be found in next week's edition by which time there may well be a lot more information to include.  The online paper does, however, include an article of 24 June 2014 on the events at the Surrey Street entrance, and the citizen's arrest by Gary McHale, events occurring since 8 June 2014 (see here).

A Blockade of Argyll Street on 16 June 2014:

First I will discuss the online Sachem data, since clearly these events helped precipitate the action by Haldimand County Council on Monday 23 June 2014.

Barricades Moved from the Blockaded Argyll Street to Blockade Surrey Street
The above picture is from the
After recounting the Gary McHale citizen's arrest (discussed in previous blog postings), the reporter describes a key event of the previous Monday, 16th of June 2014 where activists blocked Argyll Street for a short time, then moved the barricade to block Surrey Street.  Shades of Caledonia, April 2006 when such a blockade caused irreparable damage in the relations between residents of Caledonia and Six Nations.  Apparently at the time the Ontario Provincial Police saw this blockade of Surrey Street as a sensible compromise.  As the communications officer noted, it would take the complaint of a citizen for them to act to address the new blockade situation.  It appears that there were no more than a dozen activists (how many Native and how many White "solidarity supporters" is anyone's guess - I wasn't there, and knew nothing of this event).  Apparently the Six Nations Band Council could not be reached for comment.  Since this was the doings of the rival Hereditary Chiefs Council, I am not sure what sort of comment would be forthcoming.
Haldimand County Council Votes to Dismantle the Surrey Street Blockade:
1)  Information from The Hamilton Spectator (Spec) of 24 June 2014, Caledonia Blockade is Coming Down: Mayor Ken Hewitt said the vote took place behind closed doors Monday night. The county will hire a contractor to take apart the barrier — fashioned with metal, concrete and other materials — at Surrey Street in Caledonia. 
The street is a closed road leading into the former estates. "For us, the intent is really to clean up that area, obviously we have to ensure emergency vehicles have access," Hewitt said.  
"It is not the council's intention to "cause any undue stress," to anyone, he added.  Mayor Hewitt further added that, he wants to see the issue resolved, and the land used in a way that brings the community together.
"I don't want to diminish land claims, but those could be going on for many years to come. I'd like to see the land represent something that brings people together."
The county will be asking Ontario Provincial Police to "maintain peace" while the work is going on.
Haldimand OPP Constable Mark Foster said it has been relatively quiet at the site recently, adding that police had not been informed of the council decision.
As to the Six Nations (actually the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council only), Blake Bomberry, a member of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council, said in an emailed statement that the chiefs are "in discussion with Ontario about the Haldimand County decision."
While the site has remained largely peaceful, he acknowledged there have been "issues of mischief recently" that the Haudenosaunee Development Institute has been working with the province to address.
A Six Nations Council spokesperson said the council planned to gather Tuesday night to discuss the issue, and would not be able to comment until Wednesday.

2)  Information from Turtle Island News (TIN) of 25 June 2014, Haldimand council votes to take out Kanonhstaton hydro towers, p.2: The Reserve newspaper adds a few pieces of additional information on the matter.  Apparently the vote of the Haldimand Council was "unanimous".  Furthermore, Mayor Hewitt told TIN that, his council voted to remove the hydro tower at an in-camera meeting Monday night, calling it "an illegal blockade" and saying it is causing a "barrier" between Six Nations and Caledonia.

Furthermore, Hewitt claims the driveway - also known as Surrey Street - is a public road.

"It's an unopened road that is registered with Haldimand County.  It was deemed or felt that we have issues with the signage and the road being closed by someone who is not Haldimand County.  What we'd like is to remove the barricades, clean up the site and start moving towards more of a progressive and positive solution for both communities than to continue to put wedges and barriers between the two communities".

The HCCC continues to maintain that while there are "issues" they are working with the Ontario Government to effect a solution.  However Haldimand County has not contacted the HCCC about the matter, and the HCCC is now in talks with Ontario about the actions of Haldimand County.  However Mayor Hewitt is, attempting to contact Six Nations elected Chief Ava Hill to notify her about their plans Haldimand County will only consult with band council on the issue, said Hewitt, adding that he has no plans to speak with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council before the County's contractors attempt to remove the hydro tower.

Mayor Hewitt added that, While the former Douglas Creek Estates land is provincially owned, Haldimand County maintains ownership of all roads.  The County is obliged to keep all roadways open for access.  Also, Haldimand Council has decided to have the illegal barriers removed and the entrance to the former Douglas Creek Estates land reopened.  The County will seek the assistance of the OPP to maintain peace while a contractor will be hired to perform the work".
Conclusion: This brave move on the part of the Haldimand County Council, unanimous at that, which is the proper decision based on the facts of the matter, speaks well for the leadership of our Mayor Ken Hewitt and his Council in making difficult decisions.  He can continue to stand firm knowing that the facts of ownership of this property are crystal clear (they were stolen from the legal rightful owners by Six Nations activists), and that there will be overwhelming support by his constituents in his quest for justice.  I have worked with the Mayor before and know him to be an honourable person, and expect that he will not cave into inevitable bogus name calling of "racist", "colonialist" and such nonsense by both the SN activists and their White Communist Anarchist union backed supporters (puppeteers).
Blog Credits McHales for the Proposed Removal of the Blockade:
Without a doubt Mark Vandermaas has been among the most dedicated opponents of the illegal occupation of the Douglas Creek Estates, and has been present at most or all protest events.  His blog, "Caledonia Victims Project" (see here) has been of immense help (as have the websites of Gary McHale and Jeff Parkinson) to local residents in keeping us abreast of developments.
In Mark's most recent posting (24 June 2014) he credits both Gary McHale and his wife Christine McHale as being responsible for the Council's decision.  He comes to the conclusion that a letter written by the latter to Premier Kathleen Wynne was what tipped the scales.  With due respect, Premier Wynne has been hyper focused on the Election and is positively giddy about "World Pride Week", which is taking place in Toronto this week.  I am not aware that Premier Wynne, born and raised in Toronto, has any inkling whatsoever about the Caledonia situation.  There is nothing in her actions or words that would lead me to believe that she either cares, or is informed about this subject.  This does not in any way take away from the robust and valued support given to the cause by the McHales.  What is clear is that the HDI was triggered to act (construct the blockade) due to the citizen's arrest of John Garlow by Gary McHale, and a subsequent action by Randy Fleming.  Hence Gary is a key ingredient in the chain of events.
Only Council knows what drove them to make the decision to remove the blockade.  I am also not quite so confident as Mr. Vandermaas about Six Nations just rolling over on this new development.  The occupiers and their supporters may be more than the usual handful that appear during local protests.  The numbers who tacitly support the take over are unknown, and it is not just a few "thugs" who are involved in one way or another.  Six Nations, particularly the Hereditary faction, have a tremendous amount of time, resources and credibility invested in "Kanonhstaton".  I would predict a much rockier course until justice is served, but only time will tell.  If the good name of Six Nations is badly stained by another riot by terrorists, they will likely have to deal with the shame for generations.  A second riot will not ever be forgiven by some of us.  It is a critical time for Six Nations and others who call this area home.  We must all play our cards well - using rational reasoned arguments rooted in the factual evidence.  Those who fly off in some emotional based direction would do a disservice to those of us on both sides who want to see resolution.
I expect that more information will be forthcoming very soon, and will include it in a subsequent posting.
A very encouraged,

Tuesday, 24 June 2014

Content of E-Mails and a Phone Call Sent to Federal, Provincial, County Authorities and the OPP about the Blockade of Surrey Street

A few months ago I contacted various officials, explaining my frustration with situations such as the difficulties being experienced by the owner of Grand Island BBQ in selling his property in Dunn Township, Haldimand County.  Here, although there was irrefutable evidence that the Six Nations Chiefs in Council had surrendered the property in 1834, they were pushing forward with claims here - the impetus being millions of dollars available from Samsung by the simple act of declaring the lands "contested".  It worked, and Samsung, for absolutely no valid reason, granted $65 million over 20 years to Six Nations - convinced that they held some sort of "rights and entitlements" to the land where Samsung wanted to erect industrial wind turbines.  They bought into the lie, perhaps because it was simply easier to work with Six Nations than risk their ire - irrespective of the validity of their claims.  Since I had ample evidence that Six Nations had no historical or legal rights in this matter, all that having been given up 180 years ago, I had run out of patience. 

The situation at Grand Island was just rubbing more salt into the wound that was still an open sore - Caledonia 2006.  For the past 8 years Six Nations activists had been illegally occupying Douglas Creek Estates, which they renamed Kanonhstaton.  Recently they have had the effrontery to claim that the Provincially owned land belongs to them, and that they have the right to erect a perimeter fence around the entire 40 acres, and turn the land into, in the words of the Director of the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI), enforcement arm of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC), a "gated community".  That threat was "made good" when, under the authority of the HCCC, Surrey Street, a public entrance to Provincially owned land, was blockaded with the stolen and vandalized Hydro One tower (once flanking the entrance, but now the two parts have been dragged across the road and "fortified" by positioning huge concrete blocks across Surrey Street).  My previous blog posting of 20 June 2014 provides details and pictures of this, the latest slap in the face of those of us who reside in Caledonia.

Frustration led to action once again, in the form of two e-mails and a phone call. 

A)  The e-mails below were sent to the following individuals:

1)  Bernard Valcourt, (Federal) Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.
2)  David Zimmer, (Provincial) Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.
3)  Diane Finley, M.P.P. for Haldimand - Norfolk.
4)  Toby Barrett, M.P. for Haldimand - Norfolk.
5)  Ken Hewitt, Mayor, Haldimand County.

------- Date of  first e-mail: Saturday, 21 June, 5:15 p.m.

Greetings to all,

I am writing to each of you, and tomorrow I will be phoning the Ontario Provincial Police to lodge a formal complaint.
The situation will be familiar to all of you, although the recent particulars perhaps not.  The Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC) through their enforcement wing the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) is once again committing illegal acts.  Their actions come on the heels of the verdict of the Ontario Superior Court in Brantford, slapping their Director and Legal Council with a heavy fine for violating the Court injunction against disrupting various projects within the City of Brantford.  In this instance, despite the fact that the former Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) land belongs to the Province of Ontario, they have continued to illegally occupy it as if it were their own.  At present, as per articles in the Turtle Island News and Two Row Times, they plan to place a perimeter fence around the entire property and turn it into a "gated community".  Surely all would agree that this is a blatantly illegal act which cannot be permitted to proceed.  If allowed to do as they please, those who permit this are in effect enablers and will be responsible for the initiation of more blatant acts of defiance in the efforts of Six Nations to deny the land surrenders between 1834 and 1848.
The attitude of "we can do as we please" is reflected in the most recent actions at DCE where the HCCC radicals, who are, based on their threats, the HDI, have taken it upon themselves to completely block the main public access road to DCE off Argyll Street in Caledonia.  Pictures and more details can be found here: in the lead article of 20 June 2014.
It is time, in my opinion, for the Federal Government researchers to state in the clearest possible terms that the land was surrendered in 1844-45 (as noted in the above article), and that the land is on title in the Ontario Land Registration system.  It does not belong to Six Nations and has not belonged to them for the past 170 years.  It is a travesty that Six Nations have not formally been informed of historical and legal realities, and as a consequence the people of Caledonia continue to suffer, and will do so for the foreseeable future as the emboldened Six Nations expand their horizons to illegally acquire more land.  We have suffered for 8 years, surely none can expect that we are going to be able to patiently wait another 8 years while Six Nations consolidates their hold - "possession is 9/10 of the law".  The late Justice Marshall's injunction of 2006 needs to be honoured, and the occupiers sent packing, perhaps after being given copies of the surrenders of 1845 signed by up to 67 Chiefs in Council.
In the strongest terms, I suggest that the documents pertaining to the specific surrenders be spread on the table before the representatives of both the HCCC and the Elected Band Council.  If they wish to initiate legal action that would be a blessing since, as Justice Harrison Arrell of the Ontario Superior Court in Brantford has said in a preliminary report, the Six Nations have the weakest possible case in relation to present land claims.
Respectfully submitted,
------- Date of second e-mail: Monday, 23 June, 2:22 p.m.
Hello again,
My contact has informed me that they will publish the response given by each government agency to the request, as written in my previous e-mail, that the law be served in this matter.  I called the Cayuga Detachment of the OPP yesterday to report this event (blockading Surrey Street) as a crime. 
After 8 years of dilly dallying, it is time to take action and tell Six Nations that they have no valid claim to the Douglas Creek Estates property, and that the Injunction of Justice Marshall of 2006 will be enforced and all illegal occupiers removed.
We anxiously await your response in this matter.

B)  A phone call was made to the Ontario Provincial Police to report a crime.

At 9:15 a.m., on Sunday 22 June 2014 I contacted the Cayuga Detachment and provided information by phone about the blockade of Surrey Street, including the names of those I suspected of having perpetrated the crime, and requested that the matter be investigated.

What is next?

We wait.  I will report on what responses are received from each of the individuals noted above.


Friday, 20 June 2014

Six Nations Activists Have Blocked Road Access to Provincially Owned D.C.E. (Kanonhstaton): So Who is in Charge?

After reading Christie Blatchford's recent article in the National Post (20 May 2014) entitled, Caledonia natives still calling the shots in land dispute (see here) I was left feeling unsettled.  Indeed, who is in charge? 

When I was at the Canadian Tire store and the adjacent Tim Hortons I noted in the distance that there were two new Mohawk Warrior flags installed on the twisted barricades composed of the Hydro One tower that had been vandalized and stolen by the occupiers in 2006.  After reading the article by Christie Blatchford, I realized that the HDI (Haudenosaunee Development Institute) were extremely agitated by the McHale "intrusion" and that they were likely to move quickly to assert their dominance and pretend ownership.

My short drive to the site shocked and angered me.  As can be seen in the photo below (taken today), the two pieces of the Hydro One tower that flanked Surrey Street, the entrance to DCE from Argyle Street, have been moved to form a single unit.  Very large concrete blocks (requiring heavy equipment to move) have been placed across the road and the shoulders arching along to the ditch - ensuring that no car or such motorized vehicle will be able to enter DCE from the main entranceway.  This would appear to be the handiwork of the HDI, the most radical group to emerge from the Hereditary Confederacy Chiefs Council.  It would appear that they have gotten a jump start on those things they have threatened to do - meaning placing a fence around the entire perimeter of DCE, and turning the DCE into a "gated community".  The property is known as Kanonhstaton - The Protected Place - to the radicals who "reclaimed" these lands which were and are legally in the possession of the those named in the Ontario Land Registry for the parcel of land.

Entrance Road to DCE Kanonhstaton Now Completely Blocked and Barricaded

 The map below provides a geographical orientation, with the Grand River off the map to the north (top), and the junction of the 6th Line and old Highway 6 (Argyle Street) to the south (bottom).

The Entrance to DCE is via Argyle Street and Surrey Street (the latter completely blocked)

More on the specifics of the most recent development later, but first some review and background.

Legally the Province of Ontario owns the land (after purchasing it from the developers, Henco for $15 million), and it is registered in the Ontario Land Registry system.  However as noted in my two recent postings, Gary McHale challenged the status quo by the simple act of  walking on the public access road, Surrey Street, which belongs to the Province.  This is a perfectly legal act.  However he was confronted by the lone occupant (Six Nations member) of the single building on the site that has not been trashed and demolished, was assaulted by this "land protector", resulting in the arrest of the latter by the OPP.

Certain Six Nations members were livid - particularly those affiliated with the Hereditary Confederacy Chief's Council (HCCC) and its enforcement arm, the Haudenosaunee Development Institutue (HDI) which is well known for strong arming developers into paying an "application fee" to ensure that no "unpleasantness" would occur on the site being developed.  Some would term this extortion, and in fact members of the HDI and other activists have been fined for ignoring Court injunctions to cease and desist from interfering with the right of developers to develop their land.  Via rulings of the Ontario Superior Court, a substantial fine of over $800,000 was levied, later reduced to $350,000 and via a plea deal reduced further to about $125,000.  The HDI claims the land at DCE for the HCCC - although if anyone at Six Nations were to have legal rights in the matter it would be the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC).  Despite the fact that the land has not been turned over to anyone or any group by the Province, the HDI are insisting that the DCE property is theirs to do with as they wish - including the planting of trees, and the erection of a perimeter fence. 

As I have noted on numerous occasions, the various levels of government are acting as enablers since no one will state the legal realities to Six Nations and the world at large - it is Provincially owned land!  Not only that but the entire premise of the Six Nations having a stake in the property is based on a false premise since the land was surrendered 170 years ago.  As of 1844 and ratified in 1845, the land was surrendered to the Crown - end of story - or at least it should have been if evidence and ethics mean anything. 

See here for the evidence relative to the surrender of Six Nations lands including the property where the DCE is situated (Report by Joan Holmes & Associates to the Corporation of the City of Brantford).  The most relevant section is page 8 (stamped "16" in upper right corner), Six Nations Chiefs in Council meetings 17 & 18 September 1845, signed by 66 Six Nations Chiefs.  See here for Garry Horsnell's chronology and analysis of these and related events.  Below is a map of Oneida Township showing the "tier of lots" to the east of the Plank Road (Argyle Street), with what is today Oneida Road being the boundary described at the junction of the tier of lots and the Reserve requested by the Chiefs in Council:

Map of Oneida Township
Oneida Township 1879 with the Plank Road Leading Diagonally North to South from Caledonia to Hagersville and Oneida Road Heading Along the Present Reserve Boundary to Include the 6 Lots in Concessions 1 to 6 plus the River Range Traversing a Straight North to South Route
See here for the evidence that the Superior Court of Ontario, as represented by Justice Harrison Arrell, views Six Nations land claims as resting on the weakest possible foundation.  Unless Six Nations can come up with some hard evidence that will counter the above solid evidence, they are beat - at least in the legal sense.  I doubt very much that they will give up their irrational beliefs.  Many times I have personally heard a certain Six Nations activist, known for her sporting red hats, say that "Caledonia is ours".  No amount of rational arguments, or evidence in the form of the actual signatures of the 66 Chiefs who signed the surrender, has shaken the bedrock of belief.

In this blog I have repeatedly presented the factual basis of the ownership of the DCE - but as noted over and over, facts mean nothing to the HDI and their supporters.  It is only what they believe that has any meaning whatsoever.  So in essence, they make their own reality. 

Guess We Know Who is Calling the Shots
The sheer audacity of the move is also reflected in the following picture:
Classy Sign
The "militancy factor" is seen in the number of Mohawk Warrior flags that accompany the Confederacy flag as seen here:
Three Mohawk Warrior Flags - Note Smaller One by Yellow Sign

Some further pictures to round out what one sees today:
"The" House in the Distance - Yes That is Another Mohawk Warriors Flag
In a very presumptuous move, the "Welcome to Six Nations" sign greets visitors - well, there are no visitors, and the add about Six Nations Tourism at the very bottom of the sign is such a bad joke.
The Flag which to Many in Caledonia Represents Violence and Brutality

So the HDI or other representative of the HCCC has illegally blocked the only public roadway into Provincially owned land.  I know the "unofficial" entrance via 6th Line, but it can get muddy.  This blockade is an illegal act of defiance, and is deserving of swift action on the part of the various levels of government.  The question is, do they have the where with all (stones), or intestinal fortitude, to do what is mandated by law - or will Six Nations once again be given a "pass" and allowed to proceed without impediment?

It will be important to contact the Ontario Provincial Police, the Mayor of Haldimand, the Member of Provincial Parliament for Haldimand - Norfolk, and his Federal counterpart to see what can be done to bring justice and the rule of law to this place.  If they are unwilling to act, then, after 8 years of this illegal battering, is it time for the citizens of Haldimand and adjoining regions to stand together and do what has long been needed to deal with the terrorists?  Let us never forget.  The acts of April 2006 and subsequent events were acts of terrorism.  With lulls of relative quiet perhaps we have deluded ourselves into thinking that all is well.  Alas this is an illusion.  Six Nations have their sights set not only on DCE but also the Burtch Correctional Centre lands, and Provincially owned lands in South Cayuga Township - which they now want "returned" (although long surrendered).  Next ............ 

It only takes the rule of law and the establishment of the evidence in the matter - what I have been pleading for, so that a legal settlement will be established so that a just resolution can be effected.  My words (and those of others of like mind) have fallen on deaf ears.  I can assure all, based on what I have learned to date, this orderly and peaceful approach will never fly.

According to the 29 claims submitted to date (see here), what do Six Nations want?  The description of each claim suggests that all Grand River (Haldimand Tract) properties are at risk of being "reclaimed" in the manner of DCE.  My previous postings have outlined the specifics here. 

Based on the wording of these claims, they are going after property throughout "the land belonging to the Onkwehonwe or real people", in other words six miles on each side of the Grand River - will our government protect your property rights?  They didn't do it in the case of DCE, so why should we believe that they will act any differently down the road?

A thoroughly disgusted,


Monday, 16 June 2014

The Two Row Wampum Myth - Fantasy Rears its Head Once Again

In most newspapers, an editorial is written by the editor of the paper, and the author's name is clearly evident.  This is the case with Turtle Island News (TIN) where the editor's picture is included with the editorial, and her name is found immediately below under "Editor".  Everyone hereabouts knows that Lynda Powless is the Editor, and that she writes the editorials for TIN.  However things are not so clear with the Two Row Times (TRT), where a recent editorial is unsourced, and when seeking to find who is assigned the role of editor, two names are given - Jonathan Garlow (a status Six Nations member) and Tom Keefer (a White Communist Anarchist who has insinuated his way into the upper echelons of this newspaper where he is also the General Manager).  Should anyone question Keefer's destructive role in Caledonia, a few minutes of Google searching or seeing the data here should dispel any concerns about the accuracy of the statement.  I attended the march in 2012, and all the preceding events leading up to the march, and speak not only from what is peppered across the Internet, but also personal experience.  Perhaps the words coming from TIN that there is only one Reserve newspaper have some merit, considering that TRT is headed by a group of non-Native Anarchists, and offers the latter a "legitimate" platform for their radical leftist and anti - establishment views.  Amazingly, it also allows a Keefer family member, a physician at Brantford General Hospital, to write a column railing on with anti-scientific nonsense linking obesity to "colonialism".  But I digress.  So did Garlow or Keefer write the editorial entitled, "True equality between nations", TRT, June 11th, 2014, p.6?  It begs the question as to who is calling the shots, the White owner / employees, or the Six Nations members affiliated with the newspaper.  Since I am in deep disagreement with much of the content of the editorial, whomever wrote it, I will sift through it clause by clause in an attempt to point out how skewed and factually incorrect the content is.

The editorial was triggered by the McHale "citizen's arrest" of John Garlow Kawaowene on 8 June, 2014.  The two previous blog postings seen below provide the detail, including beliefs versus facts as shown in multiple videos taken at the time.

The editorial stated that, McHale has promoted his political ideology of Canadian supremacy through a rhetoric of forced equality that violates the Two Row Wampum.  This statement is a supposition and not backed up with a single fact.  It is correct that McHale advocates one law for all in Canada, as his website and his book (see previous postings) demonstrate - but this is a given for those who choose to live within the boundaries of Canada - boundaries that are respected by all other countries world wide. 

The "Editor" continues, Our Onkwehonwe hospitality towards the newcomers, and our relationship with the Canadian/British Sovereign has been limited and defined in the Two Row Wampum and the Kaianerekowa (Constitution of the Peoples).  It is important to pause here to clear up some errors in fact. 

First the Two Row Wampum is a concept which continues to perpetuate itself, but its origins are mired in obscurity.  I have devoted considerable blog space to this topic.  There is no clear validity for this assumed "relationship agreement" with the boat and the canoe travelling in parallel (represented as the two purple stripes on the wampum belt said to accompany the agreement).  The story and documentation that goes along with this concept has been severely criticized by academics and it is basically flawed.  For example, wampum used later to record treaties and attest to the appointment of Chiefs simply cannot be shown to exist in Six Nations country before the 1630s - yet the supposed document signed by 4 otherwise unidentified Aboriginal persons and two Dutchmen is dated 1613 and only speaks of trade - nothing else - but somewhere along the way obtained the moniker, "Treaty of Tawagonshi" (the latter the hill where the supposed document was supposedly signed).  It was not an agreement with the British Crown, but merely two Dutch traders residing in New Amsterdam before the British took over this colony in 1664.  So to pin so much on what amounts to a document that many academics consider to be forged in the 19th or 20th Centuries, and a belt whose age is undetermined, cannot possibly be accepted uncritically except by those who are "true believers".  Even such respected Six Nations historians as Rick Hill acknowledge the lack of evidence, but slough it off because there is "oral history" (which is as soft as a cotton ball).  See here for his "talking points" by clicking on the link "Two Row History".  Clearly this concept is being confused with the valid "Covenant Chain" agreement of 1671 onwards - but it is again a friendship and mutual support agreement - nothing whatsoever being said about sovereignty.  As it stands today, anyone who questions the sacred nature of the Two Row Wampum agreement can expect to be called "racist" or similar term.  Facts mean nothing.  If in fact the concept and details of the supposed Two Row Wampum agreement is valid, then where is the evidence?  If I am wrong, in other words the mountain of evidence is somehow in error, then it is incumbent upon Six Nations leaders to clearly and unequivocally prove the validity of the Two Row Wampum, thus clearing up the inconsistencies, so we can move forward.  Hence I challenge Six Nations to provide evidence that can be verified by objective parties such as university academics.  If Six Nations cannot do this then the detailed research I have provided stands and the Two Row Wampum as articulated by those at Six Nations without references is unsupported and relegated to the category of myths. 

I grew up believing in the validity of both the Two Row Wampum and the Nanfan Treaty, and merely accepted both as correct without bothering to ask any hard questions - it was simply not acceptable to do so and I knew it.  I am "all grown up" now and as an individual educated in the scientific method, am highly skeptical of anything without hard evidence, cross validation and the like.  So now, after all these years, when I apply the litmus test of scientific inquiry to both of these "sacred cows", I find that both fail miserably on all counts.  I was duped.  In this blog I have attempted to set the record straight with evidence that is properly sourced, and data which is contemporary with the events being described - such as the so called "Nanfan Treaty".  Apparently it is easy for people who want to believe to accept the "party line" without question.  Life is more comfortable by so doing - at least to those who have not been taught to question everything.  That which is valid will stand up to close scrutiny, false information will not.

Secondly, it should also be noted that the Kayenkeragowagh (Great Law) was first committed to writing in the mid 1800s by Eli Parker and others, and at Six Nations there were two versions circulating by the end of the 19th Century.  One was written by Seth Newhouse (Mohawk) and the other by John Gibson (Seneca).  The Hereditary Chiefs chose the latter and it was selected as the "correct" version - although somewhat controversial at the time.  Without a doubt the most comprehensive study of the Great Law was William N. Fenton, The Great Law and the Longhouse: A Political History of the Iroquois Confederacy, Norman OK, University of Oklahoma Press, 1998.  The field work was done in the 1940s and 50s at Six Nations with informants such as Simeon Gibson, Joseph Logan, Howard Skye, Alexander General, and Jake Thomas.  The work is 786 pages in length and is detailed and comprehensive.  I am unaware of a better source.  It is interesting that not once does Fenton or any of his informants appear to mention "Two Row Wampum" - a curious omission, or a reflection of reality?  To to see that Great Law as something immutable cannot be sustained based on the number of versions seen in Six Nations communities in New York and Ontario.  Interpretations have changed over the years, but now, as far as I know, the published Gibson version is the one memorized and recited each year.  The Newhouse version is only found in manuscript form, the apparent original (a house fire destroyed some of it) is found at the Library and Archives Canada in Ottawa (I have read the original).

The British Crown never considered the Five (later Six) Nations as "equals".  Both the British and the French claimed parts of North America as their sovereign territory.  The various deeds and surrenders from the earliest days of the British rule to the 19th Century consistently spoke of "our Great Father the King of England".  Even the much vaunted (by Six Nations), but entirely fraudulent, Nanfan "Treaty" of 1701 explicitly states that the Five Nations are subjects of Britain and its Sovereign (as opposed to the French).

Despite all this "reality business" the "editor" continues to speak about how, Equality between nations does not mean that they are subject to each others constitution: what we are talking about is international equality.  Furthermore, all along the Canadian colony has knowingly suppressed our true nationalities and true citizenships to our particular sovereign nations.  This is a fabrication, but one commonly heard (after all the more something is repeated and not challenged, the more likely someone is to believe a myth as fact).  There is one Nation, Canada, and all who reside within its boundaries are Canadian and subject to its laws.  When Bill C-10 (outlawing contraband tobacco) becomes law, Canada will have the right to enforce the law anywhere in Canada - Six Nations knows this hence all the fuss now going on lobbying Ottawa for an exemption.  Whether Canada choses to enforce the law at Six Nations is another matter entirely since the whole matter is such an "issue", and the Government tends to tred lightly in areas where Native issues obtrude.

Things get a little more odd when the editorial states, During his ongoing siege of our community, McHale has systematically and arbitrarily denied the evident and chosen nations of the men and women he targets and harasses, ramming his own confused notions of equality down our throats, and arbitrarily spreading Canadian 'equality' forcibly onto the peoples of free nations who have never defined themselves as Canadian and who have never become subjects of the British/Canadian Crown.  The latter first.  Six Nations were declared subjects and signed agreements as to the sovereignty of the British Crown from the early years of British rule, and this was confirmed in the Proclamation of 1763 and subsequent acts.  Just where precisely does it say that the Crown has rescinded sovereignty of all peoples of the Canadas - English, French and Native?  These are the three "founding peoples", based on various documents coming from the Federal Government, but they are not each sovereign (although French speaking Quebecers have long been pushing in this direction).  The ownership of the Haldimand Tract, purchased from the Aboriginal occupants, the Mississauga, was not transferred to the Six Nations.  The right of occupation of these lands were given to Six Nations in 1784, is still to this day the lands are vested in the Crown such that no land sale here is legal unless surrendered to the Crown and the monies derived from the sale put into trust for the Six Nations.  Deniers of history run into the roadblock of the facts - as inconvenient as they might be.  Those who have not studied the matter in detail could be snowed by arguments based on oral tradition and such, generally presented with much emotion, but those of us such as myself who have made inquires via a search of the primary source documentation will be harder to convince because the data does not support the position of the Six Nations on this subject.

To add to the sheer outlandishness of what is written, the unnamed author states that, McHale has arrested a non-Canadian without the process of extradition.  McHale's crusade may put him and everyone else in a constitutional crisis, and may have violated the covenant of peace between the British Crown and the Onkwehonwe.  Some Canadians may call that an act of treasonous contempt.  I have no doubt that the White "solidarity" Six Nations supporters funded by the unions, and the Communist and Anarchist groups would promulgate this stance.  However, most Canadians will see the business for what it is - but a "constitutional crisis" - as if.  Outlandish and off the wall claims only make the cause seem dodgy, and potential sympathy (if there was any) dissipates.

The editorial ends by stating that, We are Onkwehon:we and we deserve to be respected as the equals that we are and have always been under the Two Row Wampum.  Indeed, no argument here.  That is the point of what McHale is saying.  We are all equal under the law and all deserve to receive its protections.  If anyone wishes to push to hard on the "we are not Canadians" theme, there is going to be a major backlash where many will say if that is true, then you will need to stop accepting Canadian taxpayer Welfare and Transfer Payments.  That has not happened, and is not likely to happen.  As these developments and claims profiled in the present blog become more apparent to all Canadians, not just the folks hereabouts, I would predict an increasing call for dismantling the Reserve system (at least for those who, like Six Nations, cannot claim to be Aboriginal to the lands where they are presently settled - Grand River Ontario is not Upstate New York), all lands in the possession of those with location tickets to have these documents converted to deeds in fee simple, and after a transition period, no more "perks" (that includes the right/entitlement not to pay certain taxes), so that all are truly equal to carve out their own destiny.  The lands are geographically within either Brant County (Tuscarora Township, Onondaga Township between Middleport and Onondaga, and the Glebe Lands with the old Mohawk Institute and the Mohawk Chapel) or Haldimand County (the strip of Oneida Township along Oneida Road).  It would be simple to add these clearly defined areas to either the Brant County or Haldimand County Land Registry.  Be careful what you ask for ........