Photo by Mike Machado
Six Nations land claims activists Floyd and Ruby Montour at the First Gulf property in Brantford on Friday.
Jason Teakle
BRANT NEWS
A small group of protesters from Six Nations gathered at the First Gulf property at Wayne Gretzky Parkway and Henry Street on Friday to show their opposition to development taking place on the site.
Four people saying they are supporters of Six Nations Confederacy council attended the property. The site is slated for the development of a Harvey’s restaurant and Leon’s Furniture Store, among other projects.
City police were on the scene monitoring activity.
Six Nations resident Ruby Montour said the property belongs to Six Nations.
“We have had a confrontation at First Gulf before,” Montour said. “These developers need to be informed by the city that this is Six Nations’ land.
“The way we feel about it is different than how the city feels. It is still an empty field and it will stay that way until they talk to us.”
Montour said the land was sold without the permission, knowledge or consent of Six Nations.
But Brantford Mayor Chris Friel said such actions “hurt everybody” and steps have been taken by the city to “extend its hand” to both Six Nations elected band council and Confederacy council.
“We have been more than willing to try and find benefits for all,” Friel said. “It is unfortunate that there is a handful of individuals (that take this action).”
Friel said the city has received “positive responses” from both Six Nations councils.
“Even now, we are in the midst of organizing meetings so we can come to an understanding on how to proceed,” Friel said. “People on Six Nations, in Brantford and the County of Brant hurt when our development stops.”
Six Nations resident Floyd Montour said if First Gulf wants to proceed with the development it needs to talk to Six Nations.
“If they give us royalties up front from each one of the entities, they can go ahead,” Floyd said. “It is our land and we have a right to demand the royalties.
“The city doesn’t care about us. No more will we be walked on.”
Six Nations resident Wes Elliott said an Ontario Municipal Board agreement signed six years ago has not led to consultation with Six Nations.
“They are supposed to be consulting the Confederacy council and they are not,” Elliott said. “That is why it has been vacant for six years.”
The First Gulf property is included in the city’s injunction against land claims protests at development sites.
If, as another source has reported, vehicles were positioned at the entrance to the site, this is not merely a protest, but a blockade.
Let’s just call it urban homesteading.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
11 
1
In February, Brantford mayor Friel was talking about a clean slate and the concept of a laison committee to talk with the Six Nations Elected Band Council and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy.
I wonder how those talks are going and whether this recent protest and interference with development by Six Nations activists and will hamper those talks.
By the way, how do the Six Nations protesters know whether the developer, First Gulf, has contacted the Confederacy or the HDI or not? Who is keeping the Montours and other protesters informed?
When will someone in authority take a stand and tell the Six Nations people they can’t claim land to which the Six Nations did not get ownership after the Crown bought it from the Mississauga Indians?
When will people understand that the Six Nations Elected Band Council and the Six Nations Confederacy can’t promise that Six Nations splinter groups will stop threatening development in Brantford and at other places along the Grand River outside of the reserve?
Premier McGuinty and Ontario government officials have said the Onario government stands by its land titles system.
So, when will the City of Brantford and the Ontario government protect third-party landowners, developers and taxpayers like, First Gulf, who have legal title to their land according to the Ontario land titles system and approval to develop their land?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Wow who saw this coming. Oh yea… EVERYONE.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
That figures.
Land sites as nothing but dirt and weeds for years, someone finally come sup with a plain for the site to creat construction jobs, then jobs to fill the business that where going to be put their, and sure enough Floyd , and Ruby once again see $$$ and show up like they have done at other places.
If they really cared about the land, they would have been there and voiced their concern LONG BEFORE proposed development on the vacant land was published, and clearing of the land was started.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10 
0
Six Nations acitivists have protested, interfered with and threatend development at many sites in Brantford. This is just the latest event.
In addition, 3 or 4 years ago, Six Nations activists from the Mohawk Nation of Mohawk Workers illegally took over the city owned Kanata site in Brantford. It is our mini Douglas Creek Estates (DCE) so infamous in Caledonia.
I have explained before. Quebec Governor Haldimand bought a huge parcel of land, including land along the Grand River, from the Mississauga Indians on May 22, 1784. After buying the land, Governor Haldimand issued an announcement on October 25, 1784 inviting Six Nations people from New York to take possession of (occupy) the Crown’s land along the Grand River. Canadian courts have said the Haldimand document was not a deed or a conveyance of land from the Crown to the Six Nations.
In 1793, Governor Simcoe offered the Six Nations a letter patent, a deed, to land along the Grand River but Mohawk leader Joseph Brant and the Six Nations chiefs refused to accept it because they didn’t like its conditions.
In fact, section 99 of a 2009 Amicus Report on behalf of the Six Nations to justice Arrell in the Brantford injunction case says “Canadian courts have held that the Haldimand Proclamation and the Simcoe Patent essentially conferred upon the Six Nations personal and usufructuary rights and not a conveyance of land in the English sense”, which means the Crown simply allowed Six Nations people to occupy and use the Crown’s land, not own it.
If the Six Nations did not get and refused a deed and ownership of the land, Six Nations activists should not be abe to claim or reclaim land outside of the reserve.
I agree the Crown might owe the Six Nations a lot of money but the Six Nations claims are about money, not land. The Six Nations cannot claim land it did not own.
The Six Nations of the Grand River has some claims for money.
The Canadian federal government has said it will pay money to settle any valid Six Nations claim and I have letters from the Canadian federal government and the Ontario provincial government in which both have said they will not expropriate any third-party land to give to the Six Nations in settlement of any Six Nations claim.
Furthermore, Ontario Premier McGuinty and Ontario government officials have said the Ontario government stands by its land titles system.
So, when will the City of Brantford and the Ontario government take a stand and protect third-party landowners, developers and taxpayers like, First Gulf, who have legal title to their land according to the Ontario land titles system and approval to develop their land?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
0
According to the article “Six Nations resident Floyd Montour said if First Gulf wants to proceed with the development it needs to talk to Six Nations”.
In the 2004 Haida case, the Supreme Court said “Third parties cannot be held liable for failing to discharge the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate. The honour of the Crown cannot be delegated, and the legal responsibility for consultation and accommodation rests with the Crown. This does not mean, however, that third parties can never be liable to Aboriginal peoples.”
The Crown includes the Canadian federal government (the big Crown) and the provincial governments (the little Crown). First Gulf is not the Crown and is not the Six Nations. First Gulf is a third-party landowner with title to the land according to the Ontario land titles system. As a third-party landowner, First Gulf has no obligation to speak to, consult with or accommodate anybody with the Six Nations.
And, if Brantford and the Ontario government don’t do something to protect First Gulf and its appoval to develop its land, First Gulf might pull out like Kingspan and sue the City of Brantford.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
The City of Brantford has an injunction that covers 10 sites around Brantford and is against anyone, non native or native, interfering with construction and development on those sites.
According to the Brant News article “The First Gulf property is included in the city’s injunction against land claims protests at development sites”.
In addition, Brantford has 2 bylaws against anyone, non native or native, interfering with construction and development at any site in Brantford.
According an article in the Expositor, “Floyd and Ruby Montour, along with Wes Elliott and Sakoieta Widrick sat on the cement blocks at that location, with two vehicles blocking access to the site”. That was in direct violation of the injunction and bylaws.
When will Brantford Mayor Friel, city council and the Brantford police make sure the injunction and the bylaws are enforced?
By the way, people and governments seem to be overlooking the fact that First Gulf has legal title to its land according to the Ontario land titles system and, therefore, has a claim to its land.
I wonder if First Gulf could sue Brantford and/or the Brantford police for not enforcing Brantford’s injunction and bylaws and sue the Ontario government for not protecting First Gulf’s claim to its land according to the Ontario land titles system and for not protecting First Gulf’s approval to build.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
As I have mentioned before, after 1793, Mohawk leader Joseph Brant and various groups of Six Nations chiefs, on various occasions, surrendered Six Nations use of various parcels of the Crown’s land along the Grand River back to the Crown for sale until the Six Nations eventually ended up with the current reserve south of Brantford, Ontario around 1850.
The Six Nations chiefs and leaders didn’t surrender the actual land. They surrendered the Six Nations ability to use the Crown’s land and the Crown was generous said it would put the money from the sale of the Crown’s land into a trust fund for the use and benefit of the Six Nations of the Grand River.
The Crown made a promise to pay the Six Nations when it surrendered use of the Crown’s land and promised to manage the money in trust so the Crown had and has an obligation to keep that promise, pay the Six Nations and look after its money in trust.
Now the Six Nations of the Grand River alleges the Crown didn’t always ensure that money from the sale of Crown’s land went into the trust fund. The Six Nations also alleges the Crown invested money from the trust fund imprudently and alleges the Crown borrowed money from the trust fund and did not pay the money back.
In 2010, Six Nations Elected Band Council Chief Bill Montour and the Six Nations proposed a “Global Solution” to Six Nations claims whereby the Canadian federal government (the big Crown) could pay money each year (i.e. an annuity) for the perpetual care and maintenance of the Six Nations reserve and to pay off the money the Crown owes the Six Nations. That suggests the claims are about money.
But, the Canadian federal government (the big Crown) and the Ontario government (the little) already send money from taxpayers each year to help fund the Six Nations of the Grand River reserve.
One could argue that is to help pay off money the Crown owes the Six Nations.
One could also argue that is basically the same as the “Global Solution” that Bill Montour and the Six Nations has proposed for the Crown to pay money each year (i.e an annuity) to provide perpetual care and maintenance of the reserve and to help pay off the debt to the Six Nations.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Some Six Nations people talk about the Two Row Wampum and seem to think Six Nations people are not subject to the Crown’s rules, regulations, laws and, it seems, Canadian court injunctons.
Around 1603, the Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois made what is now called the Two Row Wampum agreement with Dutch traders and settlers in what is now New York State, U.S.A. In that agreement, the Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois and the Dutch agreed to share land and agreed the Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois and the Dutch would remain separate and rule their land separately like people in two separate vessels travelling in parallel down a river.
When the British took over, the Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois and the British made Covenant Chain agreements based on the Two Row Wampum concept to remain separate and rule their land separately.
But, as I have explained before. the Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois surrendered their beaver hunting grounds, including the land along the Grand River, to the British Crown according to the Nanfan Treaty in 1701.
Later, after the American Revolution, Quebec Governor Haldimand bought a huge parcel of land, including land along the Grand River, from the Mississauga Indians on May 22, 1784. Then Governor Haldimand invited Six Nations people from New York to enter, occupy and use the Crown’s land along the Grand River in what was then a part of the British Province of Quebec. Canadian courts have said the Haldimand document was not a deed or a conveyance of land from the Crown to the Six Nations.
In 1793, Governor Simcoe offered the Six Nations a letter patent, a deed, to land along the Grand River but Mohawk leader Joseph Brant and the Six Nations chiefs refused to accept it because they didn’t like its conditions so the land remained the Crown’s land.
In fact, section 99 of a 2009 Amicus Report on behalf of the Six Nations to justice Arrell in the Brantford injunction case says “Canadian courts have held that the Haldimand Proclamation and the Simcoe Patent essentially conferred upon the Six Nations personal and usufructuary rights and not a conveyance of land in the English sense”, which means the Crown simply allowed Six Nations people to occupy and use the Crown’s land, not own it.
Essentially, that means the people of the Six Nations of the Grand River reserve occupy land owned by the Crown. In other words, they moved into and live in the Crown’s vessel.
And, if they live in the Crown’s vessel, they are subject to the rules, regulations and laws of the Crown.
And, even if the Six Nations had accepted the 1793 Simcoe Patent, a deed and title to land along the Grand River, the Crown would have retained underlying title to the land just like it does when other people buy land, pay off a mortgage and get a deed to their land from the Crown.
The Six Nations people would still have been living in the Crown’s vessel so to speak and would still have been subject to the Crown’s rules, regulations and laws.
No matter how one looks at it, Six Nations people are subject to Crown’s rules, regulations and laws on and off the reserve and they should abide by the injunction and by-laws against interfering with development in Brantford.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
This commercial break brought to you buy Acme Smoke Shop. Nothing says flavour, like Acme.
And now back to the Garry Horsnell History Lesson…
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Yep, one would have to be more than a little suspicious about Garry’s “unusual” preoccupation with all things Six nations. I’m inclined to think that maybe, just maybe, Garry is being paid by, um, “interested” parties? As a somewhat serious researcher, Garry seems to avoid those sections of treaties that show a clear case in favour od Six nations. No one can tell me, what with all of Garry’s research, he hasn’t come up with any of the documented evidence which has been uncovered by Six Nations researchers and THAT evidence is considerable! I guess its futile to mention the parts of our history where many instances of very questionable methods were used to separate us from our lands is well documented. Also futile is the documented fact that the town of Brantford failed to pay us for the land they asked us for and promised never to exceed the boundaries as laid out for the original 700 plus acres. Damn! I could go on and on and most older citizens of Brantford who know the true hiatory, will back me up. So we’ll just have to muddle our way through while he indulges in his obsession in discrediting anything related to Six nations claims for money AND land.
Yes, lets all get back to the “Garry Horsnell History Lesson”…at least HIS version of history that is. One day, whenever that’ll be is anyone’s guess, this will all be sorted out in a court of law. I would like to see at least ONE claim resolved in what’s left of my lifetime but I’m no too optimistic about that. Better yet….I hope Garry’s around. He’ll have a fine time eating many of his words. They might be easier to swallow if we bring him some good old tradtional corn soup.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What’s the difference between a “smoke shack” and a convenience store? Taxes. And for that, we’re supposed to resent the former. Sorry.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Six Nations activists Ruby and Floyd Montour, Wes Elliott and Sakoieta Widrick protested against development at the First Gulf site near Henry Street and Wayne Gretzky Parkway in Brantford on Friday March 16, 2012. The Activists have said the land is part of the Johnson Settlement the Six Nations did not cede to the Crown.
Let’s look at some history.
Quebec Governor Haldimand bought the land along the Grand River from Ojibwa Mississauga Indians on May 22, 1784. At that point, it became Crown owned land and then Haldimand invited Six Nations people from New York to occupy that Crown owned land. Later, Mohawk leader Joseph Brant and the Six Nations chiefs refused to accept the 1793 Simcoe Patent (deed) for land along the Grand River so the land remained Crown owned land.
In the late 1700s, Mohawk leader Joseph Brant began leasing land in what became the Johnson Settlement to non native settlers for farming. Although it was the Crown’s land, the Crown allowed it because Brant and others thought the non natives could help natives modernize and improve their farming methods.
However, as time passed and when the Six Nations needed money, various groups of Six Nations chiefs surrendered Six Nations use of various parcels of the Crown’s land back to the Crown for sale. In fact, in 1835, fifteen Six Nations chiefs surrendered to the Crown use of all land Joseph Brant had ever “granted, demised or leased” along the Grand River.
If that wasn’t enough, in 1844, forty five Six Nations chiefs signed a document in which they agreed the Crown could sell land from the Johnson Settlement, the Martin Settlement, the Oxbow tract and the Eagle’s Nest tract. The money from the land sales was to be put into the Six Nations trust fund for the use and benefit of the Six Nations to fund projects on the reserve.
And, according to the 2009 Holmes report submitted to Justice Arrell in the Brantford injunction case, by 1846, sixty chiefs had confirmed that agreement.
The Six Nations claims are about money, not land.
The Canadian federal government has said it will pay money to settle any valid Six Nations claim. The Ontario government has said it stands by its land titles system and the Canadian federal government and the Ontario government have both said they will not expropriate third-party land (like that of First Gulf) to give to the Six Nations in settlement of any claim.
Even Six Nations Elected Band Council Chief Bill Montour has said the Six Nations is not after third-party land.
So, why are Six Nations activists interfering with development on land that once belonged to the Crown, land to which the Six Nations refused ownership, land Six Nations chiefs agreed the Crown could sell, land First Gulf now owns, land the Crown will not expropriate, land chief Bill Montour has said the Six Nations is not after and land the Six Nations will not get in settlement of any claim?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
6 
1
@ Garry,
“The money from the land sales was to be put into the Six Nations trust fund for the use and benefit of the Six Nations to fund projects on the reserve.”
=======================================================================
The whole point is, that money never made it to our accounts. In the world of business, then, as now, when that happens, the “agreement” or “contract” if you will, is declared null and void by reason of NON-PAYMENT! This is another facet of the “Rule of Law” that everyone likes to invoke when we rock the canoe. That comment amuses me to no end when non-Natives display this preference in choosing which laws to observe and which ones to ignore as it suits them. The law…is the law. You renege on payment, you lose by default.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
According an Expositor article, Floyd and Ruby Montour, along with Wes Elliott and Sakoieta Widrick protested at the First Gulf site in Brantford on Friday March 16, 2012.
According to The Expositor article, Ruby Montour said “We shut down that, gesturing to a piece of earth-moving equipment behind her. We’ve shut down this site and they won’t do anything until they’ve spoken to us.”
Shutting down the site is in violation of the Brantford injunction.
The Expositor article also said “The Mountours pledged to be back at the site on Monday at 7 a.m.”.
A friend of mine went to the First Gulf site at 7 a.m. monday morning March 19 but Six Nations activists did not show up. How come?
Were they worried the Brantford police might actually do their job and enforce the injunction if Six Nations activists showed up again at the First Gulf site.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
When the Crown bought the land along the Grand River from the Mississauga Indians on May 22, 1784; when the land then belonged to the Crown; when the October 25, 1784 Haldimand document was simply a license of occupation; when the Six Nations refused to accept the 1793 Simcoe Patent (deed) and ownership of land along the Grand River; when Canadian courts have said the Haldimand announcement and the Simcoe Patent were “not a conveyance of land”; when the land along the Grand River remained Crown owned land; when up to 60 Six Nations chiefs agreed (1844 – 1846) the Crown could sell land around Brantford outside of the reserve; when third-party landowner/developers like First Gulf now own land outside of the reserve; when chief Bill Montour has said the Six Nations is not after third-party land; when the Crown will not expropriate third-party land to settle any Six Nations claim and when the Six Nations claims are about money, there is no reason why people in Brantford should not be able to develop land in Brantford the Six Nations will not get in settlement of claims.
Furthermore, the Six Nations of the Grand River dispute is with the Crown and the Canadian federal government (the big Crown) is responsible for paying money to settle valid Six Nation claims, not third-party landowner/developers like First Gulf and not the City of Brantford.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
They say there are some people that like the sound of their own voice. What does that say about someone who repeats the same message over and over and over and over and over and over again, almost verbatim every time. I would guess Garry has all of these comment saved in a folder and when he wants to rant that same-O same-O rhetoric, he just goes into his folder, changes a word here, a name there and PRESTO! He’s baaaack!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes, what’s up G, is someone paying you to impart your version of history?
Wouldn’t surprise me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
N8VSON, I am not the only one who says the Six Nations does not own the land along the Grand River, etc.
The Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois surrendered their beaver hunting grounds, including the land along the Grand River, to the British Crown according to the 1701 Nanfan Treaty. That is documented.
Quebec Governor Haldimand bought a huge tract of land, including land along the Grand River, from the Ojibwa Mississauga Indians at a meeting at Fort Niagara on May 22, 1784. Mohawk leader Joseph Brant and Six Nations chiefs were at that meeting and agreed with the sale of the land to Crown. The documents are in archives and Governor Haldimand, in his October 25, 1784 announcement that some people call a proclamation, even said he “purchased” that land.
A King’s Bench justice, in the 1835 Jackson v. Wilkes court case said “We have ascertained that there was a great seal in use in the Province of Quebec in 1784, when the instrument of General Haldimand bears date; that grants of land, of which few were made by the British Government before the year 1795, were made by letters patent under the great seal, and that it has been uniformly held in the courts of Lower Canada that grants of the waste lands of the Crown could not be made in any other manner”. The justice also said the October 25, 1784 Haldimand instrument (document, announcement) was no more than a “mere license of occupation”.
Governor Simcoe offered the Six Nations a letter patent, a deed for land along the Grand River in 1793 but Joseph Brant and the Six Nations chiefs refused to accept
the Simcoe Patent. That is documented. The original Simcoe Patent is in archives at Library and Archives Canada and even today the Six Nations does not seem to accept the Simcoe Patent.
Section 99 of the 2009 Amicus Report on behalf of the Six Nations to justice Arrell in the Brantford injunction case says the 1784 Haldimand announcement and the 1793 Simcoe Patent “conferred upon the Six Nations personal and usufructuary rights and not a conveyance of land in the English sense”, which means the Crown simply allowed Six Nations people to occupy and use the Crown’s land, not own it.
The Six Nations should therefore not be able to claim land it didn’t own and which belonged to the Crown.
The Holmes report to Justice Arrell in the Brantford injunction case says that 45 Six Nations chiefs agreed the Crown could sell from the Johnson Settlement, the Martin Settlement, the Oxbox tract and the Eagle’s Nest Tract around Brantford and that 60 Six Nation chiefs confirmed that agreement in 1846 and the Six Nations got the current reserve according to Lord Elgin’s proclamation in 1850.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in the 2004 Haida case, said “Third parties cannot be held liable for failing to discharge the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate. The honour of the Crown cannot be delegated, and the legal responsibility for consultation and accommodation rests with the Crown”. Landowners/developers are third-parties, not the Crown, and are not obliged to consult the Six Nations.
Records at Aboriginal Affairs Canada show that most of the time money from land sales went in the Six Nations trust fund but somtimes did not in case where towns or cities kept land for things like town or city halls, cemeteries, etc. and the Six Nations alleges the Crown invested money from the Six Nations trust fund imprudently and borrowed money from the trust fund without paying it back although the Crown keeps sending money to the Six Nations reserve each year.
The Canadian federal government has admitted some Six Nations claims are valid and has offered money to settle those claims.
Six Nations Elected Band Council chief Bill Montour and the Six Nations have proposed a “Gobal Solution” whereby the federal government can pay money each year to settle Six Nations claims.
The Ontario government says it stands by it land titles system and the federal and Ontario governments have said they will not expropriate third-party land to settle any Six Nations claim and chief Bill Montour has said the Six Nations is not after third-party land.
So, it not just me who says the Six Nations does not own the land along the Grand River and all indications are the Six Nations claims are about money.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
After buying a huge parcel of land, including land along the Grand River from the Ojibwa Mississauga Indians on May 22, 1784, Quebec Governor Haldimand invited “Mohawks” and “others of the Six Nations” to “take possession of” (i.e. occupy) the Crown’s land along the Grand River.
In British property law, to take possession of means to occupy just like people take possession of or occupy an appartment someone else owns.
And Section 99 of the 2009 Amicus Report on behalf of the Six Nations to justice Arrell in the Brantford injunction case says Canadian courts have held that the 1784 Haldimand announcement and the 1793 Simcoe Patent “conferred upon the Six Nations personal and usufructuary rights and not a conveyance of land in the English sense”, which means the Crown simply allowed Six Nations people to occupy and use the Crown’s land, not own it. The Six Nations should therefore not be able to claim land it didn’t own and which belonged to the Crown.
In addition, the Six Nations of the Grand River dispute is with the Crown and the Canadian federal government (the big Crown) is responsible for assessing Six Nations claims, determining whether claims are valid and is responsible for paying money to settle valid Six Nation claims. It is up to the federal government, not third-party landowners/developers and not municipalities outside of the Six Nations of the Grand River reserve, to pay the Six Nations.
Furthermore, the Crown, not the Six Nations should decide whether it wants to offer any Crown-owned land along the Grand River or elsewhere to the Six Nations to help settle Six Nations claims.
If the Crown wants to offer the Six Nations some Crown-owned land, the Crown can if it wants to but it is not obliged to just like Governor Haldimand did have to let Six Nations people occupy the Crown’s land along the Grand River.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What does it take Garry, to get you to address a caertain point? You ramble on and on and on with the same old rhetoric and NEVER address the root of the problem. While much of what you claim did in fact take place, the ISSUE I have raised with you time and time again is……THE MONEY NEVER REACHED OUR ACCOUNTS).
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO YOU? Anything at all? If I buy your damn car and tell you I’ll make sure the money reaches your bank account and it never does. Do You own the car or do I? Is that simple enough for you? Yes! THIS type of claim IS about money! Its about money that was never received under a contractual agreement. I’m pretty much through with you and your thick-headed and biased way of putting the half-truth to the people of Brantford and elsewhere who hang on every word you say although, I notice some readers grow weary of your rhetoric.
Our claims ore about missing money AND land and you can just live with that or fold up your tent. Enough is enough!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0