Wind Turbine Deals and the Myth of Unceded Six Nations Land in Dunn and South Cayuga Townships

In a previous posting I discussed recent events whereby the Six Nations succeeded in asserting perceived treaty rights in Southwestern Ontario, positioning themselves as key players in the negotiations and ultimate agreements pertaining to land  that will be used to build highly controversial "green energy" wind turbines.  In the present posting I will review the rationale and the results of these "treaty related" agreements, but also focus on the recent agreements with Samsung of Korea based on specific land claims in two Townships in Haldimand County - South Cayuga and Dunn.

The picture below shows what a typical "turbine field" looks like once these metal behemoths have invaded our rural landscape.  They have spread across Southwestern Ontario like a rapidly proliferating black mold, and have now infiltrated the Grand River watershed lands.  In my opinion these additions to our natural landscape are unnecessary since we are blessed with clean hydroelectric power from the north and from Niagara Falls, from natural gas plants (many now dismantled by the Provincial Government in what has become a huge scandal), and clean coal fired generators with scrubbers.  One may also include the Darlington and Bruce nuclear facilities here. The reason for the recent shift away from all these sources is politics.  "Green energy", which includes these towers and solar panel "farms", are seen as producing "clean energy", as opposed to the previously named alternatives.  Some politicians have been keen to embrace this concept, and have slipped into bed with corporations that build the technology seen as the "wave of the future".  The article found here includes some very poignant local examples of the downside of "going green" via wind turbines.



The citizens in Toronto are not infected with these eyesores, it is in the backyards of rural Ontarians, few in number and insufficiently organized to mount an offensive against this imposition, who are impacted directly.  But to add insult to injury, there are neighbours who are capitalizing on the proliferation of wind turbines and solar panels, without any consideration of the adverse effects on those who live in the same region.  The "neighbours" here, involved in fraud and "dirty dealings", are the Six Nations of the Grand River.


Agreements Pertaining to Lands within the Nanfan "Treaty" of 1701: 

Few have even questioned the legitimacy of transactions pertaining to property in Norfolk County (e.g., Port Dover, Port Rowan), where Six Nations claim "rights".  I suspect that, after Caledonia 2006 and other work stoppages caused by Six Nations members, power companies and governments at all levels are willing to turn a blind eye in the service of keeping the heat down - and truth and justice can be conveniently ignored.  In fact Six Nations do have a clear rationale for their actions, although it is baseless and rests on the foundation of a fraudulent deal.  Here an agreement dating back almost 300 years, although never legally recognized by the Crown, drives this assertion of "rights".  I am speaking of the so called "Nanfan Treaty" of 1701 where 20 Five Nations Chiefs alienated their claim to lands in Southwestern Ontario, obtained by right of conquest, actually genocide (complete obliteration of peoples such as the Neutral \ Attiwandaronk), and placed themselves under the protection of the British Crown. The document records their "expectation" that they would retain beaver hunting rights in this area - oddly nothing about wind turbines was mentioned.  However in 1701, actually from 1696 (and until 1784), the land belonged to the Mississauga, who had destroyed all eight Five Nations settlements on the north side of Lake Ontario, thereby dissolving any "rights" to the area that the Six Nations might wish to claim at a later date.

Thus it is irritating to some when facts get in the way of a strongly held belief, in this case among the Six Nations in their own superiority.  I was taught that my Mohawk ancestors "cleared" Southwestern Ontario of occupants (competitors in the fur trade), and that the land was kept by the Six Nations Onkwehonwe as an area in which to hunt and fish, right up until the time of the American Revolution.  I was sadly misinformed, and the truth came as a complete surprise - but the cold hard facts do not lie. The Mississauga and their allies had taken the land from the Five (now Six) Nations by conquest in 1696 and never from that point did the Six Nations challenge the Mississauga claim to land rights north of Lakes Ontario or Erie.  Thus, due to common misconceptions, it is not surprising that the Six Nations have been able to use to use a fraudulent "treaty" to assert "land rights" across Southwestern Ontario. Beliefs and false information tend to die hard.  See here for a thorough review of the evidence. 

Returning to the matter of turbines in the area encompassed by the Nanfan "Treaty", a couple of days ago I took a drive south through Jarvis to Port Dover.  It was a jaw dropping experience.  I have been away for some months and could hardly recognize the landscape, it was hugely distorted with an excess (well, one is one too many) of wind turbines with blades spinning, some in unison.  Below is a picture of the erection of one of these monsters taken from the Simcoe Reformer.

We are seeing only the thin edge of the wedge.  However, a sense of what is "on the way" can be seen in the array of turbines, situated on the Lake Erie side of Highway 6 just north of Port Dover, shown below in a picture taken by the author on 9 April 2014.



A good summary of what Six Nations will garner from asserting rights via the Nanfan "Treaty" and doing absolutely nothing (other than not protesting) in the Norfolk area can be seen here.  What follows is interesting re projections of revenue to Six Nations from one of these two projects:  According to the business plan, Prowind has invited Six Nations to be a 10% equity partner. Its contribution will be $1.8 million, which is estimated to generate revenue in excess of $3 million over 20 years.  This is small potatoes in relation to the comparable projects of the Korean industrial giant Samsung in the Haldimand Tract - more later.

However all is not a bed of roses for turbine projects in the "general Nanfan area".  In January 2013 members of Men's Fire (associated with the Hereditary Council and Haudenosaunee Development Institute) went on a "roving" protest movement around Nanticoke, as seen here, disrupting various operations in that vicinity.  The stated reason for their action was the company's insistence on the removal of an eagles nest (see picture below).  Someone more cynical than myself might say that it had more to do that the fact that the deals had been with the Elected Council, leaving the Hereditary Council out in the cold once again.



A very detailed description of every imaginable facet of the Summerhaven Wind Energy Project can be seen here.  It is situated around the town of Jarvis extending to the border of the Haldimand Tract, and down to Lake Erie between about Nanticoke and Sweets Corners.  This largely involves Walpole Township, within Haldimand County, but not within the Haldimand Tract. 

In May of 2012 there was a heated debate at Six Nations about turbines and solar panels, specifically over the Summerhaven Project near Jarvis (noted above) which was just getting underway.  In effect the Elected Council approved of this work and in principle for such projects on the Reserve.  Members of the Hereditary Council were against the Summerhaven Project and were upset that a while back Chief Montour of the Elected Council had gone on record as saying he would lie down in front of the bulldozers before he would see this in his backyard, but he had "done a 360".  See here for the article about the matter.  Well, all that changed.  The Jarvis "field of nightmares" is now well underway, and it is, in my opinion, a hideous eyesore and it saddens me that these "creatures" have so ruined the landscape.  No one is lying down in front of the bulldozers - it is full steam ahead. 

A few pictures of what is presently in place here are seen below.  Here a turbine is rather close to a house just east of Jarvis along Highway 3.  Wonder how owner feels about this.

 

 

The picture below was taken from the cemetery behind a church in Jarvis.  I am sure that the symbolic meaning is not lost on readers.

 





Belief that Consultation and Agreement with the Six Nations is Mandatory:  There is (or was) an agreement in place whereby Six Nations will be consulted, and information shared, in any project planned for the various municipalities in the Grand River watershed (and the Grand River Conservation Authority).  The reason being that, "all parties acknowledge that there are outstanding land issues in the Notification Area".  Thus the Grand River Notification Agreement was born on 3 October 1998, to be renewed every 5 years.  I am not sure whether the agreement was renewed in October 2013 as per the plan of this document.  However, this is an agreement without "teeth".  It specifically states that, "This Agreement is not legally binding on any of the Parties, ........ "  However, perception is reality.  Thus if a developer sees this agreement as having more clout than it does, they may come to the conclusion (especially if a van load of activists show up) that they do really need to consult, irrespective of the validity of the matter.  For details see here.

Recent research suggests that a "team" or "policy known as, Consultation and Accommodation Policy (CAP), see here, but you will need to scroll down the middle column to the link at the very bottom, instituted by the Elected Council as a body similar to the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) affiliated with the Hereditary Council, see here, has been assembled with the goal of "accommodation" meaning developers and corporations handing over mega dollars to Six Nations (in this case the Elected Council).  Both assert "rights" in relation to the fraud known as the "Nanfan Treaty", or invalid claims to land in the Haldimand Tract ceded upwards of 170 years ago.  There is no legal reason why anyone would have to "accommodate" with either the HDI or CAP, but it seems that in order to avoid "problems" (work stoppages subsequent to the arrival of one or more vans filled with "land protectors", otherwise known as goons) who enforce the will of one of these two competing groups.  It would appear that the group involved here is CAP since the Elected Council is reaping the financial benefits ("accommodation") of "consultation" in this instance.  In fact the Elected Council are the formally recognized body to negotiate with governments, organizations or individuals since it replaced the Hereditary Council in 1924 - a controversial move that constantly reverberates even today.

However, to repeat, consultation, let alone accommodation, is not mandatory in relation to the Six Nations in Southwestern Ontario including the Haldimand Tract - it just keeps the likelihood of protesters shutting down say the construction of an industrial turbine at a minimum.

Agreements Pertaining to the "Haldimand Proclamation" of 1784:

The map below shows the array of wind projects in and near the Haldimand Tract, the boundary of the latter (Regional Road 20) is shown as a line traversing diagonally from the top left to Lake Erie with most of the Samsung GREP turbines to the right (east) in South Cayuga and Dunn Townships.  The latter boundary is the line running vertically with its southern end facing the word "Erie" seen in Lake Erie.  This township extends to the far right of the map where the Grand River enters Lake Erie at Port Maitland - and includes the Dunnville Airport lands. 



Both of these townships fall within the Haldimand Tract (and todays Haldimand County) and come under, according to Six Nations negotiators, not only the Nanfan "Treaty", but also contested land claims in the area bounded by the "Haldimand Proclamation".  The latter comprised a tract set aside for the Six Nations as compensation for lands lost during the American Revolution.  These were purchased by Governor Sir Frederick Haldimand in 1784 from the Mississauga.  The lands were granted to the Six Nations with right of "occupancy", but with all other land rights vested in the Crown.  The Six Nations were not granted the land in fee simple where an individual Indian could then sell or lease land at his or her pleasure, but rather to a group who held the land in common as was the case before the Revolution in the homeland of what is today Upstate New York.  Note that the Six Nations are not aboriginal to Southwestern Ontario, only Upstate New York.  Thus if the Six Nations wished to sell parts of the Tract, they could only do so by a surrender to the Crown who in turn would issue a Crown Deed to the purchaser, and the monies would be deposited in the Six Nations Trust Fund.  By far the best resource for this information 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.

Claim of Unceded Lands in the Haldimand Tract:  The reason why Six Nations have become a party to the negotiations between for example Samsung, who manufactures the wind turbines, the Ontario Provincial Government, and individual land owners, is linked to their claim of owning "unceded" lands in South Cayuga and Dunn Townships (as well as the fraudulent Nanfan claim).  To anyone familiar with the area, its history, and in particular its Crown deeds as registered in the Ontario Land Registry system, one might think on first pass that this is a wild desperate unsubstantiated attempt to use leverage against weak willed officials to impose their (Six Nations) will - irrespective of the facts.  Could be, but surely it is more complicated.

The evidence is as follows.  Surrender Number 38 occurred on 8 February 1834, ten years prior to the general surrender of 1844, 21 of the "Sachems or Chiefs" of the Six Nations, doth grant, bargain, sell, release, surrender and for ever yield up to "His Majesty William the Fourth", the Township of Dunn, and the parts of Moulton, Canborough, and Cayuga Townships (later split into North and South Cayuga Townships) not already surrendered.  Those who signed included Henry Brant, Oneida Joseph, Jacob Martin, John [Smoke] Johnson, Laurence Davids, William Alvis, and Jacob Johnson, all well known and respected chiefs who participated in the surrenders of the 1840s which resulted in the Reserve taking its present shape.  See, Canada, Indian Treaties and Surrenders from 1680 to 1890, Vol.1, The Queen's Printer, Ottawa, 1891, pp. 91-94.  Soon after the surrender, Crown patents were issued to purchasers for the 100 acre lots that had been surveyed by Lewis Burwell, and the deeds were registered on title, and can be found to this day in the Land Registry Office in Cayuga.  So this begs the question, how can Six Nations claim "unceded" land in a parcel that was surrendered in its entirety, even the portion including the Grand River itself, in 1834.  As an aside, this has immense implications, particularly considering the Six Nations claim for compensation for the flooding due to the Welland Feeder Canal and dam in Dunnville - for lands they had already surrendered.  Considering the $125 million dollar offer by the Federal Government for compensation for damage to lands not then owned by Six Nations, one wonders how vigilant their researchers are in scrutinizing detail - or whether politics intervened to trigger the generous offer (with taxpayer money) - which was turned down, the counter offer from the Six Nations negotiator being one billion dollars - for flooding to lands, the documents show, they did not own after 1834.  However, it is in finding an unproven sentence in one letter that Six Nations base their claim for still retaining "unceded" lands in Dunn and South Cayuga.

a)  South Cayuga Township, among the 29 land claims registered with the Federal Government by Six Nations is Number 18: "Cayuga Township South Side of the Grand River".  Admittedly the Council Minutes and the correspondence of the 1840s can be confusing to the uninitiated since the Chiefs changed their minds, and changed their options, on a number of occasions.  Occasionally a misconception can be found in those not close to the negotiations (e.g., the Superintendent General residing in Quebec City), but if one reads all of the documents, the details are very clear.  It is quite mind boggling to someone such as myself who, over a period of 35 years, has studied all of the documents related to this matter, that the researcher for Six Nations should have to reach and stretch, basically cherry pick, so much to come up with an improbable document expressing impossible decisions in order to "keep South Cayuga in the game".  The particulars of the Six Nations claim can be found here. 

Basically, the Six Nations researcher does not deny the existence of the above surrender, but asserts that, the Township of Cayuga on the south side of the River was de-surrendered by the Superintendent of Indian Affairs and reserved for the Six Nations in exchange for the Burtch Tract being excluded from forming part of Six Nations Lands.  Supposedly this unprecedented act by a Crown official was found in a letter from David Thorburn to J.M. Higginson on 18 April 1846 - but found nowhere in the Council Minutes or any other documents, nor included in the final summation of the various surrenders and description of the boundaries of the Reserve (precisely those of the Reserve of 2014).  None of the copious records of the era ever even allude to a "de-surrender".  Nothing is found which was written by either Thorburn or any other official up to and including the repeated summary of the negotiations to date found in the Six Nations Council Minutes.  Thorburn was meticulous in ensuring each detail was discussed and recorded on more than one occasion and that each time, all of the assembled Chiefs signed a copy of the Minutes.  This thorough detailing of the terms of agreement was recorded up to and including the surrender of the Burtch Tract in 1848, and it is entirely consistent with Governor General Lord Elgin's description of the Indian lands of Upper Canada in 1850. 

A "de-surrendering" as described by the Six Nations researcher, if true, would likely be an unprecedented act in the entire annals of the British Empire, and as such is thus blatantly improbable.  Thorburn would never decide after 10 years of "officially sanctioned settlement" by Europeans, to "turf them out" and pay huge compensation for the improvements they had made (nothing of this nature in the way of compensation is recorded) - by then virtually all lots and concessions were settled.  Any such action would also go against the entire premise of creating a compact reserve where all Six Nations could be settled near one another.  There is nothing what so ever in the land records (Indian Affairs or County Registry) that any such action was contemplated or taken.  So we can dispense with the "de-surrendered" claim as, tactfully, without support.

The question is, why would a competent researcher (I have known the original researcher for numerous years and know that he is dedicated and thorough in this work) make such an outlandish claim of the land being "de-surrendered"?  The only reason that makes sense to me is that it allows all the land in both Townships to be classified as "contested", and as such gives leverage in allowing the land claim to remain open and so Six Nations are able to lean on developers (e.g., turbine power companies) to "accommodate" (come up with a cash "agreement").

b)  Dunn Township.  Inexplicably, the Six Nations Lands and Resources Department considers Dunn Township to be in another category, to the point where they did not submit a specific numbered claim, but rather included it under, "Potential Claims to be Researched".  Referring to their website here, it has been labelled, "Purported Surrender No. 38, Dunn Township and parts of  Moulton, Canborough, and Cayuga Townships - 50,212 acres".  The thrust here seems to be to assert that there were errors or corruption such that monies supposed to be deposited in the Six Nations Trust Fund went astray, and financial compensation is needed to resolve this issue.

What is evident here is that at least in part, the surrenders of the 1830s noted above, especially as they relate to South Cayuga, require verification of the facts pertaining to the land surrenders of the 1840s. These are fully summarized in the report of Joan Holmes and Associates, accepted into evidence by Justice Harrison Arrell of the Superior Court of Ontario in Brantford in 2009, as seen here.  It appears that the report may not have been intended for "public consumption" and was leaked.  The last time I attempted to access this report I had to use the html cached version - surely there was not an attempt to suppress the evidence?  Since by using primary source evidence the report essentially administers the coup de grace to any and all of the Six Nations land claims, it is indeed a crucial document.  I have to wonder why, 5 years after this monumental study was completely, has it not been released to the public?  Is it because at that point the citizens and taxpayers would then be apprised in one go of the bogus claims that have been made by Six Nations over the years and call into question much of what they assert (without evidence) to be true.  Politics of some description, but the public has the right to know when some group is consciously trying to pull the wool over their eyes and confuse them into believing the "party line", and in the process ripping off the taxpayers of Ontario and Canada.  Anyway, back to the turbines.

It should be noted that the above map provides a plan for the future, not what one would see today.  However, it is astounding how quickly plans become reality on the ground.  Completed turbines are primarily seen west of the Haldimand and Norfolk County borders.  However, a drive through South Cayuga and Dunn Townships will verify that construction work is well underway.

The Specifics of the Agreements Between Turbine Companies, Haldimand County and Six Nations:

Early (circa 2009) plans of Samsung to install upwards of 200 turbines on the north shore of Lake Erie are seen in the following article (viewed in full here).  Quotes follow.

The Ontario government said the two parties have been involved in "months of extraordinarily co-operative effort" toward an agreement that would involve billions of new investment, including in manufacturing facilities.

"Both Samsung C&T Corporation and the government of Ontario are pleased to confirm that efforts are progressing well toward the signing of a historic framework agreement," the government said in a statement.

"While the contents of the proposed agreement remain commercially sensitive, both parties can confirm that Samsung, one of the world's leading companies, proposes to establish a new renewable-energy business in Ontario."

Part of the plan calls for the erection of about 50 of the 200 turbines on sparsely populated forest and scrub lands belonging to Six Nations, near Dunnville, Ont., Chief Bill Montour said Sunday.

In relation to the statement which I bold printed, NO SUCH LAND EXISTS!  It is unclear whether Chief Montour is referring to lands in Dunn or South Cayuga Townships, but in neither are there any unceded lands of any description. 

An article (see here) reported that, On May 25 2012, Six Nations Band Councilor Bill Montour signed an agreement behind closed doors to create a 515-acre green energy park on Six Nations unceded lands on Sutor Rd. in Haldimand County- East of Hagersville and West of Dunnville . This will be a wind turbine power generation complex in Ontario, which will be the largest of its kind in the world.  However, Samsung C&T claims they have rights to the land because Ontario signed an agreement to lease the land to them. One problem is the 515 acre land in question is still under land dispute much  like Douglas Creek Estate Land Claim in Caledonia Ontario and Samsung did not receive permission from the traditional Haudenosaunee government in Six Nations to proceed with the project. The author of this article is seeking unity among Six Nations members to join and fight this environmental catastrophe.  While the author and I may not see eye to eye on other matters (e.g., the anti United Nations stance), with respect to the turbine matter, I am in complete agreement.

A good photo op, and the chance to put a good spin on this project just before the sod turning can be seen here.  The sod turning (actually acid producing and stomach turning) event for the Samsung "Grand Renewable Energy Park" (GREP) project took place in November 2013, as seen here.  The picture below from the Simcoe Reformer shows left to right, Haldimand Mayor Ken Hewitt, (former) Six Nations Elected Council Chief Bill Montour, and Korean and Samsung officials. 

Here is a description of what is planned:  Extensive wind turbine development on the west side of Haldimand has taken place over the past 12 months.  This will intensify now that South Korean industrial giant Samsung has begun work on the 250-megawatt Grand Renewable Energy Park.  The $1-billion project consists of 67 industrial wind turbines and a 736-acre solar park. South Cayuga is the focal point of the sprawling development.



Specifics of the Samsung Grand Renewable Energy Park (GREP) can be seen here.  Some pictures taken by the author 9 April 2014 of the area around the old RCAF hanger at the Dunnville Airport in Dunn Township, adjacent to South Cayuga Township, follow.





 

 

 

9 days later, on 18 April 2014, the following was observed at the same site - four completed turbines shown below taken from a position north of the RCAF hanger; with others in various stages of completion (not shown).

 

 

 

 





It is interesting to see who gets what out of the deal.  Six Nations will collect $65 million over 20 years. The province has sweetened the pot with an additional $10 million. Chief Bill Montour said his band council drove a hard bargain.  Some corporate crumbs were dropped along the way: 
Samsung also made a gift Thursday of 20 Samsung tablets to the students at Rainham Central Public School. As well, the company gave the RAF museum at the Dunnville Airport an authentic 1940 NA 64 Yale fighter-trainer. An inscription on the side says the plane “starr(e)d” in the movie Captain of the Clouds with James Cagney. Samsung donated the plane because the airport’s owners surrendered their landing and takeoff rights in exchange for hosting Samsung turbines.

So, how much will Haldimand County derive from the deal on the land within its boundaries?  One million dollars!  So 65 versus 1 million dollars, yet Six Nations does not have a single valid claim anywhere in the vicinity - yet reaps the benefits big time. 

Recently, in early 2014, there has been a recognition that the communities most effected, which would appear to be Walpole, South Cayuga and Dunn Townships, should receive some "mitigation" allotment.  Hence the Community Vibrancy Fund (CVF) has been established as follows: 

Council had previously said the intent of the vibrancy fund was to spend the majority of the money in the communities most affected. Last August, council agreed to spend 80 per cent of the CVF’s gross value of $37.9 million by 2016 in the wards affected by the green energy projects. The remaining 20 per cent could be spent elsewhere within the County.

The vibrancy fund was an agreement made between Haldimand County and the four major green energy companies in the County including Capital Power, NextEra, Samsung and Niagara Region Wind Corporation.

The contract would see the County receive about $2 million a year for the next 20 years, but in August, council agreed to borrow the money upfront and assign them to capital projects sooner.

So the areas where the turbines are in greatest profusion should in theory benefit the most with road paving projects or arenas.  However, being a bit cynical, what is to stop Council from "raiding" this fund to use in other areas of greater perceived need - such as the infrastructure for the mega scale McClung Road residential development?  See here for the article in the Sachem where the information is found.

Is it fair that Six Nations, whose territory is not being defiled, should receive the lions share of these deals?  Is there a reason why they should see a penny of Samsung money?  However fair does not factor into deals where there are "contested" land claims, even when they are only sham contested.  The bottom line is that the $65 million dollars should be going to mitigation projects in the Townships which are directly impacted - not to Six Nations who has no legitimate reason to be involved in these negotiations.  When it is proven in Court that in fact Six Nations has zero claim to this area, and has been aware of this since the 1970s and 1980s, will they be required to pay back the ill gotten gains?  Perhaps the expression, "fat chance" applies.  A thoroughly disgusted,

DeYo.



8th Anniversary of the Douglas Creek Estates "Reclamation": What Has Changed?

On 28 February 2006, a small group of Six Nations activists occupied the Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) housing development at the southern entrance to Caledonia, Ontario.  I don't think that they, or anyone else at the time, could have foreseen how this seemingly insignificant protest by what was largely a small group of Six Nations women, could have escalated into an act of infamy, destroying forever the harmonious relationship between members of the Six Nations Community, and members of the surrounding Communities off the Reserve - particularly Caledonia.

Certainly, the main impetus for the events of 2006 and beyond was a claim to lands along the Plank Road.  This is what lit the fuse.  None the less, the Federal Government maintains, as it has consistently done, that there is no valid claim.  The Provincial Government is caught in the middle.  The OPP tactics are still the same, "peacekeeper" thanks to the "Ipperwash Inquiry" - to "serve and protect" went out the window in Haldimand with the "rule of law" and has yet to return to pre 2006 days.  Stuck in a rut.  Spinning wheels.  Passing the buck.  Local Haldimand County officials are powerless.  Local residents angry and afraid and wondering whether it is possible to return to normal; and even what normal is.  Driving by the site of DCE, the same mess is there as seen in 2006.  A hideous southern entrance to Caledonia.  It would appear then that nothing has changed.  At one level that is true, but upon closer inspection we see quite a few changes that are noteworthy.

I will present only a short summary of events, since there is ample data reported within the 90 postings to this blog.  However, if one wished to get a sense of what transpired between 2006 and 2010, probably the best single source of information is Christie Blatchford's book, Helpless: Caledonia's Nightmare of Fear and Anarchy, and How the Law Failed All of Us, Doubleday Canada, Toronto, 2010.  In her book Blatchford focuses on the sufferings on those residing closest to the DCE, and how the rule of law disappeared, leaving them to cope in a situation where a 911 call would bring no response (safety, medical, fire). 

There are those who see Blatchford's book as "racist", and who have even prevented her from speaking at University campuses (the supposed bastion of free speech), and who are clearly afraid of, or ignorant of, the truth.  In the days since 28 February 2006, Six Nations and their supporters, the latter largely drawn from the Sociology, Political Science, and History Departments of local Universities, as well as union supporters (Canadian Union of Public Employees and others), as well as radical groups of every stripe such as the pro - Palestinian (and vehemently anti - Semitic) groups, have done everything in their power to silence "the opposition".  Anyone who challenges the perspective of Six Nations is labelled a "racist" or similar epithet.  A book which reflects the views of these leftist groups is by Laura DeVries, Conflict in Caledonia: Aboriginal Land Rights and the Rule of Law, UBC Press, Vancouver, 2011.  Instead of interviewing the local residents who suffered by virtue of the criminal behavior on the part of Six Nations radicals, she interviewed the radicals themselves, apparently perceiving that they were long aggrieved victims merely defending "rights" which had been ignored by the Federal Government.  The events were then woven into various theories (actually dogma) used by academics to radicalize students and indoctrinate them into politically correct leftist ideology. 

A more "user friendly" effort, with ample pictures, and presenting the Six Nations viewpoint is Lynda Powless, Douglas Creek Reclamation: A Pictorial History, Turtle Island News, Ohsweken, 2006.  It provides what some might say constitutes a very radical take on the land rights controversy - heavily laden with "rights" and nothing about "responsibility".  So, comparing the first work with the latter two, we see the operation of very different perspectives.  

What has occurred between 28 February 2006 and 28 February 2014 is part of the historical record, but the question here is, in 8 years what has changed, what has been resolved, what is still outstanding?  The discussion can be divided into two parts:  Effect on Haldimand County, and effect on Six Nations. 

Haldimand County - Living Under a Cloud of Uncertainty:  In the Sachem issue of 20 March 2014, is found an article entitled, Douglas Creek Estates: The economic impact eight years later (p.4).  The reporter, Jennifer Vo, subtitles the article, While some see reason for optimism, others see only uncertainty eight years after Caledonia land claim protest.  The article focuses on the climate for economic development.  While Major Ken Hewitt talks about being, "positioned well for the future", he also notes that there are "challenges".  It is expected that the Mayor is going to try to put a positive spin on things, that is his role.  It is, however, difficult to dismiss the reality of people who have been unable to sell their property due to the fear that the land title is not secure.  The owner of the "Grand Island Bar B-Q" falls into this category since his property is under direct threat of action by Six Nations since they registered a claim (effectively a lien) against his property in Dunnville in 1995.  To this date, the matter is unresolved leaving the owner in the lurch. 

More common are the owners of property that has yet to be developed.  There is always the veiled threat of "action" should they build anything on their property.  As an extreme example, Gene Ruzsa abandoned a 56 acre proposed residential property development in 2006 as the implications of the events in Caledonia became clear.  As a consultant he now advises his customers to look elsewhere for investment opportunities, "because the land claims are not settled".  He realizes that developers could seek "anticipatory injunctions" against work stoppages by Six Nations, but that the way things work today, some sort of "agreement" with them is needed before any guarantee of "smooth sailing" can be expected.  Uncertainty is a definite buzz killer for anyone contemplating relocating to Haldimand, and developers worry that Ontario will not stand behind its Land Registry title system.  As Haldimand-Norfolk MPP Toby Barrett has said, "Unfortunately, people in the housing business have lost confidence that their buying and selling of land has the full support of government when there's native activists involved".  There are no such issue in for example Oakville or Welland.  Their fears are justified in that Lonny Bomberry, the Six Nations Lands and Resources legal advisor has said, "Our mandate is to be accommodated - whatever that accommodation turns out to be".  Hence, uncertainty.  Whether the Lands and Resources people have a leg to stand on (they don't) is of no consequence, they know that they can halt development by sending in a few vans full of "activists" and the message is received, something like, "play the game by our rules and the problems will vanish, your choice".  The law is irrelevant here if it is not applied via injunctions and fines levied against the illegal protesters.

Mayor Ken Hewitt is very clear in his expectation that the Crown (Federal Government) needs to take responsibility for "accommodation" or whatever is needed to get legal issues settled.  He said, "As a county, [accommodation] is not something that we support".  Furthermore, "I don't believe that development or communities or infrastructure should be held at ransom to achieve those goals".

Mayor Hewitt is entirely correct.  It is the Federal Government whose responsibility it is to state emphatically that there is no validity to any of these land claims.  Their researchers know the specific dates when each township or part of same was ceded (all before 1848) and could provide the references to the Council Minutes where the relevant land was discussed and agreement reached (in the 1840s).  So to this very day, although the land was alienated, sold, surrendered, ceded or however you want to express it, the perception is that it is still "contested".  If there is one outstanding matter related to these parcels of land, it is how the monies derived from their sale were dispersed - which would involve a study of the Six Nations Trust Fund - a prodigious task that may have already been completed by the Federal Government - it would be helpful to know one way or the other.

8 years later the residents of Haldimand have no reason to trust that the Ontario Provincial Police will come to their assistance - it is more likely now in 2014, but not assured.  There is a very evident two tiered policing system with a double standard with one set of rules for natives and another for locals.  If your are a local, and you are at a rally over say illegal smoke huts or the right to carry a Canadian flag in front of the DCE property you will be hauled away in a paddy wagon.  Meanwhile no native is ever arrested at a rally, and there are Confederacy and Mohawk Warrior flags everywhere in the vicinity of DCE.  No, it is not fair.  Something about the rule of law, one law for all - that goes out the door in Haldimand and that has not changed.  If anyone doubts that this double standard exists, please read the book by Gary McHale, Victory in the No-Go Zone: Winning the Fight Against Two-Tier Policing, Toronto, Freedom Press, 2013.

Six Nations - Empowerment Due to a Series of Enablers:  Right now there is an up side and a down side (Haldimand County, entirely down side) to the circumstances in which they now find themselves 8 years after they decided to "reclaim" DCE.

First, the down side.  Since 2006 a festering problem at Six Nations has become much much worse.  While in the early days of the Six Nations tenure on the Grand River there were swirling cross currents of factionalism (e.g., Upper vs. Lower Mohawk; Christians vs. Longhouse), after 1924 the primary factions were the Elected and the Hereditary Councils.  While in 1924 the Elected Council was recognized by the Federal Government as the legitimate governing unit, the Hereditary Council still held considerable power with the ability to influence circumstances at Six Nations.  The intransigence of the two, never being able to see eye to eye and always disagreeing on just about any matter, now pales in comparison with the number of "new groups" that have emerged since 2006, each claiming to represent this or that segment of the population (or the whole population).  So now we have the Six Nations Elected Council (SNEC), the Hereditary Confederacy Chiefs Council (HCCC), the Mohawks of the Grand River (formerly the Mohawk Workers, or Kanata Mohawks), the Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI), Men's Fire, Women's Fire and so on. 

2006 showed Six Nations that they could push the envelope, which they did at every opportunity, and frequently no one would say no.  During the negotiations with the Ontario Government subsequent to the "reclamation", former Premier David Peterson hammered out a deal where Six Nations would get 250 acres, the former Burtch Correctional Centre, on lands that were "contested" (Burch Tract, ceded in 1848).  The only stipulation was that the Caledonia barricades be removed, the burned out big rig trailer removed and the site made to look less like a war zone.  Well, 8 years later the barricades are still in place, and last I heard the Government was cleaning up the Burtch site of contaminants before giving it to Six Nations.  Actually a problem surfaced here.  The Government did not know who to hand over the land to since the then "Mohawk Workers" claimed it was Mohawk land and that they had the rights to the property.  A swirling ball of confusion.  The various levels of governments have maintained that due to the infighting / factionalism at Six Nations they did not know who to negotiate with.  On paper it was SNEC, but HCCC was asserting their rights.  For a while, the former backed away but legally the government could not turn over assets to a body that was not legally recognized.

In the meanwhile, emerging out of the HCCC was the HDI with the Interim Director perhaps the most radical of the radicals, and the legal advisor someone claiming to be Mohawk, but who is unknown to most in the Community.  Anyway, they went about strong arming developers into paying an application fee to ensure there would be no work stoppages (yes that is what the Mafia does), and collected monies that have disappeared into a fund or who knows what.  They even claim the right to send monitors to every archaeological site within the (fraudulent) Nanfan Treaty area (basically all of Southwestern Ontario), in addition to the "official" monitors from SNEC who were trained by the archaeological regulatory body in Ontario.  More money please.  Also any development in this area such as an expansion of Hydro One's transmission lines, or the establishment of wind turbines, all require HDI approval (they demand to be consulted - as their right).  Recently they have been hampered by Court injunctions and fines imposed due to illegal work stoppages in Brantford, Cayuga and Hagersville.  The recent fines have been so stiff, and the individual protesters are responsible for paying, that HDI may be faltering on this score. 

It appears that post 2006 no one was going to ask the "hard questions", such as the validity of the Nanfan Treaty or the claim of ownership of unceded land up and down the Haldimand Tract.  Thus every time, for example, a power company was about to begin work (e.g., at Port Ryerse well outside the Haldimand Tract) on setting up wind turbines, Six Nations would demand to be "consulted", sending in vans of goons if necessary, and typically the companies yielded to Six Nations rationalizing that the payouts were just the cost of doing business.  As to lands within the old Haldimand Tract boundaries, Six Nations had the gall to claim that Provincially owned land (originally expropriated from the farmers in whose family the land had been for generations), and that around the old Royal Canadian Air Force base in Dunnville, was all unceded land.  It was ceded in the 1840s but once again, it was probably perceived that "making a fuss" by taking the matter to Court would only result in bad publicity and Court costs so everyone (Provincial Government and developer such as Samsung) just ponied up and now one sees clusters of huge earth movers and a constant stream of gravel trucks behind the old hanger at the former RCAF base.  No mystery as to what will rise toward the sky in a few months.

Since 2006 Six Nations members have learned that they can often claim land owned by third party legal owners, they can make the lives of the owners or residents entirely miserable by harassing them with ATVs sans mufflers, using high powered spotlights, requiring Canadian citizens to show Six Nations passports to access their own lands, issue arbitrary curfews to locals, and the Ontario Provincial Police are brought to a standstill due to policies arising out of the "Ipperwash Inquiry".  Any attempt by local residents to gather and defend themselves or their neighbours will bring forth a thin blue line of OPP officers who will face the local residents.  So in the crazy world of this area post 2006, the OPP are there to protect the Six Nations and their Communist and other supporters - actually facing the locals - meaning that they are the designated potential perpetrators.  Thus the OPP act as enablers, allowing activists to basically do what they want, and like little children, keep pushing, testing the limits - there are no limits outside of serious assault (e.g., Sam Gualtieri who was left permanently brain damaged by protesters who broke into his daughter's home and beat him unconscious).  Six Nations have learned that they can laugh at the residents, taunt them, disrespect and disobey police officers, and even shout profanities in Court (as in Cayuga) where normally talk above a whisper results in ejection by the bailiff.  Six Nations at the trial of a protester, different standard, no response from the Court.

Since 2006 some Six Nations have used the opportunity (since there will be no consequences) to set up illegal smoke huts (selling contraband cigarettes), and unregulated food establishments (no permits, no inspections) on private property (e.g., Hydro One land).  The flaunting of the law goes on because it is not challenged.  Any challenges tend to be limp wristed and without teeth (e.g., the ability to shut down an illegal "restaurant").

So now around here Six Nations are in the driver's seat - although Bill C-10 which will crack down on contraband tobacco will have a serious adverse impact on Six Nations, and despite all the bluster, there is nothing they can do about it.

The irony is that prior to 2006 Six Nations had a lot of support in relation to land claims, if not locally, at least among those far enough away not to be able to see that they are not victims.  Now support is dwindling, and the Federal Government has now come out with direct statements that there is no valid claim over land, it was all ceded in the 1840s.  Also they nor their Provincial counterparts will have nothing to do with expropriating land owned by a private third party.  The only thing left is the claims over "costs" - money, that may have been misappropriated from the Six Nations Trust Fund 170 or so years ago.  Since 2006 the Federal Government attempted to settled a claim about flooding of Six Nations land in the 1830s by the Dunnville Dam and Welland Feeder Canal.  Some seem to forget that by the mid 1840s none of this land belonged to Six Nations.  At any rate, the Federal Government offered to settle this for about $125 million dollars!  Incredibly the offer was rejected by the legal council for the HDI with the counter demand for one billion dollars!  Recall that the legally recognized body at Six Nations, SNEC, had turned over land negotiations to HCCC, whose activist arm the HDI took it upon themselves to speak for all Six Nations.

It appears that this was the time for a missed opportunity for Six Nations.  Due to the circumstances they had a great deal of leverage to obtain redress for matters that stand on a shaky leg, but they could have used the desire of all levels of government to show that they were acting in good faith and "cashed in" - the best example being the "Feeder Canal" claim.  Now that door has been effectively closed, and millions if not billions of dollars are likely now out of reach.  Considering the mega dollars in costs to the Canadian taxpayer resulting from events of 2006 to 2014 (Caledonia was known as "Cashedonia" to the OPP officers who were paid big overtime dollars), it is truly amazing that citizens are not going to question the disbursement of these funds.

Another area where Six Nations had an opening to work with local developers to obtain funding for projects that will be difficult to make fly otherwise - lost.  An example, the McKenzie Meadows Development across the road from DCE.  Here last year representatives from SNEC had quietly worked with the developer and hammered out a deal which would see money from each unit constructed on the site go towards a language immersion school.  The school would have addressed the wishes of the most "conservative" element at Six Nations (HCCC) for more language (Mohawk and Cayuga) and culture instruction in the curriculum.  The group heading this initiative had three open meetings for Community members to provide feedback, and despite the dismal turnout at each of these well advertised events, HCCC supporters (who would ironically have been most likely to benefit from this endeavor) ensured that the deal was cancelled.  It all seems so self - destructive.

Hopefully if there is a concept of justice which does apply in Haldimand, the true costs to taxpayers arising from events of 2006 to 2014, and the payouts from developers for unwarranted costs arising out of assertion of fraudulent Nanfan Treaty rights, and from lands that were ceded in the 1840s, will be tallied up.  Then when the matter of potential Six Nations Trust Fund irregularities dating back to the 1830s (Grand River Navigation Company claim) are assessed, that the taxpayer costs are deducted from any monies owed.  One wonders whether it would be wisest to simply dispense with all claims to this or that dating back 170 years.  It is highly likely that when all is tallied that Six Nations owes many millions of dollars back to the Canadian taxpayer - with interest.  It is the old can of worms problem, and the solution is sometimes to "let sleeping dogs lie".  Does one really want to "awaken the sleeping giant" and in the process be in debt up to the collective eyeballs.

Some Afterthoughts:  The date of 20 April 2006 is another which will go down in history - actually it was even more significant.  It is the date of the failed OPP attempt to oust the protesters (who had been causing a great deal of harm especially to those who lived in the south end of Caledonia), and the "operation" was an abject failure.  If only, if only ..................... if only a local person was there and would remind them that nothing will work this close to the Rez unless Stirling Street and the 6th line are blocked so reinforcements would be unable to arrive.  The sheer mass of protesters doomed the OPP action.  It is interesting that the above Lynda Powless said that this was, "the day that the peace died".  That is true, but there is so much more.  All that can be read in the "Reclamation" book is accolades of pride in what Six Nations accomplished.  Indeed, even old foes came together, overcoming the bane of political life at Six Nations - factionalism.  Unity, at least for one day.  But at what cost?

I think it worth noting that despite the wanton destruction of property, and the physical and psychological abuse doled out to the residents of Haldimand, not one voice has been heard uttering the words "sorry" or "regret".  Considering the magnitude of the circumstances and their effect on Haldimand, this is indeed a very telling observation.  The citizens of Haldimand are victims, Six Nations do not necessarily deny this, with the anger more properly directed toward the Ontario Provincial Police (who initiated the botched raid), the Provincial or Federal Governments - but it is friends, neighbours, relatives who have borne the brunt of the conflagration.  No one in authority at Six Nations has the decency or common courtesy to acknowledge that those most directly impacted were those who deserved nothing like what was dished out to them.  Local residents were targeted not just by thugs, and outside agitators but by supposedly responsible prominent members of the Six Nations Community - there are scars that will never go away - I cannot for a minute believe that if the tables were reversed that the residents of Haldimand would have behaved in such a callous manner.  Why, under these circumstances should there be forgiveness.  There is no apparent remorse.  You don't forgive someone who doesn't acknowledge that they did anything wrong. 

DeYo.

Ontario Taxpayers Held Hostage by Six Nations Over Hydro Transmission Lines

During the violent, anarchic, "reclamation" of the land where Douglas Creek Estates was situated, Hydro One's local assets were affected, and furthermore the Province of Ontario's power transmission capability was adversely impacted.  First, as part of the initial phase of occupation beginning 28 February 2006, a Hydro One tower at the southern end of Caledonia was demolished.  Perhaps the tower was cut from the top of what is left of the base of the tower seen below, situated north of where Argyll Street in Caledonia merges with the Highway 6 Caledonia bypass - just west of another smoke shack (now a heap of rubble, replaced by a trailer) on what appears to be Hydro One property.  Picture taken April 2014.



The tower was used as a convenient barricade to completely block Argyll Street (old Highway 6, the Plank Road), as shown in the picture below.  This was to be one of many unpunished acts of defiance against the laws of the land, and against the people of Ontario (most particularly citizens of Haldimand and Norfolk Counties) during and subsequent to the 2006 incident.

 

 

Later, the remnants of this "symbol of resistance" was turned to block the entrance to the Douglas Creek Estates, and was severed in two to allow restricted and controlled passage of vehicles to the site - then and now occupied by Six Nations members.  What you will see today, at the southern entrance to the town of Caledonia, is shown in the picture below.  Here can be seen two parts of the mangled Hydro tower, the one on the left adorned with a Confederacy flag under which can be seen the "gate house", and the one on the right festooned with a Mohawk Warriors flag.  Residents have been forced to live with this eye sore for 8 years.  While enduring a situation of this nature probably seems ludicrous to many, in this neck of the woods it is a "Native issue", the attitude is, "hands off, and maybe it will magically disappear".

 

 

 

Returning to the matter in relation to Hydro One and taxpayer dollars, I well recall seeing a security vehicle, with two security personnel in it, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and installed at the small Hydro One substation at the south end of the Douglas Creek Estates on Argyll Street.  This was subsequent to a pickup truck backing into the substation and setting a number of arson fires there - blowing out a transformer, with the result that the power went out to much of Caledonia.  There was fear of further terrorist attacks on the power supply to residents, so to their credit Hydro One felt it necessary to provide round the clock security.  This substation as it looks today is seen below.



Immediately across the road is an illegal contraband cigarette hut and an unregulated hamburger stand, both installed by Six Nations members, on Hydro One land.  So from 2006 until (I believe) 2012, this service was added to the tally of expenses directly attributable to the "reclamation" of land that had been ceded 17 October 1845 by 66 Six Nations Chiefs in Council, and to which Six Nations has and had since that date no claim of any valid description.  Needless to say, this is something of an inconvenient truth since elements at Six Nations continue to maintain, without evidence, that the land is theirs.

What is not well known, and I must plead ignorance on this subject until it came to my attention recently, is that Hydro towers still figure prominently in the ongoing (yes, it has never stopped) protest over various "rights" that Six Nations claim (the validity of these rights is apparently irrelevant to Six Nations).  During the 2006 protest, the Mohawk Warriors, whose "headquarters" is at the Akwesasne Reserve near Cornwall, stopped Hydro One workers from climbing up the tower line extending from Niagara Falls.  To this day workers have been unable to do their job and string transmission wires, leaving the towers as another forlorn reminder of how a radical few can hold all of the citizens of Ontario hostage.  As time marches on it becomes more evident that no one will act to bring justice to the area which has already seen a litany of outrageous illegal acts, where the Ontario Provincial Police have been powerless to do their duties to "serve and protect" - other than to serve and protect the "protesters".

 

So a stalemate has been reached, millions of taxpayer dollars have been lost, and life goes on with most largely oblivious to but yet another example of how the radical few dictate terms to the impotent Government of Ontario.

 

So what is the status of this situation today?  We can pick up the thread in 2011 where miles of giant metal towers marching from Niagara Falls now stand as sentinels near Caledonia, bare without the high tension wires that should be connecting them - with downstream dead wires going nowhere.  A 76 kilometre stretch of line in the grid needed to ensure adequate MW capacity levels between Niagara Falls and New York and Ontario is now entirely in limbo.  The towers are all in place, all that is needed is to link them to the grid via finishing the act of stringing the wires by Hydro One workers - as they should look below. 

 

                                                                         

 

Our Hydro bills are already astronomical, and if predictions of doubling or tripling the rates due to the Liberal Government's "Green Energy" policy prove correct, this problem in "Indian Country" is going to amplify the problem. Ironically this Liberal Government initiative that has a "nice ring to it", may create many times the problems that would occur if the clean energy from falling water flowing through tunnels at Niagara Falls were to be transported to where it is needed. As Conservative MPP for Haldimand - Norfolk, Toby Barrett, said, "The native people that I have talked to, Mohawks, have come out to a number of the wind tower meetings in opposition very forceful and with strong opposition to what's going on in Haldimand County as far as wind towers." See here for the article in which this statement appears. The irony is that the issue is over land and which, as seen in my most recent posting, does not belong to Six Nations - despite what the "warriors" may say or believe. It should be noted that there are environmentalists at Six Nations who would put their relationship with the land and its resources, including human and animal, above the grab for easy money. Few are naive enough to think that "green energy" comes free of environmental impact - the millions of birds, dead and mutilated by the unfeeling arms of these monster turbines cannot be denied, and is "collateral damage" for "going green".

 

How important is this transport system from Niagara Falls which comes to a dead halt in Caledonia?  The following is a statement from Hydro One was issued just before the Caledonia "reclamation" brought everything in the area to a halt:  "This project will increase the power transfer capability between Niagara Falls and the rest of Ontario by about 800 megawatts," a Hydro One manager said. "That's about the equivalent of a new generating unit at Darlington."  Once again it is the Conservatives, MPP Toby Barrett, who are keeping light shining on the problem, as seen in the article here.  That is a huge amount of power that is going nowhere - and for five years "we" have tolerated this absurdity!

 

To be fair, and to ensure that all Six Nations are not tarred with the same brush, it is "only" a group of "militants", or "warriors" who are creating the problem.  Alas, I have not heard a word from anyone on the Elected or Hereditary Council condemning the actions of these "warriors".

 

The "problem", which has existed since 2006, was unknown to Liberal Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGinty, five years later as seen here. As can be seen in this article, Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak has been keeping this matter before the public eye, but the Liberal Government has, as with Caledonia 2006, done everything in its power to do nothing, and if that doesn't work, just quietly pay "compensation" to those citizens who are most vocal, trying, it would appear, to keep the whole "Indian problem" swept under the carpet.  Mr. Hudak made a very poignant comment here that, "Some leadership should be shown on this file after six years of paralysis and a total abdication of rule of law. Those towers, those lines should be carrying electricity, not flying Mohawk warrior flags."

 

In 2012 Gary McHale, the irrepressible vocal activist for the local community of Haldimand drew up papers to bring Hydro One to Court to answer charges that they have neglected to allow anyone (he had offered) to clean up Hydro One's crumpled tower.  It is now used as a barricade, but now serves as a set of ornate metal gate posts to enter Douglas Creek Estates, opening on the scenic gatehouse (wood chip pressboard shack) leading down to the manor house seen in the distance (the one building of a half dozen that Six Nations members and their supporters did not wantonly destroy), serviced with utilities paid for at taxpayer expense.  Yes, ironic, no one cut off the juice!  See the newspaper article here for more information about Mr. McHale's initiative.  The present author is unaware of the status of this challenge by Mr. McHale (seen in the picture below).

 

 



 

The Provincial opposition party has continued to keep the heat on in relation to this subject.  Now that Mr. McGinty has resigned in disgrace as Premier of the Province of Ontario, Kathleen Wynne has replaced him until such time as an election is called.  In exploring some of the recent Provincial Government discussion about matters before the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, I came across the information seen here, and dating to 28 August 2012.  Here Mr. Barrett discusses the issues at Six Nations and sees a pattern going back 200 years.  Specifically, he provided a history of the Six Nations and brought things to modern times saying,

 

"As we all know, things morphed into an awful lot of other issues: policing issues, justice issues, issues of democracy itself, governmental issues, how we deal with this, and, of course, road closures and the mayhem and what we see down there. The burned-out tractor-trailer still sits at the entrance of that subdivision that has been occupied for the last six and a half years. I know the Premier made it very clear a few months ago that he considers it an alleged occupation. The barricades are still up, in spite of the fact that Mr. Peterson struck an agreement—I assume it was a verbal agreement—that the barricades come down in return for transfer of land, transfer of the Burtch property in Brant county."

 

He also said,

 

"These issues are passed on to the next guy. I see that in my readings of history—the thought processes that I went through and I saw other people going through. Just with Caledonia alone, I could see the same kinds of deliberations being made 200 years ago—we were a colony at that time—by civil authorities. In many cases, I could see the strategy of delay, the strategy of secrecy and, quite simply, Chair, oftentimes to leave it for the next guy or the next gal." 

 

Indeed, and so what are the chances that anything is going to happen any time soon - as close to zero as one can fathom.

 

So the hydro tower at the entrance way to the former Douglas Creek Estates property has not been removed by Six Nations despite an explicit promise that they would.  Turning over the former Burtch Correctional property would be tantamount to giving in to blackmailers, or to those who are, as the expression goes, "Indian givers" where the properties both at the DCE and the Burtch Tract were ceded in 1845 and 1848 respectively, and 170 years later we are submitting to those who will not acknowledge well documented history.  Why would the barricades (hydro tower) come down, why would the "warriors" allow Hydro One to install the wire to complete the line from Niagara Falls and reduce the burden on taxpayers, why indeed.  There is no incentive.  By playing "the game" to ensure that any legitimate action taken by the Government or police would simply play into the perception that Six Nations are victims, and are still victims - no action is needed.  The facts speak clearly and loudly, but if no one is willing to listen to the truth, we are in sad sad shape.  But I digress.

What I do not see in 2014 is any encampment around the hydro towers.  Hence why are Hydro One crews not entering the premises (which is not Reserve land!), which is in fact the Hydro right of way, in order to do their job - stringing wires on the transmission towers.  If they feel threatened in any way, they can call the Ontario Provincial Police and request an escort.  It is quite nippy out now, and the "warriors" may be disinclined to leap into action in any numbers when the weather is cold.  As a preemptive measure, Hydro One should seek a Court Injunction from the Ontario Superior Court in Cayuga.  If the "warriors" are arrested, charged, and heavily fined for engaging in illegal actions, the "protest" may evaporate quickly.  If not this would be an ideal time to then take the Land Claim matter in general to Court.  Justice Harrison Arrell of the Brantford Ontario Superior Court has already given a preliminary ruling that Six Nations have a "very weak" / "exceedingly weak" case in relation to land claims in the Haldimand Tract.  So this would be the time to clear the books on this lingering festering sore spot that will never go away - unless firm action is taken.

 

Some further visuals include the forlorn line of towers on the east side of Highway 6, without cables, photographed from Argyll Street in Caledonia, stretching east toward Niagara Falls.  Picture taken April 2014.

 

 



The tower below is on the west side of Highway 6, taken 19 April 2014.

 



 

So, bottom line, the 116 million dollar project has failed to proceed, and no one is being held accountable. Millions of dollars lost, and the eventually tally will have to be placed in the lap of Six Nations whose members, on behalf of the Community, initiated this situation. It is Ontario taxpayer's money they are playing with, not Monopoly money, so someone needs to pay up.  If not now, later, when for example negotiations proceed over irregularities in the monies deposited in the Six Nations Trust fund.  Here the costs to the taxpayers of Ontario in general, as well as to individuals and corporations, arising from the 2006 Caledonia "reclamation" will need to be deducted from any monies potentially owed.

 

DeYo.



 



Sovereignty and the Fiction of the Two Row Wampum, Treaty Rights and the Fraudulent Nanfan Treaty of 1701, and False Land Claims in the Haldimand Tract: A Summary to Date

This blog has only been "in operation" since October of 2013, so with the passing of five months and 88 postings in this time, what are the topics that have emerged as "favourites", at least in terms of number of views?  Clearly those that strike an emotional chord, including those which delve into controversy, have emerged as the most popular.  The "big three" have been identified and each will be reviewed and expanded with new information and visual support.  With each there is a common thread involving the enormity of the discrepancy between what is asserted by Six Nations (and often believed by the public), and what the factual evidence shows.  A good sense of what perceptions and beliefs are prevalent at Six Nations can be found in reading information in the Six Nations Council website as seen here, and the two local newspapers, namely the Turtle Island News, and the Two Row Times.

So it is time to review what I have written about the facts in relation to three "hot button" topics whose importance at Six Nations cannot be underestimated - the truth has the potential to relegate Six Nations to the status of a "general community" in the Province of Ontario, with few rights and entitlements other than those enjoyed by all Canadians.  There is a huge investment in promoting the "accepted" view of the data - and not questioning what is "already known".  The present author is primarily interested in the truth, the consequences of the knowledge is secondary.

In the following overview, I will include selected key references.  In previous blog postings more extensive referencing has been provided, and the reader interested in delving further into this matter is encouraged to sift through the archives of this blog (relevant posting listed below) to find more detail.  The goal here is to tweak the curiosity of those who have just recently "found" this blog.  My hope is that those who find the evidence sufficient to question the assumptions current at Six Nations today will "spread the word", and allow fact - based evidence to overpower entrenched beliefs such that the truth emerges.

The three most important topics in this context are sovereignty and the Two Row Wampum, treaty rights guaranteed by the Nanfan Treaty of 1701, plus legal rights to land throughout the Haldimand Tract.

1)  SOVEREIGNTY -  Two Row Wampum (Guswhenta), the Treaty of Tawagonshi 1613, and the Covenant Chain Agreement of 1676-77:  Many Six Nations claim that they are a sovereign people who had a nation to nation relationship with the British Crown, and since 1867 with the Federal Government of Canada.  Hence a nation within a nation.  It is the view of many that they were and are allies of the Crown and its successors, and as such are independent and thus not subject to the laws imposed by the Government of Canada.  The foundation upon which this belief rests is described below.

An agreement was supposedly made between those of the "Long House" (four signers) and the Dutch of New Netherlands (two signers).  The latter arrived in the Colony in 1609, but had little presence there until 1614 with the establishment of Fort Orange (later Albany).  This "agreement" is supposedly the foundation for all other agreements with European governments, including the Covenant Chain Agreement of 1676-77 enacted between the Five Nations and the British (who captured New Amsterdam in 1664).  The document appears to be a trade agreement, not a treaty.

The present author has blogged about this subject previously.  From the earliest to the most recent postings, please see here, here, and here.

The evidence or facts which are brought forward in support of this agreement is a document dated to 1613 written in Dutch, oral history, and a wampum belt made primarily of white beads, but including two "stripes" of purple beads (the more valuable of the two colours) which form five parallel stripes running the length of the belt.  The topic is of such interest to scholars and local historians that an entire issue of the Journal of Early American History (August 2013) was devoted to this subject.  These articles can be viewed here.

The real question here is whether there was ever a "Two Row Wampum" agreement, and whether, even if it could be proved that such an agreement did at one time exist, it would apply as interpreted by Six Nations today.

First, prior to 1968 a Dutch scholar, a Professor Van Loon, apparently was given a manuscript or document located among the Mississauga of the New Credit (a Reserve with adjoins the Six Nations of the Grand River Reserve) by a Van Loon relative who was supposed to be an Indian Department official (unverified to date).  It was written in Dutch, and dated to 21 April 1613.  It is a trade agreement between the newly arrived Dutch, and the "native inhabitants" (people of the "Long House") signed at Tawagonshi (a hill near what is today Albany). However, recognized experts in the history of New Netherlands and the Colonial Dutch language have examined the document and, with the exception of one respected historian (Venables), found a number of "irregularities".  For example, it is written in a mixture of modern Dutch and early Dutch, with an implement not available in those times.  In what is essentially a consensus, scholars such as Gehring, Starna and Fenton view the document as a fake or hoax.  The provenance of the various copies existing today is largely unknown.  While Van Loon stated that the original given to him was two pages in parchment, no such item has surfaced to date, despite extensive searches in North America and the Netherlands, although photocopies do survive. Van Loon was known to have forged other documents, thereby calling into question the authenticity of the document on that basis alone. 

Also, supposedly scholarly research shows no recognizably Mohawk names found on the document, and the only Native words included are place names in the Hudson Valley. However, I am not so sure.  As seen in the document below there are a wolf, a turtle and what appear to be two bear totems beside which are Indian (apparently Iroquoian based on my experience) names - all presented in a typical format for an agreement or treaty.  The names of these four "chiefs of the Long House" signers are:  Garhat Jannie, Caghneghsattakegh, Otskwiragerongh, and Teyoghswegengh.  The present author independently recorded the names before reading the accompanying article, based on the supposed copy of the original document shown below, and arrived at interpretations very close to the above.  All are consistent with the orthography of Iroquoian names to this day.

It should be noted that at this time the Mahicans were a powerful force in the area and in a state of war with the Mohawk, who would not obtain the "edge" over their enemies until about 1630 or later. It does not make a lot of historical sense that the Dutch would make a treaty of this nature at this time with the weaker of the two contenders (at the time the Mahicans resided in the immediate vicinity and succeeded in keeping the Mohawk from having exclusive or prefered access to the Dutch markets).

The question as to how the Mississauga would have possession of this document and have preserved it, considering their turbulent history since 1613, is important. To be fair though, the descendants of Jacob Brant, son of Captain Joseph Brant who was the most influential Mohawk of all time, reside at New Credit to this day. However there is no evidence that the Dutch had any contact at all with others of the Five Nations at this time, so to say that it was an agreement between the Haudenosaunee and the Dutch is really stretching the credibility of those who have any even rudimentary knowledge of Colonial American history.  At any rate the document, shown below, apparently a photocopy (but conforming to the two page parchment description given by Van Loon), is now in the possession of the Onondaga of Upstate New York, the traditional keepers of the wampum for the Five (later Six) Nations.  The manuscript is truly an enigma!  However interesting this item is, I fail to see any way that a trade agreement between two recent arrivals to New Netherlands, and four native occupants, could be amplified into evidence of sovereignty by the Haudenosaunee.  The tie in here completely eludes my ability to comprehend its significance.



Many Haudenosaunee believe that even if the document is a complete fabrication, this does not diminish the robust oral history connected with the document or the story the document appears to convey.  Oral history is certainly one line of potential enquiry but it tends to be the softest form of evidence due to the fact that human memory is subject to known distortions.  Considering the disruptions in Iroquoia since 1613 with the loss of more than half of the population due to disease and warfare, sometimes removing the keepers of such knowledge from the Mohawk villages, there is scant likelihood that specific details about a puzzling piece of paper will have survived to the present day.  The more realistic scenario is that a story was made up to construct facts useful to the promotion of Six Nations sovereignty - rather than "merely" trade, which is the purpose of the supposed agreement.  The Onondaga's claim that the oral tradition that accompanies the document noted below attests to the validity of the latter.  It is entirely unclear though as to how the information was transferred by the Mohawk to the Onondaga, or how in some very enigmatic way, the Onondaga have kept this information alive and intact for 400 years.  Also one must question how the latter have come to obtain specific information about an obscure item that did not come into their possession until 1978.  Oral history / tradition, is really quite dangerous without supporting evidence since the possibility of "creating a convenient version of history" is an ever present danger.  It is unclear whether the purported 1613 document is an independent source, and whether the story was simply a recollection of what the Onondaga were told when assigned custody of the document.  Since the oral tradition cannot be cross validated with other evidence sources it cannot be taken at face value except by "believers" who are not likely to be swayed by any rational arguments.

I find it very interesting that the Haudenosaunee tradition also includes the following words that seem very "convenient" in light of present controversies - especially since the words stand without support except in belief.  The oral tradition supposedly says that, You say that you are our Father and I am your Son. We say 'We will not be like Father and Son, but like Brothers.' This wampum belt confirms our words. [...] Neither of us will make compulsory laws or interfere in the internal affairs of the other. Neither of us will try to steer the other's vessel."

The third source used by Six Nations to "validate" the concept of the Two Row Wampum is the wampum belt itself.  I have seen the purported original, which is produced by Six Nations on various occasions (e.g., in front of Provincial and Federal Government representatives there to celebrate the Bicentennial of the Battle of Queenston Heights).  It is a belt the width of a large man's hand, comprised of white beads (three rows) and purple beads (two rows), supposedly illustrating the essence of the purported 1613 agreement where two ships or canoes are travelling side by side such that the people in each do not interfere with those in the other vessel, but may interact in ways that are mutually agreeable and beneficial (e.g., via trade).  The "original" belt is apparently in the custody of the Onondaga Longhouse at Six Nations, returned some years ago from the museum which had purchased it from a Six Nations member in the 19th Century - but the details are not clear.  What is seriously lacking is provenance.  The belt is of unknown age and origin.  There are also a number of copies that are claimed to be the "original".  Each one would have to be analyzed as to date.  In my view none seem to have the wear or "patina" one might expect of an object of such antiquity.  Furthermore, wampum is rare to non existent on Five Nations archaeological sites before 1630, so that the belt (or belts) as now exist, generally in excellent condition, are very unlikely to be the original - and it is doubtful that there was ever a belt dated to 1613.  However it is impossible to rule out the existence of a copy that was made for example when the earlier version began to fall apart.  I know of no report that has analyzed the supposed original artifact and offered a good description of its probable age and place of origin.  It would be helpful if for example experts at the Smithsonian Institute could weigh in to provide these answers.  I am guessing that the chance of that ever happening now is remote to zero - Six Nations have too much to lose - there is already sufficient controversy surrounding the artifact.  However, even if one were shown to date to the early 17th Century, two purple rows could mean many things - the detail is so simple and thus open to many different interpretations.  Five stripes of two different colours do not provide sufficient specificity.



Clearly there is no general consensus in the matter, although well known scholars tend to see it as a concocted false story with shadowy support from a document and a wampum belt that do not appear to conform to the 1613 date appearing on the former.  We are thus left with an oral history from the Onondaga of New York where the origins of the oral record are also shrouded in uncertainty.  No historian worth their salt is going to put their stamp of approval on the purported validity of this package - which is precisely the case to this date.  So there is a camp of believers and the rest of us who are more sceptical.

One thing that I do not see mentioned is that even if we were to accept the unproven and unlikely version of this controversy, all agree that if anything was ever transacted it was between the Dutch and the Mohawk.  When the English took control of New Netherlands in 1664, any such treaty would be null and void.  First it was allegedly enacted with the Dutch, and second it seems to have involved only the Mohawk, not the full Five Nations (there were only 4 individuals who signed) and thus was at most only a local agreement - the word "treaty" would not apply unless accompanied by the seal of the Crown of Holland or England.  Even if the Dutch were willing to give up sovereignty to non - Europeans (highly unlikely), it is certain that the British Crown would never entertain the concept of sovereignty - in its colonial affairs the Crown is supreme, and all who reside within land they claim are subjects of the Crown.  Since the earliest days the Mohawk have referred to the King of England as their "great Father" which is a tacit acknowledgement of the supremacy of the Crown and their putting themselves under the protection of the Crown.

The Covenant Chain established formally between the Five (later Six) Nations and the British in 1676-77 is an agreement in the same genre as the Two Row Wampum, but I am not aware of instances where it has been used as a pretext to claim sovereignty.  Perhaps the lack of an attempt to use this to claim sovereignty is that it has more validation as to specifics "merely" as to a renewable mutual aid agreement (against common enemies such as France), and as a trade agreement.  The Covenant Chain emerged out of the pre-existing agreements between the Eastern Seaboard Colonies and the Native peoples residing there.  It is more difficult to use as "proof" of sovereignty than the supposed Two Row Wampum "treaty" which is fuzzy and easily open to challenge and various interpretations, and thus can be used in the court of public opinion to sway beliefs.  As a matter of fact, in the renewal of all the various Covenant Chain treaties and agreements the King of England was always recognized as "our great Father" - hardly a term that underscores sovereignty of the Six Nations.  The formally recognized liaison between Great Britain and the Six Nations, the Superintendent of the Northern Department of Indian Affairs was Sir William Johnson who used the term, the Covenant Chain of love and friendship - there being absolutely no hint of any sovereignty of the Six Nations in anything Johnson ever said in his 14 volume Papers and Records collection.

2)  TREATY RIGHTS - The Nanfan Treaty of 1701:  If ever there was a more misunderstood and misused piece of parchment than the "Nanfan Treaty", it has eluded my attention.  For many years people had been basing their assertions about the content and meaning of this document on a transcript found in the published Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York.  By virtue of this document (none other is cited as evidence of treaty rights in Ontario), the Six Nations claim to have rights to hunting and to consultation over land throughout Southwestern Ontario.  At present this involves "treaty rights" to hunt deer in various communities near the Six Nations Reserve, and to be participants in the development of wind generator projects (to be consulted, and to receive financial and other forms of "compensation").

The present author has provided previous blog postings on this subject here, here, and here.

For those who will later claim that the Six Nations land deeds are invalid since they were not signed by all 50 Confederacy Chiefs (actually there was never such a stipulation at any time whatsoever), it is interesting that only 20 Chiefs of the Five Nations placed their totem marks on this document.  Recently the original copy of the so-called Nanfan or Fort Albany Treaty was located in England and photographic copies are now available for inspection by researchers.  What the document says is that, after mature deliberation out of a deep sense of the many Royal favours extended to us by the present great Monarch of England King William the Third,  it was the desire of the Five Nations to yield to their "great Father the King of England" all of the hunting territory that they possessed by virtue of conquest, with the "expectation" that they could still retain the right to hunt on these lands.  The lands in question included most of what is today Southwestern Ontario and the lands above Lake Ontario.  The Six Nations did indeed "conqueror" (actually exterminate via genocide and ethnic cleansing) the Wyandot, Petun, Attiwandaronk, Wenro and Erie in the 1640s to 1657 thereby obtaining the lands of these people.  A transcript from the Six Nations website is available here.  The fact that the Five Nations who signed the document stated that, wee having subjected ourselves and lands on this side of Cadarachqui lake wholy to the Crown of England shows that they do not claim sovereignty anywhere within their lands, but they consider themselves as subjects of the King of England which certainly takes the wind out of the sails of the above interpretation of the Two Row Wampum trade agreement of 1613 as being any sort of assertion of being an independent people.

For a document to be considered authoritative it must be valid.  The document is an "agreement" not a "treaty".  There is a huge difference between these terms.  For a treaty to be valid it must conform to certain parameters.  First it must be signed by individuals who are legally assigned that role by the two primary parties - here that would be the Five Nations and the Crown.  In examining the names of the six Mohawks who placed their names on the agreement, none can be linked to the 9 Mohawk sachems in the Roll Call of Confederacy Chiefs.  Actually that in itself is not a problem since very seldom do any of these names appear on treaties - generally it was the village chiefs (Pine Tree Chiefs) and principal warriors who put pen to paper.  Thus it cannot be discredited on this basis.  What is more problematic is that the Five Nations did not possess any rights to the lands they wished to transfer to the King in 1701.  The historical record shows that after Southern Ontario was emptied of the aboriginal inhabitants, it lay unoccupied for a number of years.  During the 1680s however, the Five Nations established settlements on the north side of Lake Ontario.  By 1696 they had 8 villages located there, and in that year all vanished.  The Mississauga and their allies of the Three Fires Confederacy had destroyed all Five Nations settlements north of the latter's aboriginal lands in what is today Upstate New York.  The Mississauga owned all of Southern Ontario by right of conquest in 1700.  Thus the Five Nations making a deal with the British one year later over lands to which they had no rights proves that the Nanfan document is worthless.  You cannot give what is not yours to give - plain and simple. 

However the English were also in no position to make any sort of deal with the Five Nations involving lands in the region of Lakes Ontario and Erie.  The Treaty of Ryswick in 1697 between England and France recognized the latter's rights to sovereignty over the lands in what is today Southern Ontario including the area where the Five Nations had established settlements.  Also the names which appear (or do not appear) on the parchment pose more significant problems for those who would use the Nanfan document as evidence of "treaty rights".  What one sees is a list of names of those present - generally local officials including, Aldermen, the High Sheriff and the Indian Secretary Robert Livingston from Albany.  The Governor at the time was Acting Governor of New York, John Nanfan, who had dissolved the legislature at that time and was acting alone.  What the document shows is that Nanfan signed attesting to the names of those who were present, and the authenticity of the parchment, nothing more.  He did not include his personal seal let alone anything representative of the Crown - he did not even give his title (acting Governor of the Colony of New York).  All he and the others were promising to do was to send the document to England for possible approval of the King and Privy Council.  The original document has no seals or other official symbols affixed to it.  Apparently it was received in England and simply filed away and never became an official document of any sort.  Perhaps it was realized that the Treaty of Ryswick in 1697 with the French invalidated the document.  Thus to claim that this was a valid "treaty" cannot be supported by any solid evidence.  The "treaty" is only an agreement, and a fraudulent one at that.

Below is a photo of the original Nanfan agreement:



Below is the back of the Nanfan agreement:



It is important to note that the image of the back of the document is seen for the first time ever outside a drawer in Kew, England.  It has surfaced thanks to the persistent efforts of Alex Biegalski, and included in his website, My Dundas Valley which can be seen here.

The map that supposedly accompanied the Nanfan agreement has not been located (by myself).  It may have been inspired by French maps of the time, and published in 1718 by De'Lisle, and copied with some additions by Colden in 1747, as found here, and seen below:



The Wikipedia interpretation of the boundaries of the territory described by the Nanfan agreement is shown below, although I am not clear on some of the specific boundaries they provide relative to what is included in the verbal description found in the 1701 document:

Coincidentally, I was just reading the book by Gail D. MacLeitch, Imperial Entanglements: Iroquois Change and Persistence on the Frontiers of Empire, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011, which comments on the 1701 agreement.  MacLeitch stated that, By the early 1700s, the Iroquois had promoted a belief that through the wars of the previous century they had conquered distant tribes and become "sole masters" of great expanses of land beyond their immediate homeland of Iroquoia.  The Five Nations were asserting that they had defeated the Hurons, Susquehannocks and other far flung peoples and had wonn with the sword vast tracts of land.  In the view of MacLeitch, These claims were flimsy, but had the effect of bolstering Iroquois status in an emerging Anglo-Indian political arena.  MacLeitch noted that, In 1701 they deeded their northwestern "Beaver Hunting Ground" to the King of England.  In a practical sense, the deed was meaningless.  Despite their grand claims, the Iroquois could not control or dominate distant lands that were occupied by other Indian groups ...... The purpose of the deed seemed to be twofold: to remind the English of their substantial - albeit imagined - land base and to make the English accountable for its protection (p.32).  Since the English Crown never formally recognized this agreement, it died a natural death - except in the minds of later generations who wished to breath new life into an invalid meaningless agreement to facilitate their present day claims of "treaty rights". 

It is presumptuous for Six Nations to use a document which is invalid as the basis for their claim to sweeping rights across the length and breadth of Southern and Central Ontario.  The fact that no one seems to have issued a formal challenge means that the Federal Government of Canada has stood in the role of enabler by not asserting the obvious - there are no "treaty rights" possessed by the Haudenosaunee in Ontario.  Two previous Court cases (described in the Archives to this blog) have supported the validity of the Nanfan argeement, however in neither case did the judge have access to the original document, nor the chronological context in which this parchment is embedded.  Thus they came to a conclusion based on a flawed transcript alone.  This statement that Six Nations have, since about 1696, had no treaty rights in the area is further underscored by the fact that the Mississauga are the only group that can claim aboriginal rights in this part of Ontario, including the Haldimand Tract.  They were the "owners" of this land in 1701 when the agreement was signed.  These people then became owners by right of conquest and were not consulted in the process.

The Six Nations are aboriginal to Upstate New York which was lost during the American Revolution making the People of the Longhouse refugees, who were granted lands purchased from the Mississauga by the Crown in 1784 for them to occupy.  There are no "treaty rights" pertaining to the Haldimand Tract.  It is Crown land, and all sales by Six Nations within that grant must be approved by the Crown.  It was so in 1784, and is so now.  One may not like the historical reality, and one has the right to challenge it, but the facts show that the Six Nations do not have "rights" that they adamantly claim to possess.  The fact that the Six Nations are having a laugh at everyone else's expense is not lost on everyone, as seen in an article in the Hamilton Spectator here.

The assertion that the "Nanfan Treaty of 1701" was ever at any time a valid instrument, and the reality that it was a massive fraud, will eventually have to be recognized by the Federal Government. Meanwhile Six Nations continue to claim the "right" to be consulted in municipal projects (e.g., Red Hill Creek Project), in all archaeological explorations in the area (being present as paid "monitors"), and to be involved (paid) in any wind power project in what is considered to be the boundaries of the "Nanfan Treaty".  Such an egretious disregard for the truth, combined with a cadre of enablers afraid to endure the political fallout from a Court challenge to this nonsense, makes a mockery of Six Nations claims to virtually anything!

3)  LAND CLAIMS - The Six Nations Belief that they Possess Unceded Lands Within the Grand River (Haldimand) Tract:  The Council Minutes and the Surrenders by the Six Nations Chiefs in Council between 1840 and 1848 could not be more crystal clear.  All of the lands outside of the present boundaries of the Reserve were surrendered, this fact being affirmed by the Crown via Lord Elgin and the description of the lands the Chiefs wished to have "reserved" were placed in the Indian Land Registry in the year 1850.  The lands thus surrendered were ceded to the Crown to be sold, with the proceeds being placed in the Six Nations Trust account.  Despite what is evident to anyone who cares to check the original documents, Six Nations still claim that for example the Johnson Tract and the Eagle's Nest Tract are unceded and as a result have instituted a number of highly disruptive work stoppages to extort concessions from land developers - at least until some developers and the Corporation of the City of Brantford decided to take the matter to Court and obtain injunctions against work stoppages.  All such attempts were successful, the judges of the Superior Court of Ontario universally declaring that there is no evidence that Six Nations hold unceded lands in the area, and that the work stoppages are illegal and warrant the levying of fines against those who would stand in the way of developers developing their own land - their ownership being traced to the earliest Crown deeds in the Ontario Land Registry system.

Part (but undoubtedly only part) of the reason for such a serious misconception by Six Nations is that the published records are selective.  Hence the Canada.  Indian Treaties and Surrenders from 1680 to 1890 in Two Volumes, Vol. 1, Ottawa, Queen's Press, 1891 lists a variety of documents pertaining to the Six Nations, including some very small parcels, but oddly leaves out the most important documents.  Here we see the "21st Jan., 1841.  All their lands not previously surrendered except reserve mentioned" (No. 50, Page 119, Vol. 1).  The fact is that it took a lot of "sorting around" after that date before the Chiefs in Council had arrived at the final decision on what to reserve (lands within present Reserve boundaries) and what to surrender to the Crown for sale and deposit of revenues in the Six Nations Trust Fund.  All other lands not yet disposed of by a Six Nations member residing on lands outside the Reserve boundaries could keep their land and if they wished at a later date to sell, they could do so and remove to the Six Nations Reserve.  The key documents are unfortunately found embedded in the vast Indian Affairs (RG10) Collection at the National Library and Archives Canada in Ottawa.

If you read one of the two local Reserve newspapers it will quickly become clear that Six Nations maintains that there are vast tracts of unceded lands throughout the Haldimand Tract, and they have the right to negotiate with land developers, and wind power companies so that the latter will be permitted to place turbines on this "unceded" land.  Agreements have been struck with these companies for a monetary settlement, a percentage of the revenues, scholarships and other perks.  The developers have assumed that this is the way that business is conducted in not only the Haldimand Tract, but also Southwestern Ontario (citing the Nanfan Treaty of 1701).  Since no one has challenged Six Nations, the latter have proceeded full steam ahead.

An example is the Six Nations claims to land in South Cayuga Township that was actually ceded by the Chiefs in Council in the 1840s, and were purchased by the Provincial Government from the true owners for a proposed city to service the nearby Nanticoke industrial complex.  The ambitious but ill conceived plan never came to fruition and the lands, duly registered in the Ontario Land Registry system with Crown deeds from the 1840s, were either sold back to the original owners or leased to local farmers.  By no stretch of the imagination is this unceded Six Nations land. 

The present author has spoken about this subject on many occasions since commencing the blog.  Here follows the most detailed references in order from the earliest to the most recent, seen here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

It is mind boggling that Six Nations can make such egregious claims, and neither the Provincial nor the Federal Government come out with a strong statement as to the correct facts.  The Federal Government however did make their position clear in closed negotiations, and re-affirmed their perspective as recently as 2009 - that the lands were all ceded in the 1840s.  The Six Nations decided in 1995 not to pursue the matter in Court, presumably because their researcher realized that there was no foundation for any sort of case that could be won on the basis of the facts.  However Six Nations (both the Elected and Hereditary Councils) have maintained that the land is "contested", and so they must be consulted when any new development is planned.  Dropping the Court action did not resolve anything.  In retrospect, it would have been to the advantage of Canada (and the truth) to allow the matter to go to Court and be settled on the basis of the available evidence.  Oddly though, the various records on the website of the Six Nations Lands and Resources still list 29 claims, including the land claims dropped from Court proceedings in 1995 - give readers a false view that these are legitimate land claims, and potentially triggering action to "seek justice" as happened in 2006 in Caledonia (see here). 

Continuing to claim that these are "contested" lands, allows the fiction of legitimacy to thrive.  Six Nations do not want to legally contest these claims as the researchers know they would lose.  Better to just dangle them so that the ill informed will remain convinced that the Federal Government is stalling.  Actually the Federal Government has no idea who is "in charge" at Six Nations since the Six Nations Elected Council and the Hereditary Confederacy Chiefs Council both claim the right to negotiate on the part of Six Nations.  These factions to this day refuse to speak with each other even on topics of mutual interest - so no agreement can be reached when one party or the other (or others waiting in the wings) cry foul.  Hence the Federal Government has no choice but to leave the table - until such time as Six Nations empowers one group or another with standing such that they can speak for all.  Very very unlikely.  But guess who comes off as the "bad guy" - yes, the Federal Government.

The most noteworthy claim to "unceded" land came to the fore in a chaotic "reclamation" of the Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) property, a residential land development with a half dozen new homes already constructed, in the south of Caledonia, beginning 28 February 2006.  The matter remains "unresolved" to this day.  After their illegal and violent (arson, multiple assault cases, threats, intimidation, property damage) take over, Six Nations members have remained in control of the site. They erroneously assert rights to this property as unceded land along the Plank Road (today known as Argyll Street, or old Highway 6) in Oneida Township within the municipal boundary of Caledonia.  At the site today you will see the burned out trailer, the hydro towers taken down by Six Nations members, with Confederacy and Mohawk Warriors flags waving over a site where all homes except one (plus the shanty at the entrance way) have been trashed and demolished.  "Celebrations" of this act of infamy occur on the anniversary (28 February) every year.  Six Nations have named the site, Kanonhstaton (the Protected Place), and see it as a symbol of all the wrongs alleged to have been perpetrated against Six Nations.  The facts say otherwise, but unless someone cares to enact a formal challenge, nothing will change and the scars from 8 years ago will remain there for all to "enjoy". 

The facts are readily available in the report of 2009 by Joan Holmes and Associates seen here, a respected firm that researches treaties and land claims (see here).  The details of all the land transfer to the Crown could not be more straightforward.  So 170 years later the Six Nations of today are attempting to undo what the ancestors did with full knowledge of the circumstances, and an admonishment to later generations not to try to undo what they have decided.  During 1844 the representatives of the Crown discussed each parcel of land (e.g., Johnson Tract), and what the Chiefs wanted done with it.  These frequent meetings at the Onondaga Council House were repetitious since each side was ensuring that everyone knew what their true wishes were.  Thus, although the lands where DCE is located were in fact originally selected for 25 year leases by the Chiefs, they changed their minds and specifically mentioned time and again from 1844 that they now wished the property to be included in a surrender to the Crown.  If someone wishes to challenge the wisdom of the Chiefs, that would be very bad form.  The Chiefs made it very clear in all deeds bearing their signatures, that they do not wish later generations to come along and challenge what they have decided.  In terms of the interpreter, Jacob Martin played a prominent role in this capacity, and in any interface between Six Nations and the Indian Department and other White officials.  Never do I recall seeing anything negative about him or his work.  As to the personnel of the Indian Department, I have read the diaries, correspondence and records of James Winniet, David Thorburn, Jasper Gilkison and others.  They appeared to have a genuine interest in the welfare of Six Nations, trying despite immense obstacles (e.g., the number of squatters that would have to be removed and compensated in order to create a reserve anywhere along the Haldimand Tract), to do right by these people.  All was above board.  There is no reason to second guess anyone. 

The data from the Minutes of the Council Meetings, including the signatures of all Chiefs present, provide a clear sequential picture of the process leading to the ultimate decision by the Chiefs in 1848 (re the Burtch Tract).  After that all was done, and actually in 1847 the move to the new consolidated Reserve had begun with the Chiefs providing location tickets to 100 acres of land for each adult male.

With respect to the property near Caledonia known as Douglas Creek Estates owned by Henco Ltd. and later known by Six Nations as Kanonhstaton,  on 17 September 1845 the final confirmation of the ceding of this property that was to become the Douglas Creek Estates was attested to by 66 Chiefs in Council and duly recorded in the Minutes.  At that point the land was entered on title with a Crown grant to the first purchaser and recorded in the Ontario Land Registry system, the documents being located in the Land Registry Office in Cayuga.  Here is the exact wording from the Council Minutes:

9. The Council met again on September 17 and 18, 1845. Sixty-six chiefs were in attendance on September 17. The following is recorded,
 

... After much time spent in discussion, [illegible word] the

submission it was finally resolved [illegible word or words]

reserves should consist of the lands adjoining, the tier of Lots on

the west side of the Plank road in the township of Oneida and the

whole of. the Township of Tuscarora and such Lots or portions in

the Burtch tract in the Township of Brantford as the White settlers

thereon could not on an Examination (before the Chiefs in council

at this place) shew that they had an equitable claim to a pre

Emption by Leases or otherwise the submission of the Re

Examination to be laid before His Lordship the Governor General

for his decision on each case, And that in the said Township of

Brantford at the Mohawk Mission School Two hundred acres and

further in the Township of Onondaga a tier of River Lots from

forty five to Sixty one inclusive. The council adjourned at dusk 7

O'Clock to meet again tomorrow morning at 8 O'Clock A.M.

Note that lands in the Township of Tuscarora, 200 acres at the Mohawk mission school,  and lots 45 to 61 in Onondaga were requested for reservation, as previously indicated. Lands in Oneida Township had been added and the Council had indicated consent to reserve only the portions of the Butch tract on which settlers could not establish a legitimate claim.

(David Thorburn, Minutes of Council, Council House Onondaga, September 17, 1845. LAC RG 10 Vol. 152 pp. 87852-87854).

 

 

Reference to any map of Oneida Township showing the Plank Road (Highway 6, Argyll Street), such as the Page & Co. Atlas of 1879, will note the that the express wish of the Chiefs was to include within the Reserve the "lands adjoining, the tier of lots on the west side of the Plank Road" (I have underlined the key clause in the description above), and conforming to Lord Elgin's description of the boundaries of the Six Nations Reserve in 1850.  This denotes the present boundary of the Six Nations Reserve which begins at the eastern end of the irregular tier of lots extending west from the Plank Road.  Note that the wording does not say "lands including, the tier of lots on the west side of the Plank Road".  The Plank Road is seen angling to the left from the Town of Caledonia (large red block) toward the Reserve line (Lot 1 and the adjoining part of the River Range from the western edge of Hagersville at the bottom of the map).  The six lots of the Indian Reserve in Oneida Township are clearly demarcated.  In amongst this "tier" and fronting on the "Plank Road" is the former Douglas Creek Estates to which Six Nations have no legal right - or "right" of any nature or description.



In case some think that because nothing has been done to address the "reclamation" that the Federal Government is unclear about the matter, it should be noted that in 2009 the Federal representative of the Indian Affairs and Northern Development, went on record with their position.  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” (Horsnell, A Short History of the Six Nations of the Grand River, 2010, p.8, see here).

As to the Province of Ontario, it is beset by political turmoil and has done all it could to put its head in the sand to avoid dealing with the fallout of the "reclamation" (other than a compensation package for those most directly impacted, and purchasing the land from the developer in the name of the Province).  So the festering sore remains in the mind of the people on both sides of the Reserve line, and where everything including the trash and debris from 2006, remains in suspended animation.  All is in limbo.  However when Justice Harrison Arrell of the Ontario Superior Court in Brantford was levying hefty fines against the protesters who attempted to block developers in Brant County from building homes on their land, he took the time to provide a preliminary assessment of the strength of the land claims case.  On 19 November 2010 Justice Arrell stated that the strength of the Six Nations land claims is "exceedingly weak"; and elsewhere stated that the Six Nations have a "very weak case" as seen here. 

So, based on the evidence, any Court is going to find the land claims case failing in merit and will likely have it dismissed.  Political considerations (angry Indians do not make good press) will ensure that the matter will drag on indefinitely until a specific Court challenge is issued on the entire land claims spectrum.  All fall under the same umbrella, and all lands outside the present boundaries of the Six Nations Reserve were surrendered for sale by 1848.  See the above Horsnell document, which is detailed and offers a very poignant analysis, for an in depth study of all three matters discussed in this posting.  He also includes other relevant information, such as how the Proclamation of 1763 connects to the relationship between Six Nations and the Crown.

As a personal aside, I hope that those most involved in the land claims which led to criminal behaviour are hauled in to Court and fined (the leaders have yet to face the music), sending a signal to all that if you make a claim, and take action that has an adverse impact on innocent people, there need to be facts not beliefs which guide actions, otherwise expect fines and jail time.  I can dream, can't I.

DeYo.