Direct quote from Amicus report,"In this case,the evidence is that neither Brantford nor Ontario or Canada engaged in meaningful consultation with members of Six Nations.Prior to the passage of the By-laws,Six Nations members attempted to inform Brantford about their interests and claims, made a presentation about their position to representatives of the city,corresponded exstensively with Ontario and engaged in active protests on the disputed lands.This was more than adequate to trigger the duty to consult the First Nations as to the Disputed Lands.Instead of engaging in meaningful consultation or ensuring that Ontario or Canada had done so, Brantford deniedthat it had any role to play and passed the by-laws quickly and with no public debate."
Mickey Thorn, the CUPE rep in the video stated "development on land that shouldn't be developed, that's the criminal thing here" So a developer buys land with a crown patent, has title to it, gets permits, and invests his money, while protesters jump in front of moving machinery, threaten and try cheap intimidation tactics in the name of "peaceful" protests, and then we are called the criminals?? Give your head a shake!!
Hey Mike Quattrociocchi give your head a shake! MORE FROM THE AMICUS-"On December 13 and 18,1844, the proposition to reconsider the surrender of the lands in question was again put to the Chiefs of the Six Nations.The evidence before the court suggests that there were 88 chiefs during this time period.The evidence further suggests that not all Chiefs were present at the December 18, 1844 meeting.According to the meeting on December 18, 1844 47 chiefs were present,however,only 45 signatures appear on the minutes.In cross examination,Ms Holmes(Brantfords appointed expert) agreed that,"they{the47or45 chiefs}are not all the Chiefs of council.They are not the Chiefs of the Six Nations...".Further,she agreed that, aside from what the record states,she could not confirm that all 45 signatories were even Chiefs.Accordingly,there is no evidence that"all of the Chiefs"(OR THE WARRIORS OR WOMEN)as required by the Simcoe patent agreed to a surrender of land.This, in and of itself, raises a serious issue as to whether there was a surrender of land in December 1844.STOP BREAKING THE LAW MIKE!!! 1844 non-surrender;"THE PURPORTED SURRENDER FAILS TO MEET THE SIMCOE PATENT AND CHIPPEWAS REQUIREMENTS- You need to investigate why Ontario and Brantford a creature of the province,unlawfully issued permits on disputed land!!!
Tim,Mike didn't break the law give your head a shake.He did everything according to the law. If the law was broken then you need to go in that direction,and take ruby and Floyd and the hdi with you.
Note: The BrantNews does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comments, you acknowledge that BrantNews has the right to reproduce, broadcast and publicize those comments or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever. Please note that comments are semi-moderated/reviewed and published according to our terms and conditions.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. If you dont have an account, Click Here to register.
RSS
PRINT
