HDI problem a failure to inform

For Your Consideration
By Sagoyesahtah

The Samsung document was strictly guarded by the HDI and the personnel under its employ. The document itself contains language that directly states that “transparency is paramount to this agreement being legally binding.”

It also contains a clause that could negatively impact the sovereign rights and privileges of ALL Haudenosaunee. The Haudenosaunee people trying to access the Samsung Document were denied access by HDI until there was a public outcry and then fiercely defended by persons who were receiving monies from HDI when the people started raising concerns.

Other Concerns are as follows:

1. Incorporation of HDI (Ontario 2438543 Inc.) as a company and administrative agency of HCCC thereby submitting HCCC AND Haudenosaunee people to Canadian Law. How do we maintain our governance system within the framework of Canadian Law? We don’t. We become subjugated by it.

2. Agreeing to a clause in the Samsung Agreement (section 17 Samsung Agreement Sept 26, 2014) to waive Sovereign Immunity. When pressed on this concern at Confederacy Council, the lawyer for HDI admitted there was some reluctance from HDI on the clause but that they decided to go ahead with it anyway and the matter was not brought to full Council for consideration prior to signing the agreement. Shouldn’t these concerns have been investigated and addressed at HCCC PRIOR to any agreement being signed? A simple Google search can help readers to peruse the meaning of the term.

For example, http:// legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sovereign+Immunity

Waiving sovereign immunity means waiving immunity to lawsuits possibly resulting in the seizure of property from outside companies, governments and individuals.

Could this decision set precedent for lawsuits in other circumstances involving Haudenosaunee and outside governments, companies and individuals or in matters of matrimonial property? Could this agreement set some kind of precedent in getting around Indian Act protection of on reserve property?

3. Payment to the Province from HCCC of damages awarded by a Canadian Court regarding the 2008 protest in Brantford. This is an act of submission and erodes our position as land defenders and as a separate and Sovereign Nation.

4. Not Acting In Good Faith. Not being completely transparent in business dealings and cherry picking support for agreements such as the Samsung Agreement. Not all chiefs, clan mothers and the 49 clan families were actively consulted about the projects of HDI.

5. Failure to ensure Due Diligence. Chiefs, Clan Mothers and the 49 families were not fully informed of the risks involved in projects and agreements entered into by HDI on behalf of the Haudenosaunee prior to agreements being approved. See concern number 2.

6. Conflict of Interest. How can Chiefs, Clan Mothers and others being paid salaries and/or honoraria be unbiased and objective at Council when they are benefitting financially from advancing the recommendations of HDI? What do they do to ensure they are not being influenced by HDI or placing undue influence at Confederacy Council to push the outcomes preferred by HDI? Should they declare a conflict and refrain from the decision making process? What are the policies regarding this? Conflict of interest can bias the process such as when questions were raised from the Onondaga Beaver Clan at Council regarding the proposed tobacco by-law and the Samsung Deal. Those with a vested financial interest in promoting the Samsung deal (HDI) violated Council protocol and disrespected a delegated speaker for Chief Arnie General and the meeting was shut down by the actions of Allan McNaughton, member of HDI when he walked out of the Council while the wampum was out. When reviewing the minutes at next council it was stated that Council had to be closed because Steve Hill disrupted Council and the minutes did not reflect what really happened and censored some of the information to disregard the important concerns of a clan family. Steve had been appointed to speak by his Clan Mother and Chief to raise questions on behalf of the Clan. Instead of encouraging this dialogue Steve was chastised for raising concerns. A second example of Conflict of Interest occurred after the attempted eviction of Aaron Detlor, lawyer for HDI, when some four Chiefs and a few Clan Mothers convened a meeting in the GREAT building in an attempt to diffuse the situation. The meeting was not a convened meeting of the HCCC and not all Clan Mothers and Chiefs were present. Subsequent to that meeting, a letter was produced on old “Iroquois Confederacy” letterhead which was put out by the paid media rep for HCCC/HDI. This letter was not signed by the Secretary of the Confederacy Council or taken to full Council for approval prior to its release but presents as if it was an official statement put out by HCCC.

7. Accountability. The financial statements of the HDI are vague and provide the minimum of information to the public. The information is not readily available to the community or widely distributed to the community. There is little detail provided on the honoraria paid to individuals or salaries paid to staff of HDI. As the corporation represents the HCCC these are public monies and the public has a right to know who is in receipt of them; has a right to be advised of the contracts for services provided on their behalf and how much in professional fees, consultation fees etc. are being paid and to whom. A second concern regarding accountability is the failure of HDI and HCCC to inform, whether intentional or not, the people about new potential projects. As a public incorporation are they not required to notify the public of all projects under consideration and have public information sessions? Are they not obligated to have a public AGM (Annual General Meeting)?

8. Land Acquisitions by HDI and/or Subsidiaries. Who authorized lands to be purchased and held by individuals on behalf of HDI/HCCC. How does this benefit the financial status of the individuals holding these assets? Is HCCC paying taxes on these properties? Was/is there a process in place for managing these lands that is public and accountable?

9. Censorship and Controlling the Message: HDI is paying a local newspaper to put out cleverly crafted media messaging so information that gets to the public is controlled and unchallenged. This makes it hard to independently verify information. Any concerns are dismissed or you are addressed in a mean spirited confrontational tone by the media rep. It creates an unfair market advantage over other news sources when one person controls who gets what information from HDI. How does HDI/ HCCC ensure its communications are distributed equitably and that messaging is fair, accurate, and unbiased and that people are treated respectfully when it comes to having their concerns heard.

10. Who is Speaking for Us? Who represents HDI/HCCC in the public forum? At conferences, at consultations with other corporations, with other municipal governments, courts and with the media? Who do they say they represent when the actions of a few paid people affect the whole of the Haudenosaunee people not just here but all over? Does that individual have the best interests of all of us and are they acting in good faith or trying to close a business deal for money. Where is our moral compass now?

Related Posts

1 Comment

  1. LOL …
    “sovereign immunity” is not recognized by CANADA and her courts!!!!!!!!

    aaron detlor explains this so many times or

Comments are closed.