Further to the case conference endorsement date September 21, 2022, and in
Particular paragraph 2 (b), the Men’s Fire of the Six Nations Grand River Territory (an
Interested participant) objected to the request of HDI and HDI’s position that they are lawfully authorized to represent the plaintiffs in this proceeding. These non-parties as well do accept the HDI position that the land claim issues of the plaintiffs must be determined by a proper representative of the Haudenosaunee law. However, HDI is not a proper and authorized representative of the Haudenosaunee people.
- The legitimacy of the Haudenosaunee Development Institute as an organization
and as a delegated representative of the Haudenosaunee remains in question,
and the issue of the trust in respect to the founding of HDI is involved in an
ongoing legal dispute which has yet to be resolved.
- The plaintiffs in this ongoing dispute argue that HDI is operating in breach of trust
and of fiduciary duty. Moreover, the HDI has acted negligently and/or fraudulently
in representing themselves as caretakers for the Haudenosaunee people, and as
an organization that would report back to and fully account to the HCCC and
Haudenosaunee people both its funds and the status of its work involving ongoing projects and land claims.
- The Declaration of Trust signed to establish HDI names a number of chiefs who were deceased at the time or no longer serving as chiefs of the HCC.
- The plaintiffs in this unresolved legal dispute also state that the vast majority of
chiefs named by the HDI as authorities which bestowed upon them the status of
delegate have not seen the Declaration of Trust nor have they received any
monies supposedly held by HDI and purportedly obtained for their benefit.
and contrary to their duties and obligations.
- The plaintiffs assert that HDI has been using such funds for their personal benefit
and contrary to their duties and obligations.
- The HDI members are also alleged to have failed to consult and obtain approval
from the Haudenosaunee People with respect to the Land Lease Agreements to
ensure that local stakeholders are aware of and supportive of their projects with
respect to the Land Lease Agreements.
- The HDI claims to have been created pursuant to the authorization of the HCCC
and also made to be a delegate of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy in respect
to their lands and represent their interests in these proceedings.
- Both claims are backed by sparse supporting evidence which suggests
that certain members of the HCCC, but not all of its members and
representatives, were consulted and referenced to imbue legitimacy upon HDI as
- Brian Doolittle claims in his affidavit that the HCCC met on April 2, 2022 to
resolve to authorize the HDI to intervene in this litigation and represent the
interests of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. Doolittle also claims this meeting
was carried out properly according to Haudenosaunee law.
- However, Doolittle fails to provide evidence that the meeting took place or that it
was properly carried out according to Haudenosaunee law.
- Doolittle claims that the meeting was attended by representatives from all three
benches of the HCCC, but Haudenosaunee law provides that the
Haudenosaunee People as a whole must be consulted. Moreover, the meeting
ought to be attended by representatives, male and female, from all of the
different groups which fall under the name of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy.
It is also clear under Haudenosaunee law that the HCCC can only operate
through unanimity of the 49 clans. There is no evidence, and contrary to the
evidence. of the Men’s file, that there was any proper consultation or unanimity
achieved to appoint HDI to represent the people in this matter or otherwise.
!n addition, land claim issues should be determined under Haudenosaunee law; these
non-parties have consulted with one of North America’s leading experts on
Haudenosaunee law, Paul Delaronde. Paul Delaronde has testified on Haudenosaunee
land claim issues in courts in the following jurisdictions: Ontario, Quebec, The United
States of America. He has also been deemed an expert by an Ontario court. lt is
fundamental to the non-parties that the rights of the people are not trampled upon by
determinations outside of Haudenosaunee law. Haudenosaunee law provides:
- The Haudenosaunee People must be consulted on matters such as the
delegation of authority involving land claims.
- Delaronde suggests that the proper course of action would be to put a delegation
together to present to the people in all of the territories.
- This delegation should travel and make arrangements with each group, meeting
with both the men and especially the women as the women hold the land and
nothing can be done without their consultation.
- When the people as a whole, both men and women, have expressed they
understand the issue at hand, then the HCCC has authority to make a decision.
- Following consultation with the people, they should have moved forward to
contact the Governor General as a representative of the Crown to remind them of
their pledge, to honour the Silver Covenant Chain, and that Canada has no
authority over Haudenosaunee land or its people.
- What the HDI has done in consulting a small circle of chiefs and HCCC
representatives have failed to involve the Haudenosaunee people as a whole and
acquire their approval.
- This circle, including the secretary of the HCC and the members claimed by
Doolittle to have attended the April 2, 2022, Zoom Conference, has no authority
to delegate representation to the HDI as they do not and cannot represent the
whole of the Haudenosaunee people.
- Many representatives of different groups that make up the Haudenosaunee
Confederacy were not consulted through this process.
- These non-parties do not believe the proper notice was given to the people who are the rightful inheritors of the land in question.
Hodiskeagehda, Men’s Fire of the Grand River Territory