Web
Analytics Made Easy - StatCounter

Land ownership and the Brantford injunction

I am one of the litigants named in the Injunction at Brantford, Ontario. I have just learned that the appeal launched by the Haudenosaunee Development Institute has failed and Brantford has been awarded $350,000 plus $25,000 in costs, a portion of which they claim I am liable for.

Dear Editors,

I am one of the litigants named in the Injunction at Brantford, Ontario. I have just learned that the appeal launched by the Haudenosaunee Development Institute has failed and Brantford has been awarded $350,000 plus $25,000 in costs, a portion of which they claim I am liable for. I’m not concerned with the award going against me personally as I went into this with my eyes wide open and knew there could be consequences. That, to me, is what a warrior does and what he does, is honour his responsibilities as peacefully as possible. We are not rabble or terrorists, neither are we anarchists and, we are certainly not irrelevant as much as they would like us to be. Too many times the media, non-Natives and the colonial authorities have mistakenly seen our determination as confrontational. All of us at Six Nations know that is patently false!

Concerning this absurd ruling, which, in my layman’s opinion, this entire process has been illegal from start to finish. Is there no high-powered lawyer or firm in Canada that sees the absolute injustice of this ruling, who will help us take this to the Supreme Court of Canada? The lower courts seem completely incapable of following due process and the letter of the law and are devoid of any objectivity and sense of fairness.

From the moment Brantford filed for an injunction against us, I have held that, since Canada has recognized our land claims in the area means one thing and one thing only; the ownership of the land is in question, period! No other explanation is possible. To my mind, common sense dictates that the ownership of the land must be determined before any other form of legal action commences or, for that matter, before any sale or development of the lands under claim is allowed. On one hand, Brantford is permitted to sell these lands to developers while having full knowledge of the land’s legal status (under claim) yet we, on the other hand, who have defended this land based on the same information, are not permitted to defend our interests in said land and criminalized when we do.

To reach this decision, is, in my opinion, an abuse of the law that Canada must address and answer to. Due process and the rule of law have not been adhered to in this matter, plain and simple. Once the ownership of the land(s) in question have been dealt with once and for all, then, and only then, can we all move forward.

I am fully aware this could possibly re-open a huge and mind-boggling can of worms that will go all the way back to the beginning unless better minds than mine can find a way to shorten the journey. So I must ask, is there no one who can somehow stop this insane bullying of Six Nations’ people, who will not put up with Canada’s bullying and stalling tactics and force Ottawa to behave with honour and integrity? The Crown of England may have turned its back on us but we have their signature on perfectly legal and binding treaties which are living documents today, as they were then. Canada must be forced to abide by the laws it created.

My opinion is, the courts have put the cart before the horse in the Brantford injunction. How is it possible legal proceedings can take place against us before the ownership of the land in question has been determined? How can Canada refuse to enter the fray when called upon, claiming it is the province’s responsibility? How is it that Canada can steadfastly refuse its responsibility under the law and ignore its fiduciary responsibilities as demanded by its own laws?

We should be under no illusion Canada will ever come to the table honourably. One way however, would be to shame Canada before world opinion and drag it kicking and screaming into the very courts of law it created. I’m telling you now, Canada does not want us to assert our Nationhood. But if we’re serious about it, we’ll have to fight for it…..or lose it. Whether we do or not, is completely up to each and every one of us, individually and collectively. If we do not commit to this, we can expect to lose it all and sooner than we think. Are we the great Iroquois Confederacy…..or not? Will we have real leadership from the traditional chiefs or more of the same apathy we have seen in the past? That same apathy that seems to affect most of us. If Six Nations of the Grand River Territory ever becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history books, it will be our own doing.

C. Garlow
Ohsweken.

52 comments

Posts Carousel

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply

52 Comments

  • Garry Horsnell
    November 30, 2013, 5:47 am

    The Five (later Six) Nations Haudensaunee made an agreement to give control of the land in southern Ontario to the Ojibwa Mississauga Indians in June 1700. Ojibwa Chief William Yellowhead kept a wampum belt about that agreement.

    Despite that agreement, Five (later Six) Nations Haudenosaunee chiefs, including Mohawk chiefs, surrendered the Six Nations beaver hunting grounds, including land in what is now the U.S.A. and land in what is now southwestern Ontario and along the Grand River, to the British Crown and “for ever quit claime” to that land according to the Albany (Nanfan) Treaty in 1701. For ever means for ever, right?

    Quebec Governor Haldimand arranged to buy a huge tract of land, including land along the Grand River, from the Ojibwa Mississauga Indians because they had control of that land and they sold and ceded that land to the British Crown at a meeting at Fort Niagara on May 22, 1784. Mohawk leader Joseph Brant and Six Nations chiefs were at that meeting and they agreed with the sale so the land became the Crown’s land.

    Six months later on October 25, 1784, Governor Haldimand issued an announcement inviting Mohawks and others of the Six Nations from New York to enter occupy and use the Crown’s land along the Grand River in what was then the British Province of Quebec. That October 25, 1784 announcement (document) was not a proclamation, not a treaty and not a deed. In fact, in 1835, a King’s Bench justice said the October 25, 1784 Haldimand document was no more than a “mere license of occupation”. In other words, it was a license for Six Nations people to occupy, not own, the Crown’s land along the Grand River.

    In 1793, Governor Simcoe offered the Six Nations of the Grand River a letter patent, a deed, to land along the Grand River. For governor Simcoe to have offered that deed that land must have been the Crown’s land in 1793 but Joseph Brant and the Six Nations chiefs did not like the conditions in the Simcoe Patent (deed) and would not accept the Simcoe Patent (deed) so the land along the Grand River remained the Crown’s land.

    Later, when Six Nations chiefs made surrenders and the Crown said it would put money from land sales into a trust fund for the benefit of the Six Nations of the Grand River reserve, the chiefs were were not surrendering land. They were surrendering the Six Nations ability to use the Crown’s land.

    Given the history, Six Nations people should not be able to claim land to which they would not accept a deed and which remained the Crown’s land. They can’t claim land that was the Crown’s land.

    I do agree the Crown might owe the Six Nations of the Grand River a lot of money but the Six Nations claims are about money, not land.

    REPLY
    • Pentortoise@Garry Horsnell
      November 30, 2013, 8:38 am

      Gary show me a document that says the six nations waive their sovereignty, By their own laws, protocols and assignments.

      Or that the League of nations has stated verbatim that they Want Money ONLY?

      lets see it without these Deeds coming from a Canadian mouthpiece

      REPLY
  • Tracy Hellene Butler
    November 22, 2013, 12:12 am

    Laws cant be changed by courts. Injunctions are against human rights and illegal.

    REPLY
    • Garry Horsnell@Tracy Hellene Butler
      November 30, 2013, 6:09 am

      If injunctions were illegal, Canadian courts wouldn’t issue them.

      REPLY
      • Pentortoise@Garry Horsnell
        November 30, 2013, 8:30 am

        Dont be fooled Gary, canadian courts are a corruption, They have a duty to protect their people, They have no duty to protect us. Who pays the JUDGE, THE CROWN, THE PROSECUTOR, They have all sworn allegiance to the Queen, the only one in these cases who is not payed by Canada is us! They see this conflict of interest but they oder these injunctions non the less, PURE CORRUPTION

        REPLY
        • Garry Horsnell@Pentortoise
          December 1, 2013, 5:17 pm

          What are you talking about? I pointed out below the reasons Six Nations of the Grand River people are living on the Crown’s land.

          If they are living on the Crown’s land, they are in the Crown’s vessel so to speak and, therefore, subject to the Crown’s rules, regulations and laws on and off the reserve.

          In addition, many Six Nations people pay taxes to get services like courts from the Crown and the Canadian federal government (the big Crown) and the Ontario government (the little Crown) give the Six Nations of the Grand River tens of millions of dollars each year to help run the reserve.

          REPLY
        • Pentortoise@Garry Horsnell
          December 1, 2013, 6:56 pm

          there is a paradox created by the indian act and other tyrannical legislation you fail to see, The constitutional conflict, the Old Treaty “Two Row Wampum”, these are the foundations of law here, to place the crown law on our people is a violation of the two row wampum, and other friendship agreements, In times of War laws are silent but when the war is over the law speaks loud and clear, We are to live side by side Forever, that means anything that infringes on forever is void.

          REPLY
        • Pentortoise@Pentortoise
          December 1, 2013, 7:02 pm

          I have a different view on the haldimand, I think it violates the Two Row Wampum, and that the Royal proclamation of 1763 supersedes the haldimand.

          Why didnt the king sign it? An act of war perhaps!?

          My belief is that canada is a colony, but occupying our lands and in violation of the proclamation of 1763, I theorize that you infact are in violation of the proclamation of 1763 and the peace between our nations.

          In fact the two row makes the common law null and void here, I bet One day this will be the reality on this side of that line, The mohawks especially have a special duty to make it so…lol

          REPLY
        • Garry Horsnell@Pentortoise
          December 2, 2013, 6:00 am

          Between 1754 and 1763, the British and French fought what is now called the French and Indian War in eastern North America. The British won and the French surrendered their land holdings in Quebec and all French land holdings east of the Mississippi River to the British according to the Treaty of Paris in 1763.

          Later in 1763, King George III (the Crown) of Britain issued a Royal Proclamation.

          Here is an excerpt.

          “And We do further declare it to be Our Royal Will and Pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion, for the use of the said Indians, all the Lands and Territories not included within the Limits of Our said Three new Governments, or within the Limits of the Territory granted to the Hudson’s Bay Company, as also all the
          Lands and Territories lying to the Westward of the Sources of the Rivers which fall into the Sea from the West and North West as aforesaid”.

          In addition, it told non natives to vacate Indian Territory and told natives that, if they were inclined to dispose of any land from Indian Territory, they should only sell it to the Crown.

          Basically, the British Crown reserved “Sovereignty, Protection, and Dominion” over what the Crown called Indian Territory and 24 or more Indian bands (nations) from eastern North America, including the Six Nations Haudenosaunee, agreed with the conditions in the 1763 Royal Proclamation and the Crown’s “Sovereignty and Dominion” over Indian Territory at a meeting when they signed the Treaty of Fort Niagara in 1764.

          One could therefore argue that, when the Indians accepted the conditions in 1763 Royal Proclamation in 1764; agreed the Crown had “Sovereignty and Dominion” over Indian Territory and agreed with the Crown’s rule that Indians could only sell land to the Crown, the Indians entered the Crown’s vessel according to the Two Row Wampum concept.

          REPLY
        • Pentortoise@Garry Horsnell
          December 2, 2013, 9:17 am

          NO they didnt that is what the Crown may think, but the concept of non interference lasting forever proves your intellectual Fluff wrong, DO YOU know what a safeguard is?

          The Crown restricted itself, So whatever you want to call the west side of that line “Indians” whether they spudo Imposed “pretend” sovereignty, and limited to Lands they had at that time, The crown could not have laid claim to the west of that line, and Did Quit claim forever that land.

          REPLY
        • Pentortoise@Pentortoise
          December 2, 2013, 9:22 am

          Did you know in 1215 King John ceded his crown/kingdom to the Roman Pope…. I also think through the Two Row Wampum, We have been shown that We are the Brothers of St.peter, as he is the Vicar of Christ we remain his eternal Brothers.

          In my understanding of history, The Papal bulls or doctrine o discovery, Is null and void by the acceptance of the Two Row agreements. ALL Colonial claims are garbage, ALL OF THEM!

          REPLY
        • Pentortoise@Pentortoise
          December 2, 2013, 9:24 am

          I think you need to go talk to some faithekeepers about the wampums Gary, Its hard for me to take you seriously when you reference our laws without knowing the oral and conceptual history that is embedded in our languages,

          Show me a Treaty in the Mohawk language?

          REPLY
        • Garry Horsnell@Pentortoise
          December 2, 2013, 9:36 am

          At the time most agreements and treaties were made between Indians and the British Crown, the Indians didn’t have written languages. They used oral histories and wampum belts with beads to record agreements.

          So how could the Mohawks have a “Treaty in the Mohawk language” from a time when they didn’t have a written language?

          REPLY
        • Pentortoise@Garry Horsnell
          December 2, 2013, 11:40 am

          So are you acting as counsel for the crown here garry?

          REPLY
        • Garry Horsnell@Pentortoise
          December 3, 2013, 8:19 am

          In 1775, at the beginning of the American Revolution, Mohawk leader Joseph Brant traveled to England to meet King George III (the Crown) of Britain and ask the King to provide some land for Six Nations people. King George (the Crown) agreed.

          After the American Revolution, Quebec Governor Haldimand bought a huge tract of land in what was then part of the British Province of Quebec now southwestern Ontario, including land along the Grand River, from the Ojibwa Mississauga Indians and they sold and ceded that land to the Crown on May 22, 1784.

          About Six months later, on October 25, 1784, Governor Haldimand issued an announcement inviting Mohawks and others of the Six Nations from New York to enter, occupy and use the Crown’s land along the Grand River.

          That October 25 1784 announcement was a license for Six Nations people to occupy, not own, the Crown’s land along the Grand River and Crown and Canadian courts have said so.

          Basically, the Crown and Governor Haldimand kept the Crown’s promise to Brant to provide land for Six Nations people but the Crown provided Crown-owned land along the Grand River for the exclusive use of Six Nations people not land as a separate, sovereign state or country for Six Nations people.

          That is simply the history.

          And, when Six Nations people from New York entered the Crown’s land along the Grand River, in the British Province of Quebec, they entered the Crown’s vessel according to the Two Row Wampum concept.

          When people are on the Crown’s land or in the Crown’s vessel they are subject to the rules, regulations and laws of the Crown.

          Even today, when people from the U.S.A.. France or any other Country enter Canada, they enter the Crown’s land (vessel) and are subject to the rules, regulations and laws of the Crown.

          Why would the people of the Six Nations of the Grand River be treated differently when they entered the Crown’s land (vessel)?

          REPLY
        • Pentortoise@Garry Horsnell
          December 3, 2013, 1:26 pm

          You say we entered a vessel, but That is Outrageous and a lie, according to the Dejure Wampum LAW it is impossible.

          History is subjective, The Law isnt, why not just stop here garry because you cant see the Law as we See it!

          REPLY
        • Rotinonshonniónhwe Tkanatáhere@Garry Horsnell
          December 7, 2013, 10:26 pm

          The above lies and perversions of truth may sound appealing to some – however – I, for one, grow weary of the pathetic drone of trolls. Tkanatáhere includes lands which have been subject to the Gayanereko:wa and have never been subject to Crown jurisdiction – not ever. This is referenced in hundreds of historical documents, including the Haldimand Papers. See: “COLONIAL DOCUMENTS FROM UPPER CANADA AND THE STATE OF NEW YORK DEALING WITH THE POLITICAL STATUS OF THE SIX NATIONS.” http://collectionscanada.gc.ca/pam_archives/index.php?fuseaction=genitem.displayEcopies&lang=eng&rec_nbr=2077838&title=HEADQUARTERS+-+COLONIAL+DOCUMENTS+FROM+UPPER+CANADA+AND+THE+STATE+OF+NEW+YORK+DEALING+WITH+THE+POLITICAL+STATUS+OF+THE+SIX+NATIONS.+&ecopy=e005241372

          Only fools and liars can try to tell us any different.

          REPLY
        • John W Hotto@Garry Horsnell
          July 13, 2018, 10:29 pm

          Why is it the crown’s land? For crying out loud the Indians were here first so give them back some of their land. Geez, there are thousands of acres of open land all over New York and Ontario that could be given back to these people who never asked any Europeans to come here and destroy them and their civilizations. It is not the crown’s land and never was because some pompous inbred English King said it was his. Give me a break. All that land grabbing was out of control.

          REPLY
        • N8VSON@Pentortoise
          December 3, 2013, 1:23 pm

          @ Pentortoise – You have to realize that Native issues and treaties are nothing more to Garry than a hobby, albeit, a serious hobby. One where Garry more or less sees himself as something of an expert. What one sees when Garry makes a comment is, nothing more than his opinion. I’m more and more coming to the conclusion Garry is nothing more than a paid shill for the feds.

          REPLY
        • Pentortoise@N8VSON
          December 3, 2013, 1:41 pm

          Yeah, The Garry Neuro linguistics Programme in affect,.. A master debater,…lol

          That would be a good headline, Garry has made himself very vocal in this arena, who is Garry. Is there a Story Here!?

          REPLY
        • N8VSON@Pentortoise
          December 4, 2013, 10:31 am

          LOLOL…..yes! If Garry devoted more time to “debating,” he may very well find more than enough satisfaction in that particular activity than blowing smoke up everyone’s butt. He even gets involved on CBC threads as he disseminates his particular brand of “expertise” to an audience eager to swallow anything anti-Native. To those uninformed readers, Garry DOES sound as though he knows what he’s talking about and that only serves to embolden them into more anti-Native rhetoric. As far as any “story” about Garry may be concerned, I’m sure it would be a story of a very sad, bored and lonely person with an extremely narrow field of focus involved on a subject far beyond his ken.
          Garry seems to conveniently overlook the fact stated in “White Man’s Law;” that British Common law was found lacking the ability to deal with the unique problem of Native possession, sovereignty and land ownership, example: “the legal chaos surrounding the Grand River lands challenged the capacity of English common law to resolve frontier legal matters. Ultimately, the law failed in creating an ‘orderly’ Canadian frontier.” This is where John Beverley Robinson comes into focus. He was tasked with the job of creating [out of thin air], laws that would deal specifically with the Indian “problem” as noted above and why Peter Russell, Professor Emeritus, Department of Political Science at the University of Toronto was prompted to endorse Harring’s book with the following comment on the reverse leaf of the book by saying; “…..[‘the Rule of Law’] can serve as a blunt instrument for the dispossession and subjugation of [Canada’s] Aboriginal peoples.”
          Garry can blather on all he wishes but it won’t change the fact that Canadian law was based on one singular principle and that was to marginalize and radicalize Native peoples and render them helpless in legally arguing their grievances in a court of law. And, in those rare instances where an Indian’s grievance WAS heard, it inevitably went against the Native.

          REPLY
        • Tom Keefer@N8VSON
          December 30, 2013, 10:27 pm

          This is a fine response.

          REPLY
        • Garry Horsnell@N8VSON
          December 31, 2013, 5:14 am

          You said “where an Indian’s grievance WAS heard, it inevitably went against the Native”.

          Except in many cases where Canadian courts have found in favour of Indian claims.

          Haida, Delgamuukw, Mikisew, Marshall, etc.

          REPLY
        • N8VSON@Garry Horsnell
          December 4, 2013, 10:49 am

          @ Garry – GIVE? Give s of dollars? Need I repost the instances of unauthorized theft of Six Nations’ OWN money which was NEVER repaid? GIVE? Oh yes! GIVE your head a shake!

          REPLY
      • N8VSON@Garry Horsnell
        December 3, 2013, 1:14 pm

        The application of injunctions where it concerns Native issues, is simply a tool concocted by the Colonials to subjugate and dispossess Native peoples of their inherent rights and land. You really need to re-read “White Man’s Law” Garry to get the drift of what Canadian “law” is really all about. The thing is, you probably have read it yet STILL you insist on sticking to the brainwashed version of Canadian law and democracy Canadians have been fed for so long.

        REPLY
        • Garry Horsnell@N8VSON
          December 3, 2013, 1:27 pm

          The courts use injunctions against non natives too. Court injunctions aren’t just used against natives.

          REPLY
        • Pentortoise@Garry Horsnell
          December 3, 2013, 3:13 pm

          Still not a justification, and why then are the natives the only one Speaking to the truth of the matter while “non-natives” just allow it and become complacent too it, dragging us through the mud because they want to remain ignorant!?

          REPLY
        • N8VSON@Garry Horsnell
          December 4, 2013, 10:46 am

          @ Garry- I referenced injunctions “where it concerns Native issues.”
          I did NOT reference them in general.
          Your second paragraph is beyond laughable. “…when and if their cases and claims are justified.” That is exactly what we say about all claims involving the Haldimand tract. “WHEN…IF.” And just who is it Garry that decides whether or not a “case” or “claim” is “justified?” Why, Canada of course. Who is it that decides when the “WHEN and IF” ever becomes the NOW? Again….Canada. Even YOU have to admit there is a clear conflict of interest when the respondent (Canada) decides the “when.” Laughable.

          REPLY
  • Catherine Douglas
    November 21, 2013, 5:37 pm

    This injunction was granted mainly in the the Holmes report, done by research done by Joan Holmes and assosicates. This Holmes report is INCORRECT and based on the firms assessment of TRUE history. Now what I do NOT understand, is when this company was asked about Haudenshaunee history in the Province of Ontario because of the Algonquins of Ontario Land claim currently under negotiations, she claimed she knew nothing about the History of the Haudenshaunee being in the area of concern !!!! Opens the doors for alot of questions in my book.

    REPLY
    • Staci Duchene@Catherine Douglas
      December 1, 2013, 1:24 pm

      Catherine Douglas..or is it Catherine Duchene??? Your legal name is Catherine Duchene. Here’s a fact…your filing for your Algonquin status behind the backs of the very people you claim to be so loyal to.

      REPLY
      • Catherine Douglas@Staci Duchene
        December 1, 2013, 4:59 pm

        Staci, you know very well our facebook page and this name is a combination of both myself and Doug’s name. As far as Algonquin Status, thats not my fault the system is incorrect and secondly, it is still Haudenshaunee land. What is the meaning of you posting this on here?

        REPLY
        • Catherine Douglas@Catherine Douglas
          December 1, 2013, 5:30 pm

          Sorry folks, this girl is my half Sister and I really do not know why she would chose to write this stuff on here when there is such an important issue being discussed. Again, my apologies to those who are participating in this important concern.

          REPLY
        • Staci Duchene@Catherine Douglas
          December 3, 2013, 2:39 pm

          Dear Cathy:
          First of all, I AM NOT YOUR HALF SISTER, I am your fully blooded Sister, and why you would lie about something like that? You know that our Father and Mother are one in the same. You my dear can’t erase that fact, no matter how many people you try to convince and lie to.You have provided no such proof that I am your half sister and until you do its a lie. I have been very busy my dear Sister, digging up emails that you have written to alot of people about me, and our family life. I have emails from you written to other people dating back to the time when you were searching for me up until just recently. I am compiling and sending them to key people within the Confederacy. If you are not going to get Algonquin status, then why not say your not applying for it? Your a disgrace to the Mohawk Nation, and Granddaddy would be rolling over in his grave…
          Have a very nice day Sister…:)

          REPLY
        • Pentortoise@Staci Duchene
          December 3, 2013, 3:09 pm

          This inst the place for your personal argument with your sister. We appreciate your comments but please be kind, and respectful of our other guests.

          Thanks.
          Benjamin II
          TRT Comment Mod.

          REPLY
        • Staci Duchene@Pentortoise
          December 3, 2013, 11:28 pm

          Dear Pentortoise:
          I do understand and apologize for arguing with my Sister in this forum, as well I apologize to other guests. I do agree that the land in question does belong to the Haudenosaunee people. Mr. McHale, I do hear your frustration in your comments, but it doesn’t change the facts or the agreements within the Confederacy. The Gov’t of Canada sir doesn’t even respect the Treaties numbered 1-11, how are they to even begin to understand our laws?
          I suppose we could debate this back and forth till the end of time, but one has to be able to sit down and be willing to listen to the others points of view and either agree to disagree or walk away.
          Mr McHale, I don’t know u nor do I mean any disrespect in any way, but what I do know is this. Since the beginning of colonization, lands and resources have been taken from the First Nations peoples and there hasn’t been any kind of revenue paid back to the people of Turtle Island. The Five Nations were forced out of the Longhouse by the Gov’t of Canada, this is a fact that cannot be erased from history. Asking what klnd of reality some of the people on here live in doesn’t change these facts of our history.
          Again, thank you

          REPLY
    • Garry Horsnell@Catherine Douglas
      December 3, 2013, 5:15 am

      Joan Holmes and Associate are noted for researching and finding treaties agreements, letters and other documents in places like Library and Archives Canada and provincial archives that show the relationship between Indians and the Crown.

      Holmes and Associates were used to get and provide to the Ipperwash inquiry information about the 1827 Huron Tract Treaty and information about land transfers and agreements between the Chippewa and the Crown

      Holmes and Associates have been used in many cases involving Indians and the Crown and the City of Brantford hired Holmes and Associates to research agreements between the Crown and the Chiefs of the Six Nations of the Grand River.

      In fact. Holmes and Associates reported on the 1844 agreement in which 45 chiefs from the Six Nations of the Grand River agreed to surrender Six Nations use of the Johnson settlement, the Martin settlement, Oxbow tract and the Eagles Nest tract around Brantford for sale so the Crown could sell those lands.

      That 1844 agreement is stored in Library and Archives Canada in the RG 10 series on Reel C-1149 Volume 44, pages 83269 – 83279.

      REPLY
      • Catherine Douglas@Garry Horsnell
        December 3, 2013, 11:49 am

        well, considering there were 50 plus three Chief’s, which means not ALL were involved in this transaction and that there was not the Elected Government System forced upon the people until 1924, any deals were not valid. Five Nations is still a sitting council and have not agreed with this. Just saying, because Holmes and Associates is only ONE side of the story and in order to get it right, let’s take it forward.

        REPLY
        • Garry Horsnell@Catherine Douglas
          December 3, 2013, 12:43 pm

          Well, think about this. Six Nations people say the 1701 Albany (Nanfan) Treaty is valid on land in southwestern Ontario. That treaty is on the Six Nations of the Grand River website and Six Nations people have been using that treaty to justify hunting deer for the last couple of weeks in Short Hills Provincial Park near St. Catharines Ontario and elsewhere.

          That is interesting because only 20 chiefs from the Five (later Six) Nations Haudenosaunee confederacy signed (placed their marks) on that 1701 Albany (Nanfan) Treaty Six Nations people now say is valid.

          If a treaty signed by 20 chiefs is valid, why wouldn’t an agreement (use of Crown land surrender) in 1844 signed by 45 chiefs be valid?

          REPLY
        • Pentortoise@Garry Horsnell
          December 3, 2013, 1:22 pm

          What People have said this Garry? Who of the Six Nations people are you referring to? ALL OF THEM!?

          REPLY
        • Garry Horsnell@Pentortoise
          December 3, 2013, 2:29 pm

          Why do six Nations people have chiefs if they don’t represent the Six Nations people and if the Chiefs can’t make decisions for and on behalf of their people?

          REPLY
        • Pentortoise@Garry Horsnell
          December 3, 2013, 3:23 pm

          this is where you should pay close attention:

          Chiefs are not like General Executors for our people, that have POWER to sign away our collective rights, We do have trust like relationships in our clans, but the power rests with the people individually coming together to assert a collective right, It can never be extinguished, It Was SAFEGUARDED in our laws.

          Is a chief ever attempted so sign away any of the peoples rights, wampum 58 stripped him of his national interests and makes null and void any may have signed.

          Show me where it says anywhere in our LAW that says otherwise. Lets Focus on the constitution of our people our Rule of law, ask yourself What does the Great Law say about this situation.

          Have you ever Pondered that?

          REPLY
        • Garry Horsnell@Pentortoise
          December 3, 2013, 8:51 pm

          I was under the impression Six Nations Clan Mothers select and raise the boys to be chiefs to be condoled and word about what the people want filters up through the clan mothers to the Grand Council chiefs and those chiefs decide what to do.

          It seems 45 Six Nations of the Grand River Chiefs in 1844 decided and agreed the Crown could sell the Johnson settlement land, the Martin settlement land, the Oxbow tract and the Eagle’s nest tract around Brantford.

          I would think they did that with the consent of the people and in the interests of their people.

          Have you got proof to the contrary?

          By the way, I don’t know how in 1844 all 50 Grand Council chiefs would be on the Six Nations of the Grand River reserve when Six Nations people were scattered and also living on reserves in other parts of Ontario, in Quebec and in New York state.

          So those 45 Six Nations of the Grand River chiefs in 1844 must have been a mixture of condoled chiefs, pine tree chiefs and other leaders who ran the Grand River reserve for the people.

          REPLY
        • Pentortoise@Garry Horsnell
          December 3, 2013, 10:16 pm

          I can only cite the law as i know it, The people all drink from the same bowl with no knifes to sever the flesh or the earth, as equals. The land is locked in a trust that none can severe, promised to the future generations, If anyone tries to sign away those rights they are instantaneously morphed into a foreign body, outside the circle/trust.

          Its called a safeguard and can never be broken.

          REPLY
        • Garry Horsnell@Pentortoise
          December 8, 2013, 6:24 am

          You say ” Chiefs are not like General Executors for our people, that have POWER to sign away our collective rights, We do have trust like relationships in our clans, but the power rests with the people”.

          Well, 20 chiefs, including some Mohawk chiefs, from the Five (later Six) Nations Haudenosaunee Confederacy, agreed to surrender land in what is now the U.S.A. and land in what is now southwestern Ontario to the British Crown according to the Albany (Nanfan) Treaty in July 1701.

          Are you suggesting or implying that those chiefs did not represent and did not have the consent of all the Five (later Six) Nations people and, therefore, that 1701 Albany (Nanfan) Treaty is invalid and Six Nations people should not have used it to justify hunting in places like Short Hills Provincial Park near St. Catharines Ontario?

          Mohawk Joseph Brant was a Captain in the British Army and he traveled to England in 1775 to ask on his own King George III (the Crown) of Britain to provide some land for Six Nations people.

          Are you suggesting or implying that, because Joseph Brant did not have the consent of all Six Nations people, Brant’s request was invalid?

          After the American Revolution, Quebec Governor Haldimand arranged to buy land, including land along the Grand River, from the Ojibwa Mississauga Indians and they agreed and sold and ceded that land to the Crown at a meeting at Fort Niagara on May 22, 1784. That land then became the Crown’s land.

          About 6 months later, on October 25, 1784, Governor Haldimand issued and announcement inviting Mohawks and others of the Six Nations to enter, occupy and use the Crown’s land along the Grand River.

          At that time, there was controversy and Six Nations chiefs in New York didn’t want Brant and his Six Nations followers to leave New York to live along the Grand River in what was then a part of the British Province of Quebec.

          Are you suggesting or implying that, because Joseph Brant did not have the consent of all Six Nations people, he and his Six Nations followers should not have entered the Crown’s land along the Grand River and that their entry onto that land was invalid?

          Are you suggesting or implying that, when Six Nations people are living on the Crown’s land along the Grand River or in the Crown’s vessel, they are all breaching Wampum 58 and shouldn’t be living on that land?

          REPLY
  • Jonathan Garlow
    November 20, 2013, 3:04 pm

    Hello Mr. McHale!!

    REPLY
  • Gary McHale
    November 20, 2013, 12:50 pm

    One has to wonder what reality some of these people like in. The ownership of property was decided back in 1973 by the highest court in the Province – the Court of Appeals. Since then all court must obey that ruling. In short, the court ruled that Six Nations has NO CLAIM on the ownership of land.

    Too bad many refuse to obey the law.

    REPLY
    • Pentortoise@Gary McHale
      November 20, 2013, 1:41 pm

      HI Gary, The highest court in the province still isnt High enough, the province has its opinion about the land, but the fact is its Third party to any land agreements, As such it cant see the treaties so it pretends they dont exist, well not pretend, but they lack the will or jurisdiction, They say they have best claim because they have a duty to protect puffed interests. Like the canadian constitutions, its just a Puffed up document from a foreign country and the colony followed that reality blindfolded, Did the people ratify the constitution and who made it? To me the canadians are the lawless ones!

      REPLY
      • Pentortoise@Pentortoise
        November 20, 2013, 1:43 pm

        if Canada has no valid constitutions, what law? British or Onkwehonwe? Roman law or Wampum law?

        REPLY
    • N8VSON@Gary McHale
      November 21, 2013, 11:00 am

      Ahh, your “Royal Corpulence.” What a sad sack. Have you not learned yet that you’re irrelevant? And shame on Pentortoise for trying to educate you. That’s a mountain no one can climb.

      REPLY
    • Glen Marshall@Gary McHale
      November 23, 2013, 4:35 pm

      Ignore irrelevant individuals and saboteurs.

      REPLY

Headquarters:


Oneida Business Park Suite 124
50 Generations Drive, Box 1
Ohsweken, ON N0A 1M0
Six Nations of the Grand River Country


Email: info@tworowtimes.com


Main office: (519) 900-5535


Editorial: (519) 900-6241


Advertising: (519) 900-6373

Latest Posts