Brantford: City sued for $10 million

tango · January 25, 2009

City sued for $10 million

Company blames municipality after building site targeted by natives

Posted By VINCENT BALL, EXPOSITOR STAFF

Updated 1 day ago

Kingspan Insulated Products, which intended to build its North American headquarters in Brantford, is suing the city for $10 million over its thwarted plans.

The company abandoned its building site in the city's northwest business park last July and, in a statement of claim, cited the problem of Six Nations protesters contesting the property as aboriginal land.

...

The company, which makes insulated wall and roof panels for the construction industry, now is planning to build in Bolton, according to a building industry source.

Besides the $10 million, the company also is seeking to rescind the deal to buy land from the city.

In its statement of claim, Kingspan accuses the city of misrepresenting the property.

Kingspan also claims the city failed to disclose pertinent information with respect to the land claims and the potential impact the land claims could have on the company's plans.

...

Kingspan says the city advised the company that the property was not subject to any specific claim and that it had been validly surrendered. The city also said no claim had been made against the property in litigation initiated by Six Nations in 1995.

... Kingspan claims the city received a letter from the Haudenosaunee putting Brantford on notice of potential claims to the property. The letter advised the city the Haudenosaunee would take all legal and peaceful steps necessary to protect their rights until the issue was resolved. The letter was dated Sept. 28, 2007, prior to the Oct. 19, 2007, closing date of the sale of the property from the city to Kingspan, the statement says.

Brantford breached its obligations and duties to disclose the letter prior to the closing date, choosing instead to withhold the letter.

...

After vacating the property, Kingspan asked the city to repurchase the property from Kingspan and compensate the company for costs and losses. The city failed to respond, the statement says.

Moreover, the city required Kingspan to provide a letter of credit authorizing the city to draw on Kingspan's account up to $1 million as security for Kingspan's completion of development of the property. The city, Kingspan says has notified the company that it intends to draw on the letter of credit due to the incompletion of the development.

Kingspan is asking the court for an injunction stopping Brantford from taking any action with respect to the letter of credit.

Brantford Expositor

Hmm ... So I guess if municipalities are 'approving' development without consent of Indigenous Nations with claims ... it may just come back to bite them!

The city put in all that infrastructure and the taxpayers paid for it, but now they can't build. They knew there was a problem and ignored it. silly them!

Edited January 25, 2009 by tango

Wild Bill · January 25, 2009

Hmm ... So I guess if municipalities are 'approving' development without consent of Indigenous Nations with claims ... it may just come back to bite them!
The city put in all that infrastructure and the taxpayers paid for it, but now they can't build. They knew there was a problem and ignored it. silly them!

Your explanation is possible but we don't know all the factors, which are true or false, which are significant and which are trivial. Your premise takes some assumptions as gospel.

We don't know for sure if the native land claims are valid or frivolous! McGuinty has clearly shown that he won't challenge natives over such issues. He prefers to simply hide and blame it on the feds.

Meanwhile, Brantford would naturally have assumed that the rule of law prevails. Suddenly, protests are lodged and the province does nothing. This time it involves an outside company who CAN'T wait while governments dither! It involves large sums of money, which ultimately will be sucked from taxpayers.

We can't tell if the natives have a legitimate claim! It seems that will take another 100 years of dinking around in the courts. Since the province and the feds refuse to face the issue we are going to see more and more such incidents. Job opportunities will be lost. Resentment and hard feelings on both sides will keep escalating and escalating. McGuinty left Caledonia twisting in the wind and now Brantford as followed.

Native protesters are smart enough to have realized that they don't HAVE to make legitimate claims! It's enough to make any claim at all. When the province won't take a stand any claim will further paralyze development in that area, putting more pressure on governments to DO something!

Of course, what the protesters don't realize is that the feds and the province DON"t have to do anything, no matter how much pressure is involved! As long as Fantino can say that things are peaceful the politicians couldn't care less what happens to Caledonia or Brantford. They can afford to lose a seat or two in their party rankings. To them its a cheap price to pay to be able to duck the situations.

I'm making a lot of assumptions based on my personal opinions but then, so are you! That's my point. Who's right or wrong should be proven in a court of law. Since that apparently isn't going to happen in the reasonable and foreseeable future, at this point in time how can we tell?

Ontario Loyalist · January 25, 2009

A legal and constitutional based municipal government does not and should not have to consult organizations who claim to have rights to land that they have no right to.

This latest issue only speaks to the fact that the ultimate solution to all of this will probably be the removal of Six Nations in toto.

Edited January 25, 2009 by Ontario Loyalist

CANADIEN · January 25, 2009

A legal and constitutional based municipal government does not and should not have to consult organizations who claim to have rights to land that they have no right to.
This latest issue only speaks to the fact that the ultimate solution to all of this will probably be the removal of Six Nations in toto.

I, of course, believe that criminals who blockade roads, smuggle drugs or steal should be arrested and thrown in jail, no matter the clour of heir skin.

That being said, I didn't know that a determination had already been made in a proper court of law on claims by the Six Nations that lands granted to them by the Crown was later taken illegally. Mind you, considering your talk of an "ultimate solution", being chasing them, you will excuse me if I believe that they are wrong simply because they're Indians. Me, on the other hand, believe that it is high time that the issue be settled in a court of law -- in the case of the Six nations, it is ultimately very simple: that the Corwn illegally took away land it had granted to the First Nations, yes or no?

BTW, I wonder what you'd sggest we do if the Six Nations decide to stay when we start telling them to move out.

Ontario Loyalist · January 26, 2009

Me, on the other hand, believe that it is high time that the issue be settled in a court of law -- in the case of the Six nations, it is ultimately very simple: that the Corwn illegally took away land it had granted to the First Nations, yes or no?
BTW, I wonder what you'd sggest we do if the Six Nations decide to stay when we start telling them to move out.

The issue here is that the Crown granted land to Six Nations. Please feel free to read up on English property law of that period to understand what the arrangement entailed. Six Nations subsequently sold much of that land. Now apparently what Six Nations is doing is now trying to hold current governments and citizens of Canada responsible for, as tango has pointed out, not stopping Six Nations from illegally selling their land. Now they want the land returned to them and financial compensation, ie. they wanted to be compensated for their (Six Nation's) breaking the law.

As for what would be done if they resist; the government has every right to remove "nations" that threaten or cause a disturbance of the peace, and dealing with them would be no different than what any other country would have to do with insurgent or large criminal organizations.

Edited January 26, 2009 by Ontario Loyalist

CANADIEN · January 26, 2009

The issue here is that the Crown granted land to Six Nations. Please feel free to read up on English property law of that period to understand what the arrangement entailed. Six Nations subsequently sold much of that land. Now apparently what Six Nations is doing is now trying to hold current governments and citizens of Canada responsible for, as tango has pointed out, not stopping Six Nations from illegally selling their land. Now they want the land returned to them and financial compensation, ie. they wanted to be compensated for their (Six Nation's) breaking the law.

Yhank you for the suggestion, which I followed a long time ago. Most territorial claims by the Six Nations is on land that the Government granted them and that the Government, according to the claim, later sold without their consent.

As for what would be done if they resist; the government has every right to remove "nations" that threaten or cause a disturbance of the peace, and dealing with them would be no different than what any other country would have to do with insurgent or large criminal organizations.

So now the whole Six-Nations is a criminal organization. Not just the ssmugglers, not just the thieves, not just those who erect barricades. All of them. Who cares about the law abiding ones, or the ones too young or too old to commit any crime. They are Indians, so they're all guilty, right?

tango · January 26, 2009

A legal and constitutional based municipal government does not and should not have to consult organizations who claim to have rights to land that they have no right to.
This latest issue only speaks to the fact that the ultimate solution to all of this will probably be the removal of Six Nations in toto.

:lol:

tango · January 26, 2009

That being said, I didn't know that a determination had already been made in a proper court of law on claims by the Six Nations that lands granted to them by the Crown was later taken illegally.

It hasn't, but the land cannot be built on until a decision is made. However, decisions about land claims are being made in negotiations, not in court.

BTW, I wonder what you'd sggest we do if the Six Nations decide to stay when we start telling them to move out.

:lol:

Um ... Ontario Loyalist would suggest we bomb the elders and youth and women and children perhaps? :rolleyes: and imprison the men, or imprison them all?

He has to have a point somewhere ...

I have to hear this ... (popping popcorn now ... )

Edited January 27, 2009 by tango

tango · January 26, 2009

Your explanation is possible but we don't know all the factors, which are true or false, which are significant and which are trivial. Your premise takes some assumptions as gospel.

Kingspan's case is yet to be proven in court, it's true. However, the critical evidence is the letter from Six Nations in Sept. that should have been divulged to Kingspan before the October closing date. It appears that Brantford did not act in good faith.

We don't know for sure if the native land claims are valid or frivolous!

It doesn't matter right now. The land cannot be built on until the claim is resolved.

McGuinty has clearly shown that he won't challenge natives over such issues. He prefers to simply hide and blame it on the feds.

The Feds (Harper) are in charge of negotiating the land claims, not McGuinty.

However, McGuinty is hiding from the province's duty to consult with Six Nations about any development being considered for disputed land.

Meanwhile, Brantford would naturally have assumed that the rule of law prevails.
Suddenly, protests are lodged and the province does nothing. This time it involves an outside company who CAN'T wait while governments dither! It involves large sums of money, which ultimately will be sucked from taxpayers.

Yes, so we taxpayers need to keep better control of what our local government is doing with our money, I would think. There are/were several properties under development that were also known to be under claim.

We can't tell if the natives have a legitimate claim! It seems that will take another 100 years of dinking around in the courts. Since the province and the feds refuse to face the issue we are going to see more and more such incidents. Job opportunities will be lost. Resentment and hard feelings on both sides will keep escalating and escalating. McGuinty left Caledonia twisting in the wind and now Brantford as followed.

I agree with you there. 'The Crown' is the province in this case, and legally should have tried to resolve the development issues before it gave approvals to the municipality to build.

Native protesters are smart enough to have realized that they don't HAVE to make legitimate claims! It's enough to make any claim at all. When the province won't take a stand any claim will further paralyze development in that area, putting more pressure on governments to DO something!

If a claim is not considered legitimate, the feds simply reject it. Six Nations has 28 claims that were submitted and not rejected.

The strength of their claim would also be considered in the province's consultation about plans to use of the land, if they did any. The Supreme Court has given some guidelines for that.

Of course, what the protesters don't realize is that the feds and the province DON"t have to do anything, no matter how much pressure is involved! As long as Fantino can say that things are peaceful the politicians couldn't care less what happens to Caledonia or Brantford. They can afford to lose a seat or two in their party rankings. To them its a cheap price to pay to be able to duck the situations.

I think you are right, and I think that's why protests occur ... because our governments do nothing! They only deal with any crisis that arises, and they deal with them by running, hiding, stalling, and dragging them out as long as possible, as we have clearly seen in Caledonia and Brantford. It's terribly frustrating for all involved. I can only say ... they are our governments. We're supposed to be able to tell them what to do. (Isn't that a depressing thought!) Maybe we should boycott our taxes, eh? What else can we do that they will even notice?

I'm making a lot of assumptions based on my personal opinions but then, so are you!

I'm assuming (from my own reading of the article above) that Kingspan has a pretty darn good case against the City of Brantford, but I think that's the only assumption I've made on this topic. Is there something else?

That's my point. Who's right or wrong should be proven in a court of law. Since that apparently isn't going to happen in the reasonable and foreseeable future, at this point in time how can we tell?

On this specific topic of Kingspan's lawsuit against the City of Brantford, as I said above, I believe Kingspan has a good case. Do you agree?

I think this is very significant because municipalities may now be more inclined to consult with Aboriginal communities ahead of time, instead of encountering such disruption after they've already paid mega taxpayer bucks to put infrastructure in, and now a lawsuit too as a result.

Honestly, I don't think the province can currently control the development in municipalities. I think the municipalities have to learn the hard way, like Caledonia has and now Brantford.

I wonder if other municipalities in the Haldimand Tract got a letter like that from Six Nations, indicating concerns about development in certain areas.

Edited January 26, 2009 by tango

Molly · January 26, 2009

.. based on the information provided, Kingspan wins, hands down.

Ontario Loyalist · January 26, 2009

Yhank you for the suggestion, which I followed a long time ago. Most territorial claims by the Six Nations is on land that the Government granted them and that the Government, according to the claim, later sold without their consent.

Well, where's the documentation showing that it was the GOVERNMENT that sold the land? It was Joseph Brant, and other members of Six Nations, against the wishes of the government that sold the land. It's the government that forced Six Nations to make their land sales/transfers legal in the 1840s and 1850s.

So now the whole Six-Nations is a criminal organization. Not just the ssmugglers, not just the thieves, not just those who erect barricades. All of them. Who cares about the law abiding ones, or the ones too young or too old to commit any crime. They are Indians, so they're all guilty, right?

Has nothing to do with the fact that they are Indians, but there certainly is a considerable sense of entitlement on the side of Six Nations it seems based on their being Indians. No other group would be able to get away with this, especially if their were "white". If there was a concentrated population of white nationalists doing this sort of stuff, the military would have been called out right at the beginning. And yes, all of them; the entire non-active element of Six Nations provides support for this conduct.

Ontario Loyalist · January 26, 2009

I wonder if other municipalities in the Haldimand Tract got a letter like that from Six Nations, indicating concerns about development in certain areas.

Well, if they did, then they have no reason to consider it valid. Non-legal entities attempting to coerce or extort legal government bodies are engaging in CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. The Haldimand Tract DOES NOT exist; most of it was sold of by Six Nations long ago.

Wild Bill · January 26, 2009

I'm assuming (from my own reading of the article above) that Kingspan has a pretty darn good case against the City of Brantford, but I think that's the only assumption I've made on this topic. Is there something else?
On this specific topic of Kingspan's lawsuit against the City of Brantford, as I said above, I believe Kingspan has a good case. Do you agree?

Honestly, I don't think the province can currently control the development in municipalities. I think the municipalities have to learn the hard way, like Caledonia has and now Brantford.

I wonder if other municipalities in the Haldimand Tract got a letter like that from Six Nations, indicating concerns about development in certain areas.

I think you misunderstand me. As I said, there are some assumptions here.

First off, Kingspan may well have a good case but Brantford may also have a good defense. This to me seems a perfect example of where something may be technically legal but totally against the spirit of justice. The civil servants of Brantford have probably not seen a claim from natives since Joseph Brant was alive! The letter from SN would have appeared as a bolt from the blue. The legal department might have looked at it and not taken it seriously. After all, throughout this protest SN has had divisions within itself as to who speaks for them. The city may also have considered a challenge based on the Haldimand Tract to be frivolous, as the feds have already refused to recognize it. To many eyes, the basis for today's claim might seem to be an attempt by some partisans to rewrite history in their favour.

The feds seem to have taken a stand against the validity of the Haldimand Tract claim. It's the province that refuses to stand up on the side of enforcement. A city could easily find itself in Brantford's position. Who would expect the province to refuse to enforce the law?

As for the province being unable to control development in such areas, what you are saying would mean that the province is essentially no longer able to control development at all! The protesters have effectively stopped it cold!

This is lighting a fuse. Brantford cannot survive a development freeze. They also cannot trust any deal with SN. SN has set a precedent for ignoring history in its own favour. You and I can argue about that but it doesn't matter. Brantford will already have decided.

The Caledonia protest is now expanding. Things will be forced to come to a head. Unfortunately, this can lead to rushed and rash actions. If civic resentment grows, we may see things like economic embargoes against people from SN in Caledonia, Brantord and the other towns. I sincerely hope NOT, but I just don't have faith in human nature to not think it a possibility. Citizens are being used as cannon fodder and that HAS to inflame resentment! I truly wonder if the SN protesters understand this. They seem oblivious, like someone who would keep kicking a dog and then being shocked if it bit them!

I am so glad I don't live there. I avoid going anywhere near there as well. That could be someone like me attacked for getting lost and driving down the wrong street! Better just to never allow the opportunity.

Edited January 26, 2009 by Wild Bill

madmax · January 26, 2009

.. based on the information provided, Kingspan wins, hands down.

A few things....

KingSpan feels mislead by the municipal government.

Six Nations weren't consulted.

King Span is going after whom they believe are ultimately responsible.

The Injunction and police enforcement haven't resolved this problem, so that while Six Nations individuals were arrested, at the end of the day, it doesn't change the circumstances or facts surronding the dispute. (See PRovincial thread, where some Federal Public Servants, believe the feds have no role in resolving land claims :rolleyes: )

Brantford City Council has some splaining to do.

While Caledonia gets alot of attention, there are a few other treats in Brantford.

Watch for some of these things to come forward in the near future....... like ties to Jane Stewart

-------------------------------------------

Jane Stewart was first elected to Parliament in the 1993 election. She was a close friend of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, and was soon appointed to the important position of Minister of Indian Affairs.

From 2006 to May 2007 Stewart was chief negotiator for the province of Ontario in the Caledonia land dispute. [1]

In July 2005, she left her job with the ILO to return to Canada and marry Henry Stolp.

--------------------------------------------

Stolp is a real estate developer. A developer who pointed Sifton Properties to a piece of real estate that has a Six Nations Land Claim, 2 known and archaelogically identified Mohawk and Credit Methodist mission long houses. These details are historically accounted for in a 2002 documentary called "Written in the Earth".

So for a good 6 years this evidence was out there for the two previous developers Brant Star and First Urban.

Sifton Group paid a handsome fee for property with close proximity to the river, but is possibly some of the greenest property in the NW section which makes the KingSpan claim miniscule by comparision.

The Question is, that if you have someone involved in Native Land Claims, from a Federal Level and then a Provincial Level, and her husband is an Industrial/Commercial Real Estate developer, do you think any "Shop talk" went back and forth?

Some people purchase an existing home on the banks of the grand and next to the disputed property , knowing that development couldn't go forward because of the documented land claim. This information givin to them by "their" real estate broker.

Imagine everyone surprise when......

Sifton Group provided a development plan for the region.

At the Ward Meeting...... some fun stuff came out.

Few of the 300 people in attendance supported the development.

People from Six Nations appeared and one person asked a really simple set of questions to Sifton Properties.

Q) Did you know that there is a federally recognized claim on the property.

A) YES

Q) Did you know that you are to consult with Six Nations?

A) YES

Q) Did you consult with anyone on Six Nations?

A) NO

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So compared to King Span, who claim to be totally in the dark..... Land Developer Sifton Group appear to be totally informed.

Exactly how much Compensation should Sifton Group receive for their "HardShip" or should they be subject to an occupation, future hardship?

Many companies are looking at the Henco Windfall. Sifton Group likely believes that they can have it both ways. Develop against the wishes of the community and make a fistful of dollars or having landed a beauty of a piece of conflict property, get the government to pay them for their "suffering".

I wonder if Sifton Group would have went after this highly disputed property without the participation of Jane Stewarts husband.

Jane Stewart who had the inside track to Six Nations land claims having been both Indian Affairs Minister and a Provincial Negiotator.

This is just one story in Brantford, there are a number of others.

But they are still small compared to Caledonia and the shafting the inhabitants have received there by their own governments.

Edited January 26, 2009 by madmax

madmax · January 26, 2009

Meanwhile, Brantford would naturally have assumed that the rule of law prevails.

Which is why King Span is going to stick it to them. Arresting Six Nations individuals on the site doesn't change King Spans perspective of ownership and full disclosure.

14 Jul 2008
City police arrested a native who blocked a cement truck from entering the Kingspan site in northwest Brantford this morning.

CANADIEN · January 26, 2009

Well, where's the documentation showing that it was the GOVERNMENT that sold the land? It was Joseph Brant, and other members of Six Nations, against the wishes of the government that sold the land. It's the government that forced Six Nations to make their land sales/transfers legal in the 1840s and 1850s.

Some of the land in the original Haldimand Tract was indeed sold by the Six Nations, and there was some dispute quite early on between them and the Government on the interpretation of the grant, and therefore on the legality of the sales. The Government's claim was the Six Nations could only sell land to the Crown, while the Six Nations' claim was that, as owners, they could sell land to whoever they wanted. Some of the early Brant sales felt through when the buyers (speculators) could not pay.

Unlike what you claim, the Crown did not "force the Six Nations to make their illegal sales legal in the 1840's and 1850's. In fact, the Crown apprarantly purchased most of the tract from the Six Nations in 1841; that sale has from the start been contested on the grounds of allleged deception and intimidation by the Crown.

In the case of the land in Caledonia, records show that the Six Nations agreed to lease land around Plank Road to the Crown in 1835. The Crown later claimed that a document signed in 1844 by some of the Six Nations chiefs constituted a sale of that land to the Crown, a claim once again almost immdiately contested by the Six Nations.

Records show that on May 15, 1849, the land where the Hemco Development in Caledonia sits was sold to George Marlot Ryckman, and that the Crown issued a deed to him. Crown deeds (legally termed land patents) were only issued when land was sold or granted by the Crown. If it had been a transaction between two private parties (Ryckman and the Six Nations), they would have written and signed the deed between them, then submitted a copy to the local Land Registry Office.

Henco bases its claim of ownership on the 1849 document. Not only does Henco say that the sale was by the Crown, but it also claims that the Haldimand Proclamation was only a license to live pn the Tract, and the First Nations never owned it legally.

I am not one to take the claims of any of the parties involved at face value, but the "the Indians sold the land illegally then were forced to make them legal" bit is disproved by the records.

CANADIEN · January 26, 2009

Well, if they did, then they have no reason to consider it valid. Non-legal entities attempting to coerce or extort legal government bodies are engaging in CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. The Haldimand Tract DOES NOT exist; most of it was sold of by Six Nations long ago.

The Band Council of the Six Nations is the legally recognized government of the Six Nations and therefore, to use your terminology, a legal entity (btw, I'd love to see the law idctionay where you got that term). Since pwnership of land by the Six Nations is collective, the Council has a legal right to claim ownerhsip of land as well of jurisdiction over it, and to pursue its claim in a LAWFUL manner.

I capitalized LAWFUL in case you confuse this with support for law breaking.

Ontario Loyalist · January 27, 2009

The Band Council of the Six Nations is the legally recognized government of the Six Nations and therefore, to use your terminology, a legal entity (btw, I'd love to see the law idctionay where you got that term). Since pwnership of land by the Six Nations is collective, the Council has a legal right to claim ownerhsip of land as well of jurisdiction over it, and to pursue its claim in a LAWFUL manner.
I capitalized LAWFUL in case you confuse this with support for law breaking.

re: "legal entity," see also: juristic person ---> municipalities.

The HDI is not a legal entity, and the Band Council is essentially viewed by Indians as something that was imposed on them by the "colonial" government. This whole "land claim" issue is being incited by so-called "clan mothers" and other shadowy "traditional" factions within Six Nations.

Ontario Loyalist · January 27, 2009

Some of the land in the original Haldimand Tract was indeed sold by the Six Nations, and there was some dispute quite early on between them and the Government on the interpretation of the grant, and therefore on the legality of the sales. The Government's claim was the Six Nations could only sell land to the Crown, while the Six Nations' claim was that, as owners, they could sell land to whoever they wanted. Some of the early Brant sales felt through when the buyers (speculators) could not pay.

Is that not what is written? If so, then that's what the case was, and those words are no less legitimate than those that speak to the creation of the so-called Haldimand Tract in general. The latter of course is the basis for the Six Nation's claim to the land, so it is legitimate; but that which indicates that Six Nations sold, surrendered, or did not have full ownership, is not legitimate. So Six Nation's claims are based on selective usage of documentation, ie. those that suits their agenda.

Unlike what you claim, the Crown did not "force the Six Nations to make their illegal sales legal in the 1840's and 1850's. In fact, the Crown apprarantly purchased most of the tract from the Six Nations in 1841; that sale has from the start been contested on the grounds of allleged deception and intimidation by the Crown.

Proof?

In the case of the land in Caledonia, records show that the Six Nations agreed to lease land around Plank Road to the Crown in 1835. The Crown later claimed that a document signed in 1844 by some of the Six Nations chiefs constituted a sale of that land to the Crown, a claim once again almost immdiately contested by the Six Nations.

I want to see the source for this.

Records show that on May 15, 1849, the land where the Hemco Development in Caledonia sits was sold to George Marlot Ryckman, and that the Crown issued a deed to him. Crown deeds (legally termed land patents) were only issued when land was sold or granted by the Crown. If it had been a transaction between two private parties (Ryckman and the Six Nations), they would have written and signed the deed between them, then submitted a copy to the local Land Registry Office.
Henco bases its claim of ownership on the 1849 document. Not only does Henco say that the sale was by the Crown, but it also claims that the Haldimand Proclamation was only a license to live pn the Tract, and the First Nations never owned it legally.

According to my understanding of English property law, that's a legitimate argument.

CANADIEN · January 27, 2009

re: "legal entity," see also: juristic person ---> municipalities.

And the title of the law dictionary you found this in is?

The HDI is not a legal entity, and the Band Council is essentially viewed by Indians as something that was imposed on them by the "colonial" government. This whole "land claim" issue is being incited by so-called "clan mothers" and other shadowy "traditional" factions within Six Nations.

Too bad for your analysis that the Council supports the claim.

CANADIEN · January 27, 2009

Is that not what is written? If so, then that's what the case was, and those words are no less legitimate than those that speak to the creation of the so-called Haldimand Tract in general. The latter of course is the basis for the Six Nation's claim to the land, so it is legitimate; but that which indicates that Six Nations sold, surrendered, or did not have full ownership, is not legitimate. So Six Nation's claims are based on selective usage of documentation, ie. those that suits their agenda.

You mean, the same way your position is based on the selective use of documentation to suit your agenda?

BTW, of the 29 land claims submitted by the Six Nations 27 concern land that was part of the Haldimand grant. None of those claims are for land that the Six Nations acknowledge was sold or surrender with the full and free consent.

Many of the claims are based on allegations that Six Nation consent on certain sales or surrenders to the Crown was obtained illegally, which would render those transactions void. Those allegations were already made at the time the events took place. I would be the last one to argue they have to be accepted as true without examination, which is why the claims and the related allegations are to be examined in a proper judicial forum, and sooner rather than in an other 150 years. Surely, you can't object to establishing the facts?

Ontario Loyalist · January 27, 2009

And the title of the law dictionary you found this in is?

Google it. My law library is elsewhere and I'm not inclined to waste my time looking up the proper legal definition just to suit your inability to accept this TRUTH.

Too bad for your analysis that the Council supports the claim.

Of course they would, the social and political repercusions for these people not to would be significant.

Ontario Loyalist · January 27, 2009

You mean, the same way your position is based on the selective use of documentation to suit your agenda?
BTW, of the 29 land claims submitted by the Six Nations 27 concern land that was part of the Haldimand grant. None of those claims are for land that the Six Nations acknowledge was sold or surrender with the full and free consent.

Many of the claims are based on allegations that Six Nation consent on certain sales or surrenders to the Crown was obtained illegally, which would render those transactions void. Those allegations were already made at the time the events took place. I would be the last one to argue they have to be accepted as true without examination, which is why the claims and the related allegations are to be examined in a proper judicial forum, and sooner rather than in an other 150 years. Surely, you can't object to establishing the facts?

Oh, yeah, I'm always open to historical facts being established, but Six Nations clearly isn't. I have no problem with the conduct of nefarious Europeans being the topic of historical debate and criticism, but at the same time we have to address the truth about Indian cultures and societies, and the truth about Six Nations.

I've stated it before, and I'll state it again, that Six Nations is at fault for an illegal sale of lands; they were doing this against the wishes of the government, but there was not much the government could to. Do you have any understanding of was pioneer Upper Canada was actually like, and why the government had virtually no power to stop illegal land sales/surrenders, etc. Whatever the case, the blame then ultimate rests on Six Nations; they were unable to conduct their own affairs, due either to drunkeness, ignorance, or weak leadership.

CANADIEN · January 27, 2009

Google it. My law library is elsewhere and I'm not inclined to waste my time looking up the proper legal definition just to suit your inability to accept this TRUTH.

If you looked at the prpoer legal definition, you would see that a legal entity that can legally enter into a contract. A definition that clearly involves legally constituted and register First nation organizations.

Of course they would, the social and political repercusions for these people not to would be significant.

Nothing to do with the fact they believe the claim to valid, right?

CANADIEN · January 27, 2009

Oh, yeah, I'm always open to historical facts being established, but Six Nations clearly isn't. I have no problem with the conduct of nefarious Europeans being the topic of historical debate and criticism, but at the same time we have to address the truth about Indian cultures and societies, and the truth about Six Nations.
I've stated it before, and I'll state it again, that Six Nations is at fault for an illegal sale of lands; they were doing this against the wishes of the government, but there was not much the government could to.

You seem to forget one thing - if the sales were illegal, then the Six Nations are still the legal owners, unless they later sold or surrendered the and through a legally valid transaction. And, unlike you, I don't subscribe to the non-sensical notion that they were forced to sell any land in the 1840's to parties other than the Crown.

Do you have any understanding of was pioneer Upper Canada was actually like, and why the government had virtually no power to stop illegal land sales/surrenders, etc

A better understanding than you, obviously, since I can make the distinction between sales the Six nations decided to do and those they were allegedly forced to do through deception or coercion.

Whatever the case, the blame then ultimate rests on Six Nations; they were unable to conduct their own affairs, due either to drunkeness, ignorance, or weak leadership.

In other words, who cares if some land was stolen from them through coercion or outright lie? It's all OK because it's their fault. I wonder if you would claim that those people whose cars are stolen by criminals from the Six Nations reserve are to blame for not keeping an eye on their property.