Brantford: City sued for $10 million

[madmax]

My question to the posters in this thread is....

Is Kingspan Justified in suing the City of Brantford?

What is the City of Brantfords Responsibility to investors in the community?

[Molly]

Yes. And Kingspan should win it.

Had Brantford disclosed the claim, even if they felt it was frivolous, so that Kingspan could make their own determination of whether they were willing to shoulder the risk, then there would be no claim. Brantford had that obligation, and failed to fulfill it, to Kingspans loss, and so, they owe reparations.

Easy-peasy.

[guyser]

Easy-peasy.

Aint that the truth.

Non-disclosure is a huge issue.

[Ontario Loyalist]

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.

The HDI is not legal, the Ontario Government has made that abundantly clear.

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

Why don't you ask some of them, then? The people who want to reassert Six Nations sovereignty view them as holders of "non-traditional" positions which would be done away with. But they still want to keep their jobs because they pay well.

[Ontario Loyalist]

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.

So if Six Nations breaks the law by illegally selling their land, it should be returned to them? I'm fairly certain that according to English property law of the time, it would have to return to the Crown.

Please learn how to read. I NEVER stated that Six Nations was "forced to sell any land... to parties other than the Crown"--I stated that Six Nations was forced to legally document land sales/transfers; ie., amongst themselves.

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.

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.

I think you really DO NOT understand the situation back in the 1790s and early 1800s--there was no deception or coercion as you would believe it, since the process of these landsales/transfers are documented well enough to show that Joseph Brant, for instance, was very clear and deliberate in his intentions. I think you subscribe to the notion that Indians were hapless victims, which they certainly were not. They were simply incapable to fully understanding how to conduct their affairs, and in that respect one cannot expect to seek a legal remedy. If you sell a valuable classic car, and the buyer convinces you to lower the price considerably, the buyer cannot later be held at fault if you later decide that you were "robbed" because you agreed to the lower price.

[CANADIEN]

So if Six Nations breaks the law by illegally selling their land, it should be returned to them? I'm fairly certain that according to English property law of the time, it would have to return to the Crown.

Please learn how to read. I NEVER stated that Six Nations was "forced to sell any land... to parties other than the Crown"--I stated that Six Nations was forced to legally document land sales/transfers; ie., amongst themselves.

Here's the exact words you used:

It's the government that forced Six Nations to make their land sales/transfers legal in the 1840s and 1850s.

Please, learn to be clear.

I think you really DO NOT understand the situation back in the 1790s and early 1800s--there was no deception or coercion as you would believe it, since the process of these landsales/transfers are documented well enough to show that Joseph Brant, for instance, was very clear and deliberate in his intentions.

The lack of understanding is clearly yours.

It is very well documented that Joseph Brant sold land in the NORTHERN part of the Haldimand grant to sepculators in the 1790's. It is also very well documented that, in the 1840's and 1850's, the Crown arranged for the surrender of land in the SOUTHERN part of the the Haldimand grant.

If you look at the Six Nations' list of claims, you will notice that only 3 of the 289 claims concerns land not located in the southern half of the original Haldimand grant. One is for land at the source of the Grand Rivr, that was included in the original haldimand grant but removed when Liet.-Gov. Simcoe modified the terms of the grant in 1793. Two others concern land allegendly transferred by a former Superintendant of Indian Affairs to the Six Nations in East Hawkesbury and innisfil Townships (outside of the Haldimand grant), in 1831, as payment for money owed by that individual to the Six Nations.

In other words, the claims submitted do NOT involve land sold by Joseph Brant on behalf of the Six Nations in the 1790's.

Edited January 28, 2009 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

I think you subscribe to the notion that Indians were hapless victims, which they certainly were not. They were simply incapable to fully understanding how to conduct their affairs, and in that respect one cannot expect to seek a legal remedy. If you sell a valuable classic car, and the buyer convinces you to lower the price considerably, the buyer cannot later be held at fault if you later decide that you were "robbed" because you agreed to the lower price.

One of the claims made by the Six Nations alleges that a surrender, on January 18, 1841, of most of what was then remaining of the Haldimand grant by Six Nations to the Crown, was in fact obtained illegally. As early as February 4, 1841, 17 days after the fact, the Six nations petitioned the Governor General to nullify the agreement, on the ground that the signatories ooon the Indian part had not been duly authorized to sign such an agreement by the Council. That claim was repeated on July 7, 1841, in an other petition that also alleged that the signatories had been intimidated into signing. The Six nations also claim that no plan of maps of the land involved were submitted to the Six Nations, as explecitely mandated by GOVERNMENT regulations regarding surrenders of Indian lands.

Does not sound like a simple case of one party simply outwitted by someone with better negotiations skills, now does it.

Other claims submitted in recent years by the Six Nations alleges actions by the Crown and their representatives that included:

- sale or grant of Six Nations land by the Crown to white settlers or companies without that land first sold or surrendered by the First Nations (legally or illegally)

- unilateral change by the Crown of leases of land to it by the Six nations into sales

- misappropriation of money of the (Crown operated) Six nation Indian Fund by Superintendant Samuel P. Jarvis

- mishandling in mismanagement of money in that funds (or money invested on behalf of the Six Nations)

- violations, by the Crown, of the rules it had itself set for the surrender of Indian land

- taxation, in violation of the law, of Indian land.

As I said before, the claims should be recognized as true only after being examined through legal mechanisms. But each and every proven allegation of wrongdoing would be one more nail in the coffin of the "it's just because they were not able to conduct their affairs properly" theory.

Edited January 28, 2009 by CANADIEN

[Ontario Loyalist]

I can't deal with this tonight, but it's clear that you don't live in the region and aren't familiar with Aaron Detlor and his crank followers who go around with a map showing what they claim to be the lands granted in the Haldimand Proclimation.

[tango]

I can't deal with this tonight, but it's clear that you don't live in the region and aren't familiar with Aaron Detlor and his crank followers who go around with a map showing what they claim to be the lands granted in the Haldimand Proclimation.

irrelevant to the topic

[Ontario Loyalist]

Here's the exact words you used:

Please, learn to be clear.

Same to you. What I've said has always been clear. Six Nations was not documenting its land sales/surrenders, and the government forced them to do so in a legal manner.

The lack of understanding is clearly yours.

It is very well documented that Joseph Brant sold land in the NORTHERN part of the Haldimand grant to sepculators in the 1790's. It is also very well documented that, in the 1840's and 1850's, the Crown arranged for the surrender of land in the SOUTHERN part of the the Haldimand grant.

If you look at the Six Nations' list of claims, you will notice that only 3 of the 289 claims concerns land not located in the southern half of the original Haldimand grant. One is for land at the source of the Grand Rivr, that was included in the original haldimand grant but removed when Liet.-Gov. Simcoe modified the terms of the grant in 1793. Two others concern land allegendly transferred by a former Superintendant of Indian Affairs to the Six Nations in East Hawkesbury and innisfil Townships (outside of the Haldimand grant), in 1831, as payment for money owed by that individual to the Six Nations.

You apparently fail to understand what the entire situation is; they want money and the return of all the land that they sold or surrendered to their jurisdiction.

[Ontario Loyalist]

One of the claims made by the Six Nations alleges that a surrender, on January 18, 1841, of most of what was then remaining of the Haldimand grant by Six Nations to the Crown, was in fact obtained illegally. As early as February 4, 1841, 17 days after the fact, the Six nations petitioned the Governor General to nullify the agreement, on the ground that the signatories ooon the Indian part had not been duly authorized to sign such an agreement by the Council. That claim was repeated on July 7, 1841, in an other petition that also alleged that the signatories had been intimidated into signing. The Six nations also claim that no plan of maps of the land involved were submitted to the Six Nations, as explecitely mandated by GOVERNMENT regulations regarding surrenders of Indian lands.

In order to properly understand this situation, one has to know what the various parties involved were, as there were clearly more than one group claiming to represent Six Nations. How can it be determined whether or not the surrender had been "duly authorized"? And how can it be determined if anyone was in fact "intimidated"? Or that maps weren't submitted? It's absurd to think, unless there are clear admissions of guilt extant on valid written records, that any of these allegations can be substantiated. As such, the issue will probably not be properly and legally resolved in the favour of Six Nations; which will lead to further protests, no doubt, and eventually a settlement to placate these people (for the time being, at least). The latter is a classic example of extortion.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Ontario Loyalist

[CANADIEN]

Same to you. What I've said has always been clear.

I'll be nice, I won't quote your own postings againt.

Six Nations was not documenting its land sales/surrenders, and the government forced them to do so in a legal manner.

Nice little story, isn't it? Too bad there are historical documents, such as correspondence between Joseph Brant and the Upper Canada authorities, which lead to a theory that is a bit more believable. It starts with a known fact: the Six Nations, through Brant, were claiming the right that they had the right to sell or lease their land to white settlers, that same thing that white settlers could do with land granted to them by the Crown; while the Crown contended that only it coould by or lease land from the Six nations. When that is taken into account, the idea that the Six nations were quite willing to submit documentation of their sales of land to settlers by the the Crown was rejecting it makes a lot of sense.

You apparently fail to understand what the entire situation is; they want money and the return of all the land that they sold or surrendered to their jurisdiction.

I apparently fail to understand the full situation. You clearly fail to understand it.

The Sxi nations claims compensation for:

- money held and managed in trust by the Crown for the Six nations, for which it has allegedly failed to provide proper management and/or accounting -- surely, the Corwn has an obligation to properly account for moneys it holds in trust

- land that according to the Six nations, eas taken illegally from them -- NOT, as you falsely claim, ALL the land they surrendered.

[CANADIEN]

In order to properly understand this situation, one has to know what the various parties involved were, as there were clearly more than one group claiming to represent Six Nations. How can it be determined whether or not the surrender had been "duly authorized"? And how can it be determined if anyone was in fact "intimidated"? Or that maps weren't submitted? It's absurd to think, unless there are clear admissions of guilt extant on valid written records, that any of these allegations can be substantiated. As such, the issue will probably not be properly and legally resolved in the favour of Six Nations; which will lead to further protests, no doubt, and eventually a settlement to placate these people (for the time being, at least). The latter is a classic example of extortion.

I would the last one to claim that sorting through historical records to get to the facts will be an easy task, or that all of the Six Nations land claims are founded. This should not be an obstacle to attemptiig to resolve the claims. You, on the other end, seem bent on using this as an excuse to deny any claim, period.

Btw, Some allegations maybe easier to very than others. For example. government regulations regarding surrenders of lands by First Nations were very clear that certain steps were to be followed by the Government , including, among others, that an Order-in-Council had to be issued by the Crown stating the conditions of the surrender, and that the O.-C. had to include a map, or sketch, first submitted to the First Nation, showing the extent f the surrender. If an O.C. was issued according to the rules, the Government should be able to produce it.

Same with the claims that money held in trust by the Crown for the First nations. As the Trustee, the Crown should be able to provide an account of all that money was managed.

BTW,

[tango]

Let's start listening

Posted By

Posted 21 hours ago

re-copied article deleted by moderator

Edited February 5, 2009 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied article

[Wild Bill]

Let's start listening

Posted By

Posted 21 hours ago

One month into a new year, it should be getting more and more clear to everyone that a made-in- Brantford solution is needed for the problem of aboriginal protests.

Disputes between neighbours are rarely resolved successfully or permanently by a third party. It's time for our municipal representatives to start talking and listening.

well, it takes TWO to negotiate!

If I lived in Caledonia, after being used as cannon fodder by the natives in their fight against the governments with electrical transformers blown up causing a 3 day blackout, atv's roaring all night through backyards, tv cameramen beaten, police having to dodge to escape being run over, old men at construction sites beaten to the point of brain damage and on and on and on....

Frankly, I would give the protesters ZERO credibility! I cannot possibly see how anyone could expect someone of the town to feel otherwise. It would be totally illogical. Only someone politically correct and NOT subject to the same terrorist tactics could possibly think that it would be a positive step to form a "Rodney King" conference.

If I lived there I would be attempting to get enough aid from some level of government to just relocate my family and never look back! The protesters have made it quite clear that they believe they are totally right, non-natives are totally wrong and that they are prepared to use violence and harassment.

When someone punches you in the face because he's mad at SOMEONE ELSE there is no point in further discussion!

However, before I left I would destroy my old home! The protesters could have my land back but only in it's original condition. Why should they have the benefit of any development?

[tango]

well, it takes TWO to negotiate!

If I lived in Caledonia, after being used as cannon fodder by the natives in their fight against the governments with electrical transformers blown up causing a 3 day blackout, atv's roaring all night through backyards, tv cameramen beaten, police having to dodge to escape being run over, old men at construction sites beaten to the point of brain damage and on and on and on....

Frankly, I would give the protesters ZERO credibility! I cannot possibly see how anyone could expect someone of the town to feel otherwise. It would be totally illogical. Only someone politically correct and NOT subject to the same terrorist tactics could possibly think that it would be a positive step to form a "Rodney King" conference.

If I lived there I would be attempting to get enough aid from some level of government to just relocate my family and never look back! The protesters have made it quite clear that they believe they are totally right, non-natives are totally wrong and that they are prepared to use violence and harassment.

When someone punches you in the face because he's mad at SOMEONE ELSE there is no point in further discussion!

However, before I left I would destroy my old home! The protesters could have my land back but only in it's original condition. Why should they have the benefit of any development?

Well ... that's you choice.

Anyway ... it would be nice is our governments that cause the problems would get off their arses and do something constructive to resolve it.

It's not like the struggle is between communities of people.

[Wild Bill]

Well ... that's you choice.

Anyway ... it would be nice is our governments that cause the problems would get off their arses and do something constructive to resolve it.

It's not like the struggle is between communities of people.

Yet that is PRECISELY my point! The violence and tactics of the native protesters have been virtually entirely against the townsfolk!

It IS a struggle between 'communities of people"!

Have we even seen one protest sign waved in front of a politician's home? Has anyone blockaded Queen's Park? Did anyone blow up a power transformer to black out OTTAWA for 3 days?

Has anyone punched Dalton McGuinty?

Edited February 4, 2009 by Wild Bill

[guyser]

Has anyone punched Dalton McGuinty?

We can only hope.....of course then steer that person to Mayor Miller.

Brantford has I assume, paid their insurance premiums in full for this year. Lets hope so, cuz thats where the money should flow from.

Oh, and yeah, they are guilty, in my mind.

[tango]

Yet that is PRECISELY my point! The violence and tactics of the native protesters have been virtually entirely against the townsfolk!

It IS a struggle between 'communities of people"!

Have we even seen one protest sign waved in front of a politician's home? Has anyone blockaded Queen's Park? Did anyone blow up a power transformer to black out OTTAWA for 3 days?

Has anyone punched Dalton McGuinty?

No it is not between communities.

However, that's your choice to think that way. You have the right to think you are the centre of the universe and everyone's out to get you.

Hell, for all I know maybe everyone is! (What did you do to piss people off?)

Do you have any comment on Brantford being sued by Kingspan - ie, the thread topic?

[tango]

We can only hope.....of course then steer that person to Mayor Miller.

Brantford has I assume, paid their insurance premiums in full for this year. Lets hope so, cuz thats where the money should flow from.

Oh, and yeah, they are guilty, in my mind.

Looks that way, doesn't it!

[Wild Bill]

No it is not between communities.

However, that's your choice to think that way. You have the right to think you are the centre of the universe and everyone's out to get you.

Hell, for all I know maybe everyone is! (What did you do to piss people off?)

Do you have any comment on Brantford being sued by Kingspan - ie, the thread topic?

Ah, must have hit a nerve if you are retreating to accusations of thread drift!

Let me see if I understand you. The native protesters commit acts of violence that only directly affect the townsfolk of Caledonia.

I figure that it's obvious that these are actions of conflict between two communities, since only these two communities are affected.

You counter that that it's NOT between two communities! Then who else is involved? None of the protest action has affected any level of government. Both the feds and the province are just hiding!

To my knowledge, no direct protest action has been taken against the federal or provincial government. Perhaps you can explain how the town of Caledonia has NOT been used as cannon fodder!

You are asking us to deny what is plain and obvious!

And that makes ME the 'centre of the universe"? You expect me to believe you just because you say so and ignore what I've seen with my own eyes!

Did you just come down off Mount Sinai?

[tango]

Ah, must have hit a nerve if you are retreating to accusations of thread drift!

Let me see if I understand you. The native protesters commit acts of violence that only directly affect the townsfolk of Caledonia.

I figure that it's obvious that these are actions of conflict between two communities, since only these two communities are affected.

You counter that that it's NOT between two communities! Then who else is involved? None of the protest action has affected any level of government. Both the feds and the province are just hiding!

To my knowledge, no direct protest action has been taken against the federal or provincial government. Perhaps you can explain how the town of Caledonia has NOT been used as cannon fodder!

You are asking us to deny what is plain and obvious!

And that makes ME the 'centre of the universe"? You expect me to believe you just because you say so and ignore what I've seen with my own eyes!

Did you just come down off Mount Sinai?

Yah yah ... sure sure ... you must be right.

It's all about you.

[charter.rights]

Yet that is PRECISELY my point! The violence and tactics of the native protesters have been virtually entirely against the townsfolk!

It IS a struggle between 'communities of people"!

Have we even seen one protest sign waved in front of a politician's home? Has anyone blockaded Queen's Park? Did anyone blow up a power transformer to black out OTTAWA for 3 days?

Has anyone punched Dalton McGuinty?

What you say is hyperbole.

The townsfolk in Caledonia and in Brantford to a lesser degree injected themselves into soething that is really not their business. The protests have been mainly against builders and developers who are building on land under claim. You do realize that under the law what Six Nations protesters have done IS legal?

Six Nations does not take their case to Queens Park. Nor did they go to Fantino's home and threaten his family. AND the pepetrator of the transformer blowing up has not been determined yet. However, I remember reading somewhere that someone saw some OPP oficers running from the scene shortly after. It isn;t like the OPP or RCMP haven;t used agent provocateurs before.....

Edited February 5, 2009 by charter.rights

[AngusThermopyle]

The townsfolk in Caledonia and in Brantford to a lesser degree injected themselves into soething that is really not their business. The protests have been mainly against builders and developers who are building on land under claim. You do realize that under the law what Six Nations protesters have done IS legal?

Six Nations does not take their case to Queens Park. Nor did they go to Fantino's home and threaten his family. AND the pepetrator of the transformer blowing up has not been determined yet. However, I remember reading somewhere that someone saw some OPP oficers running from the scene shortly after. It isn;t like the OPP or RCMP haven;t used agent provocateurs before.....

I have to disagree with your assessment. It most certainly is the business of the townspeople. The regular flow of traffic and commerce has been disrupted, Swastikas have been spray painted on peoples homes, power has been disrupted to the town, townspeople have been intimidated, school children have been intimidated.

So how much would you say it would take before it becomes their business?

As for the legality of what six nations has done, please, don't be absurd. When has setting fires on routes of transport ever been legal, when has destroying power transformers ever been legal, when has assault ever been legal? These are all activities that six nations has engaged in.

As for your OPP and RCMP theory, well surely your toaster can do better than that. If that is not so you'd be able to provide some form of proof other than the ridiculously dubious "I remember reading somewhere".

By the way, hows your 2010 Olympic boycott going?

Edited February 5, 2009 by AngusThermopyle

[charter.rights]

I have to disagree with your assessment. It most certainly is the business of the townspeople. The regular flow of traffic and commerce has been disrupted, Swastikas have been spray painted on peoples homes, power has been disrupted to the town, townspeople have been intimidated, school children have been intimidated.

So how much would you say it would take before it becomes their business?

As for the legality of what six nations has done, please, don't be absurd. When has setting fires on routes of transport ever been legal, when has destroying power transformers ever been legal, when has assault ever been legal? These are all activities that six nations has engaged in.

As for your OPP and RCMP theory, well surely your toaster can do better than that. If that is not so you'd be able to provide some form of proof other than the ridiculously dubious "I remember reading somewhere".

By the way, hows your 2010 Olympic boycott going?

More bull.

No swastikas, power was disrupted once by unknown agent provocateurs, townspeople had numerous counter protests (injecting themselves into something that was none of their business) and children have been abused by their parents and community members by them over-reacting to minor incidents.

As far as the loss of business goes in town, that is true. However, it is the result of racist behaviour on the part of townsfolk and many from Six Nations to this day refuse to shop (and spend their money) in Caledonia. Since about 40%-60% of their business was from Six Nations, Caledonia took a big hit. They have learned since then that in order to keep their businesses viable they have to patronize Six Nations people and try to make up for the racists and clowns that created the media circus a couple of years back.

The fire (read one occurrence) on the onset of the Douglas Creek Estates reclamation, was a blockade as a defence of 150 OPP beating, tasering and pointing high powered weapons at 15 old people, women and children when they tried to use "Ipperwash" style force to remove the protesters. Six Nations responded with over 350 people and the barricades erected at various location was a counter measure to protect Six Nations people on Six Nations territory. Again you attempt to blame Six Nations people for the power outage (read one occurrence) is nothing more than wild speculation, and that is typically the purpose of agent provocateurs engaging in such actions. Nothing has been proven and no suspects have been apprehended.

Assaults have occurred on both sides and most of them were provoked by the kind of mischief instigated by the likes of Gary McHale - who is on trial for one criminal mischief charge currently. Since he has been out of Caledonia by court order things have been relatively quiet and if not for the rallies and counter protests by Clownadonians it is unlikely much of it would have happened. Since this was an reclamation on property that did not belong to anyone in Caledonia, the clown's participation was solely to authorize some blockheads to exercise their racist and xenophobic delusions about native people. As well, to be fair the real blockheads at these rallies amounted to a handful of people while another 150 Caledonians just came out to watch. Most of them were not engage in the bad behavior we saw in the media.

Lastly reclamations, protests and the occupations of land under claim are legal in this country. It is called proprietary estopple - a legal instrument that allows Six Nations to prevent development of land that has not been paid for or that has not been authorized for development. It is part of the consult, accommodate and reconcile requirements that the Courts have imposed on the Crown, and was reconfirmed as late as a November 2008 ruling on the Ardoch Algonquin claim. So with all the yahoos that showed up trying to turn it personal they were wrong. These protests, occupations and reclamations have nothing to do with them, and their presence there is simply to raise the tensions. Six Nations has every right to close down construction on land under claim and boot the workers off. That is the law!