In the 16 September 2014 issue of "Turtle Island News" (TIN), appears an article entitled, Confederacy approves $4 million CLL/Samsung project (p.7). It highlights specifics of the most recent illegal and immoral behavior of the representatives of the Confederacy faction at Six Nations. Here they have "extracted" a cool 4 million in the form of $150,000 a year for 20 years for the lease of lands that Six Nations have no valid claim of any description. Samsung coughs up. Then there is another $50 grand a year for 20 years for whatever. What this boils down to is protection money, a racket where for what to Samsung is chump change, they pretend to acknowledge the "treaty entitlements" (all bogus) of Six Nations in exchange for non interference with the construction of the project. In other words the goons that have appeared on site to shut down all operations in previous situations where the corporation failed to agree to the "protocol", will not be a disruptive force here. Since the payola greased the palms of the "legal representatives" of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC), via the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) who take care of the nasty enforcement matters that must make some Chiefs uncomfortable, all is well. So Samsung is being strong armed out of cash for the promise that there will be no work disruptions. There is no valid treaty or any legal document that would authorize the HDI or HCCC to act in this fashion, but with the government and legal system acting as enablers - it is full speed ahead.
Apparently the present project has been in the works since 2009, and in the last 5 years Samsung has weighed its options (they know that there are no valid treaties or any valid land claims involving the lands they will use to install "green energy" appliances such as industrial wind turbines and solar panel "farms" - I have told them as much, with evidence).
Apparently (one can only assess what is said on face value since the books are effectively closed to all Six Nations Band Members - a sore spot that has surfaced from time to time) the HCCC (in reality the HDI via their non - Native legal advisor) will use the money from this project for its supposed "land acquisition fund", or some sort of unspecified "trust". The said legal advisor claims that "the community" has decided that the monies should go for purchasing land presently owned under the Ontario Land Registry system. Did the "community" vote on this? As far as I know this did not happen. So they are making an unsubstantiated claim (again).
Of course the HDI being the HDI believe that Six Nations owns the entire Grand River Tract, that all surrenders are invalid, and therefore they, should never have had to purchase it in the first place but the chiefs recognized that there is pressure now due to the increasing population of Six Nations to secure lands for the people. Thus anyone foolish enough to sell lands to Six Nations could risk at any time the same "Indian giver" approach used to "acquire" the former Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) in Caledonia which caused one of the most reprehensible and violent "reclamations" of land by the thugs at Six Nations. This land is still under hot contention since the deed is in the hands of the Province of Ontario and the latter is not presently bowing to the absurd requirements set out by the HDI to exclude all interested parties (including the Six Nations Elected Council - SNEC) except the HCCC who has zero legal standing but a lot of moxy in their assertions of being victims of a genocidal and racist system supported by the Indian Act and SNEC).
The real problem for the HDI is that the legal authority at Six Nations (SNEC), acknowledges that surrenders took place. They are seeking damages for money that wasn't paid and on many of the contentious surrenders the band is taking a soft approach on the land issue and is looking soley for money, which could be damaging to future land rights, so we are trying to avoid that situation. In other words the land researchers at SNEC are well aware that legal surrenders did take place, they have copies of the documents, so all that is left is to maintain that there were irregularities 170 plus years ago when the land surrenders took place. The Band Council (SNEC) are realists and are advised by competent lawyers about the likelihood of any land claim being successful in any Court of law (which requires evidence not wishful thinking), whereas HDI still believe that by violent takeovers as at DCE in 2006 that their "pressure tactics" will ultimately be successful irrespective of the facts.
Further to the latter perspective, the legal representative then goes on to state that, "The chiefs have taken the position that there was no surrender ever intended in most cases, but more importantly if they do not pay for the land upon surrender, the surrender is invalid". Thus no matter what the evidence says, HDI will find a way to twist things to a Procrustean fit that conforms with their world view - and to heck with facts, which are simply an inconvenience. The legal representative goes on to assert the most "off the wall" views that only the most gullible or ill educated would swallow whole. Specifically, he stated that, there is no surrender of land or extinguishment of title or rights in the agreements. That statement is ABSOLUTELY FALSE as I have read all of the original documents and it is impossible to come to that conclusion based on what is recorded in the deeds and Council Minutes signed by all of the Six Nations Chiefs in Council who were present on that occasion (generally around 50 chiefs). Persons such as myself must be a real thorn in the side of the HDI who would play the victim card and have you believe that blue is green and fairies and leprechauns are real. Those who continue to hammer home the need for evidence as opposed to fantasy and wishful thinking constantly throw a wet blanket on their fantasies.
The brashness of the HDI is illustrated in another project that is mentioned in the article in TIN - the discussions with Enbridge for projects within the Haudenosaunee treaty territory. Once again there is NO TREATY TERRITORY to which Six Nations has any claim - either on or off the Haldimand Tract. There was never any treaty whatsoever. For example the Haldimand Tract was not deeded by treaty. It was a one off document allowing the Six Nations to occupy this land, but that the title still (to this day) is retained by the Crown. It is NEVER referred to as a treaty since it does not meet any of the criteria, and the Province of Ontario does not have any treaties shown for the Six Nations on their treaty map which is being sent to all schools in Ontario (as noted in a previous posting). Again, just wishful thinking. Things get even more bizarre when the HDI announces that it considers Highway 407 near Derry Road in Mississauga as "treaty territory". This is in fact land that was owned by the Mississauga (Anishinaabe) people, but sold to the Crown long ago. The Six Nations have no valid claim - it, as well as the entire Grand River Haldimand Tract, was purchased by the Crown from the legitimate owners. The Mississauga in effect extinguished any Six Nations claim by right of conquest in 1696 when all Six Nations villages north of Lake Ontario were destroyed and the people killed or forced to return to what is today Upstate New York (a fact I have noted time and time again in this blog). To rub salt into the wound, the HDI expect that Enbridge will recognize their untrained archaeological monitors for any work in this area when only the archaeological monitors of SNEC have been trained and certified by the Ontario Professional Archaeologists Association (again the subject of recent postings). Hopefully Enbridge will make a stand here, although once again they may just chalk this up to the cost of doing business and avoiding unpleasantness that will revolve around the unemployed thugs that HDI will send to "remind" Enbridge that they are in charge and are more than willing to make corporate life difficult if Enbridge fails to comply with the extortion demands.
My question. Who has the guts and where with all to stand up to the HDI / HCCC and opt for truth and justice as opposed to simply taking the path of least resistance. It is very much similar to negotiating with terrorists. Don't do it because it will be deja vu the next time, and the HDI will likely up the ante for not only Enbridge but other corporations. Someone has to say no - and be ready to apply for a Court injunction, and if there are any work stoppages they, in other words all individuals and groups present, must face the consequence of a very stiff fine. This was precisely the case when Justice Harrison Arrell of the Ontario Superior Court in Brantford dropped the hammer on the key players in the HDI who repeatedly tried to stop work at a housing development in Brantford. Once again, I have discussed this particular matter at length in multiple postings to this blog.