Ohrerekó:wa

Edwin Squire Hill – Principle Chief – Wolf Clan Ka’nyen’geh’ha’kah (Mohawks) of Grand River

W i t h o u t P r e j u d i c e

February 5th, 2016

RE: Tésta’n tóka í:iah enkonión:nien ténhsta’n / Cease & Desist Notice

TO:

Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain

Attention: Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Mountbatten-Windsor and Privy Council

Buckingham Palace

London, SW1A 1AA

AND TO:

Governor General of Canada

Attention: David Johnston and Privy Council

Rideau Hall

1 Sussex Drive

Ottawa ON, K1A 0A1

AND TO: Prime Minister of Canada

Attention: Justin Trudeau and Privy Council

Office of the Prime Minister

80 Wellington Street

Ottawa, ON, K1A 0A2

AND TO: Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Attention: Jody Wilson-Raybould

284 Wellington Street

Ottawa, ON, K1A 0H8

AND TO: Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs of Canada

Attention: Dr. Carolyn Bennett

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada

Les Terrasses de la Chaudière

North Tower, 10 Wellington Street

Gatineau, Quebec, K1A 0H4

PRECEPTS OF “CIVIL LAW”:

Preamble to Justinian's Corpus Juris Civilis:

To live honestly, To injure no one,

And to give everyone his due.

October 15th, 2013 Official Statement of: James Anaya, UN Special Rapporture

“From all I have learned, I can only conclude

that Canada faces a crisis when it comes to the

situation of indigenous peoples of the country.”

KKAAYYAANNEERREE KKÓÓ::WWAA ““TThhee GGrreeaatt GGoooodd”” Terms of its component elements:

HHeeaalltthh && RReeaassoonn

SSoouunnddnneessss ooff BBooddyy

&& SSaanniittyy ooff MMiinndd

EEqquuaall –– JJuussttiiccee && PPeeaaccee

Office of Ohrerekó:wa

c/o Mohawk Workers 440 Mohawk St.

Brantford, ON, N3T 3C4

Tkanatahere

AND TO: The Province of Ontario

Attention: Premier Kathleen Wynne

Legislative Building

Queen's Park, Toronto, ON, M7A 1A1

AND TO: Clerk of the County of Brant

Attention: Mayor Ron Eddy and Council

26 Park Avenue

Burford, ON, N0E 1A0

c/o Heather Boyd, Clerk / Manager of Council Services

P.O. Box 160

Burford, ON, N0E 1A0

AND TO: Clerk of the City of Brantford

Attention: Mayor Chris Friel and Council

c/o Lori Wolfe

City Hall

100 Wellington Square

Brantford, ON, N3T 2M3

AND TO: Clerk of the County of Haldimand

Attention: Mayor Ken Hewitt and Council

c/o Evelyn Eichenbaum

Cayuga Administration Building

45 Munsee Street North, P. O. Box 400

Cayuga, ON, N0A 1E0

AND TO: Walton International Group Inc

Attention: Bill Doherty, CEO

605 5 Ave SW

Calgary, AB, T2P 3G4

AND TO: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

(OHCHR)

Attention: High Commissioner Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein; and,

Special Rapporteur of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Ms. Victoria Tauli Corpuz

Palais Wilson

52 rue des Pâquis

CH-1201 Geneva, Switzerland

c/o Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)

Palais des Nations

CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland

-1-

Madames and Messrs., and To Whom Else It May Concern:

I am Ohrerekó:wa. I carry a title for my people who are known in our language as

Rotinoshonni ónhwe (natural people who belong to families organized pursuant to ancient

systems of Great Peace). I was appointed Wolf Clan Chief in 1972, and thereafter duly

registered as such with the then Department of Indian and Northern Affairs as confirmed

by the attached 1972 document endorsed by Brigadier General André Garneau on the part

of the Governor General of Canada dated November 27th 1972. Together with Turtle and

Bear Clans, we are known as the KA-NYEN-GEH-HA-KAH (Mohawks) of Grand River.

I carry the great seal for our People. Please see Attachment 1.

We understand that “Canada” recognizes neither the Rotinoshonni ónhwe, nor the KA-

NYEN-GEH-HA-KAH, nor indeed the Grand River Mohawks. Neither my office, nor our

people have concluded any treaty with the entity known as “Canada” to our knowledge.

Instead, corporate entities persist in fraudulent and unauthorized dealings with entities

such as the “Six Nations Elected Band Council” (forcibly imposed by the Queen’s

Government in Canada, Freemasons, RCMP, fraudsters and imposters, as well as their

cohorts including other Crown-empowered corporations such as the New England

Company, upon my people in 1924), the Grand River Navigation Company, and others.

Such entities remain neither recognized, nor empowered by my office in any way.

Indeed, some are increasingly considered as defendants in respect of pending legal

actions pertaining to acting as parties to crimes such as theft, fraud, crimes against

humanity and genocide – as outlined in our November 2nd 2012 human rights

submission to the United Nations respecting same, and our December 2012, and

January, 2013 formal appeals to the Queen. Please see Attachment 2.

As each of you must understand by now, many years ago, my ancestors had direct

dealings with Queen Anne of England and more recently with Sir Guy Carlton, Frederick

Haldimand, and Peter Russell. Haldimand’s pledge of April 7, 1779 to my ancestors from

the Villages of Canojaharie, Tikondarago, and Aughugo was clear. Indeed, Haldimand’s

pledge was fulfilled in 1784 by proclamation. Please see Attachments 3 & 4.

The so-called “Six Nations” Confederacy and its Royanni (chiefs) neither speak for our

clan, nor do they speak for the Grand River Mohawks. Our ancestors sustained the loss of

our homelands including our Canojaharie,

Tikondarago, and Aughugo settlements and

sacred places on account of our early

attachment to the Crown.

Indeed, much of our hunting grounds

(obtained by the Five Nations by conquest

during the so-called “Beaver Wars”), from

the so-called “Hudson River” in New York

to the Great Lakes were also ruined on

account of our loyalty to our allies and

respect for our treaties. (Please see 1638-

1651 wars from the 1711 Five Nations’

Conquest Map on left).

-2-

Instead of the King protecting the Grand River Territory as proclaimed by Halidmand,

our ancestors once again were forced to defend our new territory, after being assured by

the Governor’s Instruction of May 1st, 1812 that no lease or disposal our land holdings

was to be deemed lawful unless all relevant parties assemble in full council, &c. The

Canadian House of Commons has been made well aware of our Peoples’ unique situation

by way of repeated statements made in the House. Please see Attachment 5.

Protesting and/or boycotting what is unnatural and contrary to our ways is akin to neither

any mode of surrender, nor consent. On the contrary, it affirms our inherent connection to

Mother Earth which we hold to be sacred. Our system is such that when Mohawks (as

founders of the Great Peace) protest, the issue at hand falls back to the floor for

discussion. Again, we, and others, protest – and cite Article XV of the treaties signed at

Utrecht as “Five Nations” Rotinoshonni ónhwe KA-NYEN-GEH-HA-KAH (Grand River

Mohawk) People – and not “Six Nations” Indians. Please see Attachment 6 in order to

understaned the difference.

Our outcries to various branches of the Crown appear to fall between the realms of

Deliberate Indifference and Deliberate Ignorance. In any event, the status quo is not

acceptable. We ask for truth before reconciliation. Not only do parties refuse to consult

with my office in respect of anything, centuries of appeals and protests remain ignored.

Has nothing been learned about one’s duty to consult – not only with KA-NYEN-GEH-

HA-KAH and the “5 Nations” Rotinoshonni ónhwe, but with all “Indians”?

1. I hereby request that you cease and desist from failure to consult with my

office, as a duly appointed Chief of the KA-NYEN-GEH-HA-KAH (Grand

River Mohawk) Wolf Clan who is NOT represented by “Six Nations”, in

respect of any and all matters pertaining to our Rotinoshonni ónhwe People

and in particular, Halidmand’s 1779 and 1784 agreements. You are hereby

directed by me to deal directly with Bill Squire of the Mohawk Workers who

acts as spokesperson for my office, in addition to acting as spokesperson for

the Mohawk Workers.

As so many other Onkwehon:we (Natural People), my ancestors, also suffered terribly at

the depraved hands of those parties and entities engaged in colonialism, apartheid,

genocide and other crimes against humanity such as, inter alia, the Dutch VOC, the

Crown “New England Company” and others. We continue to endure violent and horrific

consequences of ongoing barbaric and inhumane practices of certain entities and cohorts

thereof. Today we remain landless outsiders of what appears to be a Privy Society

comprised of various entities and players – many of whom take oaths of secrecy and act

within Secret Societies. Many Canadian citizens, indeed many Ontario residents of the

counties and cities of Haldimand, Brant and Brantford, among others, appear to have also

fallen victim to ill deeds.

-3-

2. I hereby request that forthwith, the following be delivered to my office in

earnest, in care of Bill Squire of the Mohawk Workers: a list of relevant

treaty and accounting records respecting covenants, trusts, constructive

trusts, treaties, titles, leases, indentures, territories, and/or monies or

accounts pledged, transferred to and/or from, or otherwise of interest or

owed, or ought to be owed, to the KA-NYEN-GEH-HA-KAH (Grand River

Mohawks) Wolf Clan which remain in your possession and, or under your

custody and control.

I can advise Madames and Messrs. that we have few treaties, and limited official contact,

yet have ammased countless atrocities in respect of Residential Schools, and ongoing

genocide. The file involves vast corrupted lands and waters, and copious sums of claims

including monies due – in many cases – pilfered away to entities such as Osgoode Hall in

Toronto, and others which have played roles in the corruption and fraudulent disposal of

our Sacred lands. Your records of dealings with the KA-NYEN-GEH-HA-KAH

Rotinoshonni ónhwe people over past centuraries will be brief – and historic. Russian

People are said to have maintained their wampum from our ancestors’ visit to the Great

Peace summit in London in 1710 hosted by Queen Anne. Sadly, ours has long since been

stolen. In 1923 the RCMP raided much of our archives.

3. I request that official channels of effective and meaningful diplomatic

communication protocols between the parties named in this communication

and my office, care of Bill Squire of the Mohawk Workers, be established in

earnest.

Some within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police appear to continue to underpin and

conceal atrocities targeted systemically, indeed “judicially” against our children, women,

mothers, grandmothers, men, fathers, grandfathers, elders, medicine people, seed keepers,

enlightened teachers, speakers and keepers of Rotinoshonni ónhwe traditions by way of

Residential Schools, various and current Apartheid-driven and assimilative-based

“Indian” acts of parliament, quasi-judicial systems, and other systemic and racist

schemes.

I have yet to hear of a Canadian interpreter who knows our true language. This is an

example of teaching we share:

Ronia’tathens Ne Shaniónhsa

É:so iotarí:hen nátste. Shaià:ta rakowá:nen shaniónhsa rá:tsin ronia’táthens.

Kaniatarákta iehawé:non. Karì:wes wahahnekì:ra. Ó:nen orì:wakon

tontakahnekatihén:tho. “Tésta’n! Tóhsa é:so enhshnekì:ra” wa’kiohén:rehte ne

tsianí:ton. “Awèn:ke kì:teron kí kaniá:tara”. ”Enhskenonhská:ri” Shaniónhsa í:iah

thé:nen tehotahonhsatá:ton. Kwáh séken í:iah tethotkáhthon tsi nikarì:wes ióhthare ne

tsianí:ton. “Tésta’n! Tóhsa é:so enhshnekì:ra”wa’kiohén:rehte ne anó:kien. “Awèn:ke

kì:teron kí kaniá:tara.” “Katá:wens kén:tho.” “Toka enhshnekì:ra akwé:kon ne

ohné:kanos” “Í:iah tha’kkwé:ni enkatá:wen.” Shaniónhsa í:iah thé:nen

tehotahonhsatá:ton. Kwáh séken í:iah tethotkáhthon tsi nikarì:wes ióhthare ne anó:kien.

-4-

“Tésta’n! Tóhsa é:so enhshnekì:ra” wa’kiohén:rehte ne kéntsion. “Awèn:ke

iakwèn:teron kí kaniá:tara. “Í:iah tha’ón:ton aiakiónhnheke tóka í:iah thé:nen ne

ohné:kanos” Shaniónhsa í:iah thé:nen tehotahonhsatá:ton. Kwáh séken í:iah

tethotkáhthon tsi nikarì:wes ióhthare ne kéntsion. Ken’niiaká:’a tsí’ks kákies. “Tésta’n!

Tóhsa é:so enhshnekì:ra” wa’kiohén:rehte ne tsí’ks. “Shekarewáhtha ne

onkia’tenro’shón:’a” wa’kèn:ron ne tsí’ks. “Tésta’n tóka í:iah enkonión:nien ténhsta’n!”

Rakowá:nen shaniónhsa ratahonhsatats nón:wa. Tahatásawen ahoiéshon. “Satenién:ten

tontákta’as” wahèn:ron ne rakowá:nen shaniónhsa.Sók ionsahatahsónteren sahahnekì:ra

ne rakowá:nen shaniónhsa. Tsí’ks nia’kákie raohón:takon ne rakowá:nen shaniónhsa.

Tsí’ks wa’kèn:ron “ahi’nikonhraientá:ten tánon iatektsiá:hon.” Wá:ton “zzzzzz”

raohón:takon. “Tésta’n” wa’thohén:rehte ne shaniónhsa. Nék tsi í:iah thé:nen

teiotahonhsatá:ton ne tsí’ks. Roterihonkóhtani ne rakowá:nen shaniónhsa tánon

waho’shén:ni Wahaté:ko tánon í:iah nonwén:ton kaniatarákta khieshawé:non.

Like many African People, for example, my people – and indeed other Rotinoshonni

ónhwe and Okwehon:we – indeed “Status” “Indians” and disenfranchised alike, have in

many cases, lost much of our ancient languages and traditions due to colonization and

assimilation. On-going corruption of sacred resting places of our ancestors and other

depraved corruption and disturbances upon, within and above our inherent lands and

waters persist.

The November 2nd, 2012 Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity complaint submitted

and circulated by the Mohawk Workers and supporting documents which I have seen,

appear to outline Walton’s relationship with Brant County’s mayor Ron Eddy and his

wife (who appear to have profited by selling disputed land title holdings such as an

estimated $2.4 million dollars farmland sale to Walton corporate entities). The last known

longhouse belonging to the Rotinoshonni ónhwe Tutelo people who came as cantons with

our ancestors to the Grand River once stood within a pending 2,454 hecter proposed (and

protested) transfer of our lands to the City of Brantford by Brant County. The corruption

and proposed development of these sacred lands by Walton corporations with the

assistance of “Six Nations”, Brant County, the City of Brantford, the Province of Ontario,

and others, served as a most recent example as illustrated to James Anaya and deliverd to

the OHCHR-UNOG Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in 2012. The

complaint, although both received and acknowleged by Jame Anaya, appears to have

been ignored by the United Nations; it is not officially listed.

The so-called “Crown in Right of Canada” and others have been used to cause my people

to lose our identity and independence as KA-NYEN-GEH-HA-KAH people. Today, we are

few. Residential Schools and other acts of genocide have rendered us a fractured and

broken remnant of a once proud and prosperous people. Our vast homelands and

territories were ruined, stolen, occupied and corrupted beyond my admitted full

comprehension by poisons and things of unnatural origins. It is time for us, and the World

to know the truth.

It is our view that the continued assimilation, genocide, and systemic racism plaguing our

people will persist until those depraved actors who perpetuate these crimes face justice

and are literally held to account. We take this first step today. Apologies are not enough.

-5-

Our people govern ourselves and our relations with others pursuant to ancient ways and

under the principles of what the English describe as the “Two Row Wampum.” Our

ancestors made the 1613 Tawagonshi Treaty with the VOC (a Dutch Corporation) in 1613

in what is now upstate New York. Our Covenant Chain treaty with the British in 1677

constitutes another example of a treaty my people recognized. Abhorroent behaviour by

such parties and others cause me to regret involvement in such relationships and gives me

pause to reflect upon lessons learned.

I turn in earnest hope to seek and reaffirm Friends and Allies in this time of my people’s

urgent need. I also reach out to our Russian friends, and indeed African friends in the

spirit of reconciliation – and in the hope of forging new futures for our shared future

generations. In the spirit of Shumba ya Mukwashi - "The Lion Spirit of the Hunter", we

too ask for guidance during these times of need. We are people of Great Peace who have

endured disturbances on the part of various European entities for centuries without just

cause. Together, may we learn truth and regain peace.

I can be reached care of Bill Squire of the Mohawk Workers at Kanata in Brantford

With Great Difficulty, and With Sincere Best Wishes in Great Peace,

[Original signed & sealed by]

Ohrerekó:wa

Edwin “Ted” Squire Hill, Principle Chief

Grand River KA-NYEN-GEH-HA-KAH Mohawks

Wolf Clan

Attachment 1

November 27th, 1972 Crown Acknowledgment of Appointment

Attachment 2

November 2nd, 2012 submission of Jason Bowman to the United Nations

Attachment 3

Haldimand’s Pledge of April 1st, 1779 to the Mohawks

Attachment 4

Haldimand’s Proclaimation of October 23rd, 1784 to the Mohawks

Attachment 5

Statement of the Hon. Frank Oliver, M.P., to the Speaker of the House of Commons on

May 11, 1914 [From: House of Commons Debates, Third Session-Twenty-Twelfth

Parliament, 4-5 George V., 1914]

Attachment 6

New York Indians v. United States No. 106. (APRIL 11, 1898).

-6-

Copies to:

Grand River Mohawk Turtle and Bear Clans

c/o Mohawk Workers

Standard & Poor’s (Canada)

1100-130 King St,

Toronto ON, M9N 1L5

Chairperson of the African Union, Robert Mugabe

African Union Headquarters P.O. Box 3243

Roosvelt Street (Old Airport Area)

W21K19 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Ambassador for the Russian Federation to Canada - Alexander Darchiev

The Embassy of the Russian Federation in Canada

285 Charlotte Street, Ottawa ON, K1N 8L5

BCC To:

Hereditary Chief – Squamish People

Allied Tribes Ts'Peten Defence Committee

Southern Chiefs' Organization

Semonile Tribe of Florida

American Indian Movement

IdleNoMore

-7-

Attachment 1 – November 27th, 1972 Crown Acknowledgment of Appointment

-8-

Attachment 2 – November 2nd, 2012 Submission of Mohawk Workers to the United Nations;

Special Rapporteur James Anaya

Information to the Special Rapporteur November 2, 2012

To: Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples c/o OHCHR-UNOG Office of the

High Commissioner for Human Rights Palais Wilson 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland

Source: Jason Bowman (for Bill Squire)

Source Contact Information: Kanata Village - 440 Mohawk Street Brantford, Ontario, Canada,

N3T 3C4 greatwhiteroots@gmail.com http://mohawkworkers.wordpress.com

Description of Submitting Organization: The Kanienkahagen people of the Mohawk Nation of the

Ouse / Grand River Territory (as the Mohawk Workers) represent the ‘head’ and leaders of the

League of Five Nations Confederacy, and are trustees and protectors of the Haldimand

Proclamation of 1784

Alleged Victims or Community Affected: The Mohawk Workers as the Kanienkahagen people of

the Mohawk Nation of the Ouse / Grand River Territory

Alleged Perpetrators: Bill Doherty, Walton Development and Management GP Ltd., Riverbend

Asset Management Corporation, the County of Brant, the Province of Ontario, the Country of

Canada, and others to be named.

Summary of Events: On-going violations of indigenous peoples' rights over lands and natural

resources, including dispossession and removal, lack of prior consultation regarding development

projects, and other transgressions including violations of treaty and human rights at Tutela

Heights and elsewhere within the Haldimand (Ouse / Grand River Territory). Additional

Comments: Canadian federal and provincial legislation and policies have directly impacted the

Kanienkahagen people of the Mohawk Nation of the Ouse / Grand River Territory as indigenous

peoples in ways set out within the attached preliminary synthesis of allegation information.

Documents: [See: Attached November 2, 2012 Preliminary Synthesis of Allegation Information

from Jason Bowman]

-9-

November 2, 2012

To: Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples c/o OHCHR-UNOG Office of the

High Commissioner for Human Rights Palais Wilson 1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland

RE: Preliminary Synthesis of Allegation Information from Jason Bowman

I write to you, on behalf of Bill Squire and the Mohawk Workers in order to request your

assistance in respect of the following issues which include on-going violations of indigenous

peoples' rights over lands and natural resources, including dispossession and removal, lack of

prior consultation regarding development projects, and other transgressions including violations

of treaty and human rights at Tutela Heights and elsewhere within the Haldimand (Ouse / Grand

River Territory).

Introduction

In September 2012, the Mohawk Workers became listed with the United Nations' integrated Civil

Society Organizations (iCSO) System, developed by the Department of Economic and Social

Affairs (DESA), which facilitates interactions between civil society organizations and DESA. We

are currently engaged in a struggle against a developer who has been digging (for the purpose of

an archaeological assessment) in our sacred lands. This last settlement of the Upper Tutelos (who

have all but disappeared under the Canadian Government's genocidal policies) includes a

longhouse site and a burial site. There has also been evidence of many other peoples' settlements

discovered at this location - dating back to the early archaic period +10,000 years ago.

Last Friday (October 26, 2012), Walton Development and Management GP Ltd. and Riverbend

Asset Management Corporation brought a motion for injunctive relief against Bill Squire and

others in Ontario superior court in Brantford in respect of a our attempts to halt the corporation's

residential development named Walton Riverbend Estates in Tutela Heights. Walton purports to

be unaware of any specific evidence of human burials associated with lands contained within this

development despite having reported the contrary at page 91 in Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological

Assessment of Tutela Heights Phase 1, Stuart & Ruggles Tract, County of Brant, Ontario that:

"By 1843, the “Upper Cayuga village” was described as “now deserted” and the total population

of Tutelos was a mere 40 “included in the Upper Cayuga return.” The Tutelo longhouse or

council house is said to have once stood “opposite the later site of the Bell Homestead and a few

yards to the southwest,” and that a Tutelo burial ground was located “in a sand knoll a few

hundred yards southeast of the homestead.” The land here was originally covered with “gigantic

trees, mostly elm and sycamore, some with only a small tuft of branches at the top,” in which

eagles and wood ducks or mergansers used to nest (Waldie 1952:66; Johnston 1964:52, 203, 205,

281, 307)."

We now know of several thousand artifacts which have already been taken by agents for Walton -

and the developer is now suing Mohawk Workers and others who have tried to stop these

intrusions for $73 million - as well as attempting to obtain no trespass injunctions against us for

protecting these lands. Baring intervention, an interim decision in court is expected after a hearing

scheduled today (November 2nd) in superior court in Brantford. We plan to stand strong against

this - and ask for any help and support which may be extended towards us to this end. While we

face oppression from many sides, we remain determined to stop to pillage of these sacred lands.

This may involve action at the Federal Court of Canada. Accordingly, the Mohawks Workers

respectfully requested by correspondence dated October 30, 2012, that Chief Bill Montour of the

Six Nations Band Council, or its designate, notify Walton and relevant authorities of the

following:

-10-

a) The Tutela Heights Riverbend project site is of high cultural and ancestral significance,

contains known burial sites, and must be protected and preserved; and

b) Accordingly, no further disruption or intrusions of any kind at to take place until such time as a

site disposition agreement is reached which includes Mohawk Workers and Tutelo involvement,

input and consensus.

At the time of this communication, neither response, nor acknowledgment has been received by

the Mohawk Workers, although a willingness on the part of Band Council to cooperate was

expressed to Bill Squire at a meeting with Bill Montour on October 26. It is our understanding

that once confirmation of such an objection notice has been received by the Walton, the Ministry

of Culture and the Registrar of Cemeteries, the site can be adequately protected under law from

further destruction, disruptions and disturbances. (Full particulars including additional

documentary evidence and correspondence can be further provided upon request in order to show

that further digging IS NOT REQUIRED in order to determine the applicability of the Cemeteries

Act including correspondence from the chief Coroner for Ontario).

It is also our understanding that similar objections were formally brought forward to the County

of Brant in 1998 by the Haudenosaunee Environment Delegation (HED) at which time an Ontario

superior court was also informed during motion proceedings. Ontario professor of archaeology

and expert, Gary Warrick, has recently stated the following re: Tutela Heights:

“Thanks for the update on the archaeology at Tutela Heights. It is a very sensitive area and has

great potential for archaeological remains of an early 19th century Tutelo settlement and other

settler cabins. Also, Lewis Burwell reported in the 1830s observing a Tutelo longhouse.”

Gail Bury and other representatives of the Tutela Heights Phelps Road Residents Association

have knowledge of the discovery of human remains (bones) and other artifacts in the Tutela

Heights area over the years:

“I was looking yesterday at the stage 1 and 2 archaeological studies for Tutela. There is some

history that there was a Tutelo longhouse and possibly burial site directly across from Bell

Homestead, which it seems is where the majority of digging (stage 3?) is ongoing. On page 82 of

the study (available at the studies tab on www.waltonriverbend.com) there is reference to finding

a long bone of mammalian original but then further says the species cannot be identified. There is

no reference to a finding in Tutela of very old human remains in the 70’s. Although there may be

police records of same, since they were involved. It would seem that the team doing the digging

and Walton themselves are pretty protective of whatever is going on there. An enquiry from three

old ladies and a David Suzuki rep of the team drew very sternly worded no trespassing letters and

the immediate placement of signs on the land. Now you all know what I know.”

Further, some witnesses described a new local home owner who became distressed when many

human bones were discovered stored in a basement, while others talk of the discovery of human

bones by residents and their children within the area for decades. A school teacher is even said to

have notified police after learning of students engaged in the handling of skeletal remains found

within the project area. The Mohawk Workers remain currently engaged in the process of

gathering witness statements pertaining to reports made of the discovery / recovery of human

remains at the site. It is our understanding that the Consecrated Sites Act has already been

deemed to be applicable in respect of the lands. Our oral history is consistent with experts who

have suggested that this may one of the earliest and largest settlements discovered north of the

Mississippi – and may well include many other sacred / burial sites.

-11-

We know of several thousand artifacts which have already been stolen – and the developer is now

suing Mohawk Workers and others who have tried to stop these intrusions for $73 million – as

well as attempting to obtain no trespass injunctions against us. An interim decision in court is

expected after a hearing scheduled for today (November 2) here in Brantford. Background The

Kanienkahagen people of the Mohawk Nation of the Ouse / Grand River territory represent the

‘head’ and leaders of the League of Five Nations Confederacy, and are trustees and protectors of

the Haldimand Proclamation of 1784 which states the outright ownership to these Mohawks (and

such others that wish to follow) of the lands “six miles deep from the mouth to the source of the

Grand (Ouse) River”, or the Haldimand Tract.

The Kanienkahagen people of the Mohawk Nation of the Ouse / Grand River territory are

Onkwehonweh (sovereign, real people) living within the Grand River territory under what some

call ‘The Great Law of Peace’. Our land base of nearly 1 million acres (the Haldimand Tract) was

proclaimed as a parcel of our native home territory by the British Crown as a war reparation for

our allied military service and loss of our homeland territories in New York State, as we fought

for the British in the American Revolutionary War (this reparation is called the Haldimand

Proclamation – See: http://mohawkworkers.wordpress.com). The Kanyen’kehake of the Ouse /

Grand River Territory are not now, never have been, nor ever will be subject to the influence /

manipulation of outside government(s) including evolved arms of such (including elected “Band

Council” and other Indian Act creations.

However, our territorial homeland remains subjected to title frauds, encroachments, intrusions,

trespasses, corruption and pollution at the unclean hands of belligerent occupants and entities.

Impostors and other unauthorized parties have persisted in engaging in unauthorized dealings

pertaining to our people and our territorial homeland for many years; indeed these belligerent acts

continue to plague our people to this day, notwithstanding the continued best efforts on our part to

hold such parties to account and to enjoy life within our territorial homeland unmolested and free

from outside intrusions. As allies of the British Crown, The Kanyen’kehake (Mohawks) of the

Ouse / Grand River Territory are to enjoy supreme, independent authority over and within our

territory. We have retained power to rule and make law which rests on our “Great Binding Law”

or “Great Peace”, and which is proclaimed clearly within the Sir Frederick Haldimand’s 1784

proclamation. Indeed, our “sovereignty” has always necessitated a moral imperative on the

Mohawk statesmen to exercise it; as such, we are obliged to assert and maintain our territorial

integrity.

On November 27th, 1972, the Crown of England recognized Edwin (Ted) Squire Hill as the newly

appointed Chief of the Mohawk Wolf Clan in a letter written by Brigadier General Andre

Garneau on the part of Canada’s Governor General. The same letter advised that notice of the

appointment was forwarded to the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs in order that it may

be “properly registered”. To our knowledge, this constitutes the only current example of a

sovereign Chief being ‘registered’ in this way (i.e. as an ally of the Crown of England – and NOT

as a subject or “Indian” under the “Indian Act”). Accordingly, and in the circumstances, we see

our position as being unique – and of great importance.

Entrenched Indigenous Treaties & Covenants “New” world indigenous covenants and treaties including those entrenched within Canadian law

are constitutionally recognized agreements between the Crown and Onkwehonwe who, in

keeping with traditional orientation, looked to those among their own elders who are most deeply

schooled in the oral histories, as the highest authorities on what they generally describe as the

spirit and intent of their treaties with the Crown. On the Crown side the basic principles for treaty

making with the Kanyen’kehake (Mohawk) peoples were articulated by King George III in the

ROYAL PROCLAMATION OF 1763, which established the constitutional foundations of

Canada after the government of France withdrew its territorial claims to North America.

-12-

The constitutional character of past and future treaties between Onkwehonwe and the Crown was

renewed in the Constitution Act of 1982. Section 35 of that document, which describes itself as

"the supreme law of Canada," both recognizes and affirms "existing Aboriginal and treaty rights."

In 1990 the Supreme Court of Canada in the Sioui case determined that "treaties and statutes

relating to Indians should be liberally construed and uncertainties resolved in favour of the

Indians." In the same case the court introduced into Canadian jurisprudence a principle adopted

from a 19th-century ruling in the USA indicating that Indian treaties "must therefore be

construed, not according to the technical meaning of its words to learned lawyers, but in the sense

in which they would naturally be understood by the Indians."

There exists no Kanyen'kehake (Mohawk) endorsed document / instrument which describes any

exchange where Kanyen'kehake (Mohawk) statesmen agreed to create, define, register, transfer or

extinguish / surrender any title in respect of the Ouse / Grand River territory nor ever any

Kanyen'kehake (Mohawk) endorse the transfer or conveyance of any interests in their ancestral

lands in return for any kind of payments / promise from Crown officials.

On a deeper level our covenants are understood, particularly in respect of the Crown of England,

as solemn pacts or sacred covenants between peoples that establish the underlying principles for

the relationship linking those for whom Canada is an ancient homeland with those whose deepest

family roots lie in other countries. Thus treaties between the Crown and Onkwehonwe including

the Kanyen'kehake (Mohawk) people establish a constitutional and moral basis of alliance

between our peoples and the sovereign institutions of the Canadian state. On the Onkwehonwe

side the sacredness and binding character of treaties is not to be found primarily in the signature

marks or in the legalistic language which adorn treaty documents. Instead the true force of their

treaties with the Crown is rooted in what was actually said, at the time of the negotiations when

treaty deliberations were frequently accompanied with the burning of tobacco or with an

exchange of symbolically significant presents such as WAMPUM belts. We see these ceremonial

conventions as raising the proceedings to the highest level of law making and diplomacy.

In spite of the high constitutional character of treaties in Canada, we see that early covenants can

still be viewed cynically or utterly ignored by some (including non-Indians) responsible for both

making and implementing these agreements as relatively cheap and expedient ways to ease

natives off most of the lands of Canada so that these resources could be opened for exploitation

by other groups and interests. The tendency on the part of federal and provincial governments in

many cases so far, including an Ontario Justice most recently has been to continue this cynicism

by interpreting Treaties as narrowly and legalistically as possible - evening to point of imposed

ignorance - while holding to the position that Kanyen'kehake (Mohawk) people "ceded,

surrendered and yielded" all inherent rights and titles to ancestral lands through past instruments.

This narrow and one-sided view of treaties essentially as real estate deals by which some have

sold without authorization including binding authority, interests in vast parcels of Ouse / Grand

River Territorial land for payments has produced a huge schism of perception. How can any land

deal (as a legal instrument) extinguish Kanyen'kehake (Mohawk) rights? It can not. The Royal

Proclamation and the Haldiamand Proclamation of 1784 are instruments of relationship between

peoples who agree to share the lands and resources of Canada as co-existing but within

autonomous legal frameworks together in communities. Seen from this perspective, treaties and

proclamations didn't extinguish rights but rather confirmed rights through Crown recognition that

Onkwehonwe, and specifically the Kanyen'kehake of the Ouse / Grand River Territory (Mohawk)

peoples have the capacity to make and enforce their own laws and thus to act as selfgoverning

participants on the international stage.

-13-

Legal Rights Even Canada's Indian Act states that Canadian law is applicable "subject to terms of any

treaty...":

LEGAL RIGHTS (General provincial laws applicable to Indians)

88. Subject to the terms of any treaty and any other Act of Parliament, all laws of general

application from time to time in force in any province are applicable to and in respect of Indians

in the province, except to the extent that those laws are inconsistent with this Act or the First

Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act, or with any order, rule, regulation or law of a

band made under those Acts, and except to the extent that those provincial laws make provision

for any matter for which provision is made by or under those Acts. (R.S., 1985, c. I-5, s. 88; 2005,

c. 9, s. 151.)

Accordingly, in respect of Bill Doherty and Walton corporations, the Kanyen'kehake (Mohawk)

as the Mohawk Workers will petition the Ontario Superior Court (and Federal Court of Canada)

to bridge the gap between these alternative views of treaties, either as a solvent or as a

confirmation of Kanyen'kehake (Mohawk) rights on the basis that transgressions of monumental

and irreparable harm currently challenge our people at the hands of law makers of Canada and

Bill Doherty (Walton Corporation). We understand that Canada's Supreme Court has, held that if

an application for a declaration that federal authorities are acting contrary to the constitution is

made in a provincial superior court the judge has a discretion to stay the application on the

grounds that there is an effective and appropriate forum available to the applicant in the Federal

Court (Reza v. Canada [1994] 2 S.C.R. 394).

This case concerned the Immigration Act and the matter of immigration, and there appears to be a

recognition that the Federal Court has more expertise and experience in respect of the application

of federal jurisdiction under federal enactments such as the "Indian Act", as well as, we suggest,

also covenants, treaties, proclamations, titles and related international law. We also understand

that jurisprudence has found that a tort or contract action could be taken in Federal Court against

non-Crown defendants, if there is a detailed federal statutory framework governing the parties’

rights. (Rhine v. R.; Prytula v. R. 1980 2 S.C.R.; Peter G. White Ltd. v, Canada 2006 FCA 190;

Onuschak v. Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants 2009 FC 1135; Sellathurai v. Minister

of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness 2011 FCA 223).

Allegations of Abuses Past to Current

We wish to state allegations pertaining to specific examples of grave human rights abuses

including the crimes of apartheid and genocide perpetrated by certain arms and branches of

various Canadian governmental bodies upon our people as set out below: In 1858, British

officials notified their Canadian counterparts that they were no longer interested in financing

Indian administration, having already accumulated millions of dollars deposited "to the credit of

the Indians". As a result, responsibility for the evolving system of Indian legislation, a growing

administrative apparatus, and increased expenditures, was formally turned over to the Province of

Canada in 1860. In effect, Canada was now on its own.

In Canada, the Indian Act (“An Act respecting Indians”), R.S., 1951, c. I-5, remains an

apartheid-rooted Canadian statute that concerns registered ”Indians”, their bands, and the system

of Indian reserves. The Indian Act was enacted in 1876 by the Parliament of Canada under the

provisions of Section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867, which provides Canada’s federal

government exclusive authority to legislate in relation to Crown Land – or “Indians and Lands

Reserved for Indians”.

-14-

The Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, which is responsible for the

act, is administered by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Most

reserves (the exceptions are communities that have negotiated self-government) still operate

under the rule of the Indian Act, first authored in 1876 and “updated” several times since then.

See the full current racist Indian Act here: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/I-5/

In 1884, “An Act for Conferring Certain Privileges on the More Advanced Bands of the Indians

of Canada”, with the view of ‘training’ natives for the exercise of municipal powers was passed

by Parliament. This legislation became known as the Indian Advancement Act, and its focus was

mainly on the bands of eastern Canada. The measures were designed to promote municipal-style

government for the more “advanced” native groups, including the “Six Nations Indians” at

Brantford. The Indian Act is explicitly racist. It reduces “aboriginal” people to the status of

powerless, landless tenants. It deprives them of property rights and inheritance rights, as any other

Canadian would understand those terms. It gives entities, including arms of the Canadian

Government, the power to seize Indian property virtually at will. It allows for reserve lands to be

forcibly expropriated. It places limitations on who Indians on reserves can do business with. It

contains clauses that lay out, in excruciating detail, how the government may seize the property of

Indians deemed “mentally incompetent.” It represents a wholesale departure from internationally-

recognized human rights protocols.

For example, Clause 20, Section 1) states that:

“No Indian is lawfully in possession of land in a reserve unless, with the approval of the Minister,

possession of the land has been allotted to him by the council of the band.”

In April 1884, the Indian Act was amended by section 3, which placed a ban on dances and

traditional ceremonies. In 1894, section 11 gave the Minister of Indian Affairs the power to direct

industrial or residential schools, and made school attendance compulsory, with strict truancy

penalties. In 1927, a section 141 was inserted into the act, banning the pursuit of land claims.

Canada’s commitment to the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, led to the

revision of the Indian Act in 1951.

Certain more oppressive sections of the Indian Act were amended and taken out. It was no longer

illegal for Indians to practice their customs and culture such as the potlatch. Indians were also

now allowed to appear off-reserve in ceremonial dress without permission of the Indian Agent, to

organize and hire legal counsel, and Indian women were now allowed to vote in band councils. In

1960, Indians received the right to vote federally, and in 1961, section 112, concerning

compulsory Indian enfranchisement provisions, was deleted from the Indian Act. The Canadian

Charter of Rights and Freedoms, proclaimed in 1982, had a section providing constitutional

protection for treaty and aboriginal rights.

Indeed, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 was deemed to be one of Canada’s constitutional

documents.

Express Purpose of the Indian Act “The great aim of our legislation has been to do away with the tribal system and assimilate the

Indian people in all respects with the other inhabitants of the Dominion as speedily as they are fit

to change.” – John A. Macdonald, Canadian Prime Minister, 1887

“Our object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed

into the body politic, and there is no Indian question, and no Indian department.” – Duncan

Campbell Scott, Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, 1920

-15-

The Criminalizing of Traditional Culture The 1895 amendment of the Indian Act (Section 114) criminalized many Aboriginal ceremonies,

which resulted in the arrest and conviction of numerous Aboriginal people for practicing their

basic traditions. These arrests were based on Aboriginal participation in festivals, dances and

ceremonies that involved the wounding of animals or humans, or the giving away of money or

goods. The Dakota people (Sioux) who settled in Oak River, Manitoba, in 1875 were known to

conduct “give-away dances”, also known as the “grass dance”. The dance ceremony involved the

giving away and exchange of blankets and horses; thus it breached Section 114 of the Indian Act.

As a result, Wanduta, an elder of the Dakota community, was sentenced to four months of hard

labour and imprisonment on January 26, 1903. According to Canadian historian Constance

Backhouse, the Aboriginal “give-away dances” were ceremonies more commonly known as

potlatches that connected entire communities politically, economically and socially. These dances

affirmed kinship ties, provided elders with opportunities to pass on insight, legends and history to

the next generation, and were a core part of Aboriginal resistance to assimilation. It is estimated

that between 1900 and 1904, 50 Aboriginal people were arrested and 20 were convicted for their

involvement in such dances.

Letter sent from Ottawa to all Indian Agents by Superintendent General of Indian Affairs Duncan

Elliott on December 15, 1921:

"Sir: It is observed with alarm that the holding of dances by the Indians on their reserves is in the

increase, and that these practices tend to disorganize the efforts which the Department is putting

forth to make them self-supporting. I have, therefore, to direct you to use your utmost endeavours

to dissuade the Indians from excessive indulgence in the practice of dancing. You should suppress

any dances which cause waste of time, interfere with the occupations of the Indians, unsettle them

for serious work, injure their health or encourage them in sloth and idleness. You should also

dissuade, and, if possible, prevent them from leaving their reserves for the purpose of attending

fairs, exhibitions, etc., when their absence would result in their own farming and other interests

being neglected. It is realized that reasonable amusement and recreation should be enjoyed by

Indians, but they should not be allowed to dissipate their energies and abandon themselves to

demoralizing amusements. By the use of tact and firmness, you can control and keep it, and this

obstacle to continued progress will then disappear. The rooms, halls or other places in which

Indians congregate should be under constant inspection. They should be scrubbed, fumigated,

cleansed or disinfected to prevent the dissemination of disease. The Indians should be instructed

in regard to the matter of proper ventilation and the avoidance of overcrowded rooms where

public assemblies are being held, and proper arrangement should be made for the shelter of their

horses and ponies. The Agent will avail himself of the services of the medical attendant of his

agency in this connection." - Duncan Elliott, December 15, 1921

Disenfranchisement The desire of the non-Indian society to force assimilation on Indians is perhaps best expressed in

section 99(1) of the Indian Act of 1880. This section provides for the enfranchisement of any

Indian obtaining a university degree or becoming a lawyer, priest or minister. In addition, an

Indian so enfranchised could be rewarded by the Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs with a

grant of land from the reserve lands of the band. The implications of this legislation are clear.

Any Indian aspiring to an advanced education was confronted with the loss of his or her Indian

identity and Indian status. The message was simple: "We will reward you with Indian land if you

give up your Indian ways."

-16-

The Criminalizing Traditional Trade 120. Every person who buys or otherwise acquires from any Indian, or band or irregular band of

Indians, in the province of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, or Alberta, or the Territories, any cattle or

other animals or any grain, root crops or other produce or sells to any such Indian any goods or

supplies, cattle or other animals contrary to the provisions of this Act, shall on summary

conviction, be liable to a penalty not exceeding one hundred dollars, or to imprisonment for a

term not exceeding three months, or to both.” (Section 120 remained, in one form or another, part

of the Act until 1951.

Denial of Control of and Access to Monies & Resources Indigenous people continue to be denied the power (rights) to determine how they would allocate

their own monies and resources. Indian Acts from 1880 until the present have continually vested

in the Governor-in-Council the power to determine if band councils are spending Indian money in

an appropriate manner.

The Criminalizing of Indigenous Legal Representation When indigenous people complained of administrative abuses and, in the non-Treaty areas, to

press their claims of Aboriginal title, the Indian Act was amended to make it an offence to retain a

lawyer for the purpose of advancing a claim. When indigenous political organizing became more

extensive in the 1920s and groups began to pursue land claims, the federal government added

Section 141 to the Indian Act. Section 141 outlawed the hiring of lawyers and legal counsel by

Indians, effectively barring indigenous peoples from fighting for their rights through the legal

system. Eventually, these laws expanded to such a point that virtually any gathering was strictly

prohibited and would result in a jail term. These amendments presented a significant barrier to

indigenous political organizing and many organizations had to disband. However, it did not

entirely stop political organizing—indigenous organizations such as the Mohawk Workers,

Nisga’a Land Committee and the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia managed to continue

to organize the fight for their rights underground.

The Kanyen'kehake of the Ouse / Grand River Territory as the Mohawk Workers have persisted

to continue to lay claim to what is known as the ‘Haldimand’ land base, (which has evolved - to

some - over time). "Originally, the tract ranged from Burlington, Ontario along the Niagara

escarpment verging on Georgian Bay. Later, the land area was identified by its amended Thames

River and Grand River boundaries,extending to Lake Erie. And in 1801 the Crown unilaterally re-

defined the territory as six miles on each side of the Grand River from its mouth to its source.

This area is approximately 700,000 acres beginning near Dundalk, Ontario, and ending at

Dunnville,Ontario. During the early 1800s the Rotinohsionni 700,000 acre Grand River Valley

territory reduced in size through suspicious land leases and forced removal. The Rotinohsionni

now live on 48,000 acres bounded by Brantford, Ontario, and the Plank Road between Caledonia

and Hagersville, Ontario.

In 1924 the Canadian government seized the Rotinohsionni League’s holdings on Six Nations

Indian Reserve No. 40. Operating under section 74(1) of the Indian Act, the Canadian

government installed an ‘elected council’ while refusing to recognize the Confederacy in

subsequent years. Canada’s relationship to Rotinohsionni people can currently be described as

fiduciary in nature." " From: "Tutelo Heights short-term "Two Row" lessons central to long-term

mediation in the Grand River Valley" by Thohaoken, Wicazo Sa Review (in-press Fall 2010).

-17-

In April, 1998 the Haudenosaunee Enviornment Delegation (HED – was the representative of

Indigenous peoples land rights on the Grand River) notified Brant County that the they and the

Confederacy considered Tutela Heights to be consecrated because it contained Tutelo burial

grounds. Brant County officials disregarded the consideration and issued a permit to cut trees to

the landowner’s logger. An ensuing native blockade commenced a mediation – but not before

truckloads of trees were cut and removed. Two prominent confederacy chiefs (Jacob Thomas and

Richard Maracle) died in June and August 1998.

Doherty & the Walton Group of Companies Bill Doherty purports to lead the Walton Group of

Companies (inter alia, Walton Development and Management GP Ltd., and Riverbend Asset

Management Corporation) as Chief Executive Officer of Walton Global Investments Ltd., and as

an “actively-involved director”.

October 18 2012 Incident – Kanata After meeting with Doherty, and at his request, Bruce Dunne of MRCC (principle of Maxim

Research & Consulting Corporation Ltd.) and an associate traveled from Calgary, and on October

18 2012 attended at the Mohawk Workers administration bureaus located at Kanata on Mohawk

Street in Brantford where Dunne proceeded to interrogate and disrespect a Mohawk elder within

the vicinity of the Kanata fire, to the point of causing her visible distress. Jason Bowman and

another elder responded to Dunne’s disturbance at the fire where Dunne immediately began to

direct inappropriate, irrelevant, offensive and racist questions to Jason Bowman, specifically in

respect of his race, ethnicity, linage and origin whilst leading with statements to the effect of:

“Well you are NOT Mohawk”, and “Is Zambia where you got your mixed blood”?

Dunne’s gross neglect for human rights and protocol caused the distressed elder to leave Kanata

and report Dunne’s misconduct to Kanienkahake spokesperson Bill Squire who in turn notified

the Mohawk (Wolf Clan) Chief. Bowman re-articulated objections and concerns to Bill Doherty’s

agents (directed by Dunne), in respect Doherty-controlled unauthorized / fraudulent dealings in

respect of Kanienkahagen Ouse River Territory, as contained in the August 30 2012 LNI

delivered to Doherty. Dunne and his associate conveyed to Bowman that Doherty had not, and

would not knowingly permit any disruption to a burial site, and further that Doherty had initially

been ignorant to the facts that any Kanienkahagen Territorial dispute existed pertaining to

Walton-acquired lands, and the Kanienkahagen position remains such that the Halidmand

Proclamation applies to said lands.

Bowman requested that Dunne inform Doherty fully and immediately of the following: a) Known

Tutelo burial sites, other suspected burial sites and other areas of a highly significant and

sensitive nature known to be contained within disputed Walton-controlled lands and Walton’s

continued unauthorized and unlawful disturbances of same must cease immediately and prior to

any negotiations; b) The Mohawk Workers have requested that all objects including artifacts

taken from the site lands be immediately accounted for, and returned to the Mohawk Workers

without delay; c) It is, and always has been the Mohawk statesmen and neither the Band Council,

nor any other entity created by British, Canadian or other law, with whom decisions in respect of

territorial lands must be negotiated and entered into, and that all unauthorized dealings pertaining

to such lands must cease; d) The Mohawk Workers consider any and all decisions made in respect

of their territorial lands in lieu of appropriate consultation with, and approval by them to be of no

force and effect, null and void – and that if necessary, action will be undertaken in order to have

their rights re-proclaimed and applied judicially to the Tutelo Burial lands in addition to all

impugned lands within the territory.

-18-

October 19 2012 Meeting On October 19 2012 Mohawk (Wolf Clan) Chief and Ouse River Territory Spokesperson Bill

Squire and assistant Jason Bowman re-articulated objections and concerns to Bill Doherty’s

agents (directed by Bruce Dunne), in respect Doherty-controlled unauthorized / fraudulent

dealings in respect of Kanienkahagen Ouse River Territory, as contained in the August 30 2012

LNI delivered to Doherty at a meeting at Kanata which had been set up by Bowman the day prior.

Doherty’s on-going knowing persistent and unauthorized disturbance of burial sites, persistent

and the unauthorized destruction of trees and other resources including habitat at the hands of

Walton-controlled and directed entities, fraudulent title transfers, disputed titles, and the

applicability of the Haldimand Proclamation were discussed in detail.

October 19 2012 Incident Bowman and Squire led Doherty’s agents to the Tutelo burial site on Tutela Heights Road shortly

after 12:00 noon, where Walton-controlled and directed parties including, inter alia, AMAX

Security Solutions Ltd. Senior Investigator Mike Morris, Archaeological Services Inc., staff

archaeologist Robert Wojtowicz, and Six Nations monitor Rose Miller were once again observed

digging within Tutelo burial site lands without Mohawk approval, and in contravention of

relevant laws. Wojtowicz and Miller were uncooperative and refused to answers posed by

Bowman pertaining to his investigation of their impugned activities, the Cemeteries Act, and the

status and whereabouts of Miller’s sister, Rosilyn Miller. Subsequent to being informed by

Bowman that they appeared to be contravention of the law, and specifically the Cemeteries Act,

Morris, Wojtowicz, and Miller, along with unidentified parties, fled the scene.

Dunne and his associate refused to accompany Bowman and Squire to report the incident at the

Brant O.P.P. detachment, and were given 24 hours by Squire in order to fully inform and seek

instructions from Doherty. Nevertheless and given the circumstances, including their

involvement, Dunne and his associate were clearly advised by Bowman to contact the Mohawk

Workers prior to leaving the jurisdiction.

Relevant Laws Cemeteries Act (Revised) – R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER C.4 “burial site” means land containing

human remains that has not been approved or consented to as a cemetery in accordance with this

Act or a predecessor of this Act; “human remains” means a dead human body aand includes a

cremated human body; “marker” means any monument, tombstone, plaque, headstone,

cornerstone, or other structure or ornament affixed to or intended to be affixed to a burial lot,

mausoleum crypt, columbarium niche or other structure or place intended for the deposit of

human remains;

Private Security and Investigative Services Act, 2005 ONTARIO REGULATION 363/07 –

CODE OF CONDUCT

Additional Allegation Details The Mohawks of the Ouse / Grand River territory submitted these allegations to the Ontario

Superior Court on November 2nd, 2012 including a motion for directions, and also to the Federal

Court of Canada shortly thereafter. Our hope is that the alleged offending entities including

branches / arms of Canadian governments may be compelled to respect relevant international

protocols commencing on Friday domestically. We understand that mechanisms take time to

work. Our fear is that further disturbances, digging and disruption / corruption of these sacred

sites and other irreparable harm will be permitted to occur at the hands of the Ontario Superior

Court and / or other Canadian entities notwithstanding our allegations and objections.

-19-

On September 25, 2012 the M.I.B. informed the Mohawk Workers that during the first two stages

of Walton’s archaeological survey, at least three historical sites, one historic industrial site, one

possible historic Aboriginal site, two historic “findspots”, 59 pre-contact sites and 85 pre-contact

findspots were documented and reported to Brant County. The study, dated August 2010, appears

to have been prepared by Archaeological Services Inc. and was not submitted to the County of

Brant until February 3, 2011 as Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment. A Stage 3

Archaeological Assessment, dated April 2011, also appearing to be prepared by Archaeological

Services Inc., was submitted to the County of Brant on May 10, 2011. Also on September 25,

2012, the Minister of Tourism and Culture’s office was notified of what appear to be glaring

violations of the Ministry’s applicable Standards and Guidelines for Consulting Archaeologists

(2009).

Copies of this objection and disclosure notice were also forwarded to federal officials within the

Department of Canadian Heritage. Ontario’s Coroner’s Office and the Cemetery Registrar were

also notified.

A Draft Technical Bulletin for Consultant Archaeologists in Ontario was released in 2010 by

Ontario’s Ministry of Tourism and Culture. It was intended to help the licensed consultant

archaeologist engage Native communities in archaeology “as effectively as possible”. It

summarizes the direction on Aboriginal engagement set out in the Standards and Guidelines for

Consultant Archaeologists and provides information and resources to assist consultant

archaeologists in successfully following the standards and guidelines.

“ At the end of Stage 3, when formulating a strategy to mitigate the impacts on the following

types of Aboriginal archaeological sites through avoidance and protection or excavation [Sections

3.4 and 3.5]: a. rare Aboriginal archaeological sites; b. sites identified as sacred or known to

contain human remains; c. woodland Aboriginal sites; d. aboriginal archaeological sites where

topsoil stripping is contemplated; e. undisturbed Aboriginal sites; f. sites previously identified as

of interest to an Aboriginal community.

When you have engaged Aboriginal communities as part of an archaeological project, you must

provide a description of the engagement and a copy of any documentation arising from the

process to the Ministry of Tourism and Culture. Submit this information as part of the

supplementary documentation included in the Project Report Package. [Section 7.6.2] 1.2

Guidelines Engaging Aboriginal communities at the following additional stages constitutes wise

practice, which you are encouraged to follow.

You should engage Aboriginal communities:

1. In Stage 1, when conducting the Background Study, in order to identify information sources in

local Aboriginal communities (e.g., for information on traditional use areas, sacred sites, and

other sites) when available and relevant to the property). [Standards and Guidelines for

Consultant Archaeologists Section 1.1]

2. In Stage 1, when evaluating archaeological potential and making recommendations to exempt

areas meeting the criteria for low archaeological potential from further assessment, in order to

ensure there are no unaddressed Aboriginal cultural heritage interests. [Section 1.4]

3. In Stage 2, when assessing a property and determining archaeological sites that require Stage 3

fieldwork, in order to determine interest (general and site-specific) in the Aboriginal

archaeological sites and ensure that there are no unaddressed Aboriginal archaeological interests

connected with the land surveyed or sites identified. [Section 2.2]

-20-

4. In Stage 3, when making recommendations regarding the excavation or preservation of

Aboriginal archaeological sites of cultural heritage value or interest (other than those identified in

the standards), in order to review the recommendations with the relevant, interested Aboriginal

communities. [Section 3.5] If human remains are uncovered at any stage in the fieldwork process

you must cease fieldwork and report the discovery to the police or coroner. This is a mandatory

requirement of the Cemeteries Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. C.4 (the Funeral, Burial and Cremation

Services Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c.33, [when proclaimed in force]).

2.2 Identifying communities with a potential interest in the project. Often, more than one

community will have an interest in your archaeological project and a historical connection to the

area affected by it.

Consider the following factors when trying to identify Aboriginal communities with an interest in

your project:

Is the geographical location of the project close to Aboriginal communities or within the

traditional territory of a present-day Aboriginal community?

Has more than one Aboriginal culture inhabited the area over time? For example, in southern

Ontario, both Iroquoian and Algonkian-speaking peoples have occupied land over the centuries.

There are several tribes or nations within these broad groupings. Some live in communities in the

region today (Chippewa, Mississauga, Six Nations) and some do not (Huron).

Does the project site fall within established or asserted treaty areas?

What cultural affiliation has been inferred for the archaeological site or sites in the project area

through archaeological fieldwork and analysis?

Where the cultural affiliation of the project area or archaeological sites within the project area is

uncertain, approach Aboriginal communities with potential interest with as much information as

possible and seek their input to inform your professional interpretation.

3.3 Incorporating Input from the Aboriginal community As noted in Part 1 of this bulletin, when

recommending avoidance and protection or excavation for certain types of archaeological sites,

you must engage Aboriginal communities in the development of a strategy to mitigate impacts to

the site. The standards and guidelines make it clear that avoidance and protection is the preferred

option for archaeological sites with cultural heritage value or interest. This option preserves the

sites intact [See Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists, Section 4.1].

It is good practice to discuss mitigation options with the Aboriginal community early in the

archaeological project, ensure that the options are clearly understood, and document the

community’s preference. You must consider the input of the Aboriginal community at the point

when you make mitigation recommendations. However, because proponents have the greatest

flexibility at the start of a development project, it is a good idea to make the community’s

preference known to your client as early as possible. Where your recommendations do not reflect

the community’s preference, you should communicate this to your client as early as possible as

well.

3.5 Reporting on Aboriginal engagement to the Ministry of Tourism and Culture When

archaeological fieldwork has included engagement with Aboriginal communities, you must

include documentation of the engagement process in the project report package [see Standards

and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists, Section 7.6.2].

-21-

The documentation must describe and give reasons for the following: who was engaged;

engagement procedures (e.g., communication protocol, data sharing agreements between you

and the community); dates and Stages when engagement took place; strategies to incorporate

community input into the fieldwork (e.g., community report review, Aboriginal monitor); and

process for reporting results to the community (e.g., oral presentations, plain language

documents). Archaeological project reports submitted to the Ministry of Tourism and Culture are

publicly accessible through the Ontario Public Register of Archaeology Reports.

When Aboriginal communities have been engaged in the fieldwork process, do not include any

information the Aboriginal community identifies as private or sensitive (e.g., information related

to burials, secret or sacred places, personal information) in the report that will be filed in the

publicly accessible report register. [Section 7.3.1 of the Standards and Guidelines for Consultant

Archaeologists]

Such sensitive information should be provided separately, in either the cover letter or as

supplementary documentation, so that it will not be entered in the register. Please note, however,

that private or sensitive information contained in any supplementary documentation to the

ministry would be subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA),

which provides the public a legal right of access to most governmentheld information. Although

private or sensitive information is protected through the provisions of this legislation, it is

important that you work with the Aboriginal community to determine what information is suitable

for sharing with the ministry.”

Walton’s stage 1&2 report states that:

Site AgHb-413 represents a significant component of the Late Iroquoian and contact period

history of Brantford. If this site cannot be avoided in the development plan, it must be subject to a

comprehensive Stage 3 assessment. Sites P1 (AgHb-418), P5 (AgHb-421), P9 (AgHb-423), P18

(AgHb-424), P20 (AgHb-426), P23 (AgHb-427), P26 (AgHb-428), P27 (AgHb-429), P28

(AgHb-430), P32 (AgHb-432), P39 (AgHb-434), P40 (AgHb-435), P41 (AgHb-436), P42

(AgHb-437), P58 (AgHb-440), P65 (AgHb-442), P67 (AgHb-443), P68 (AgHb-444), P81

(AgHb-445), P83 (AgHb-446), P93 (AgHb-449), P108 (AgHb-459), P117 (AgHb-461), P136

(AgHb-468), P147 (AgHb-472), and P148 (AgHb-473) all represented significant archaeological

resources of potential high heritage value. If these sites cannot be avoided in the development

plan, they must be subject to comprehensive Stage 3 assessment. The following sites are situated

within significant areas to be protected and will not be subjected to further (Stage 3)

investigation: Pre-contact Protected Areas – Not to be Developed (Note: Most Protected Sites

Appear Outside Planned Lots & Roads The following sites are situated within areas to be

protected and will not be subject to Stage 3 investigation: P4 (AgHb-420), P95 (AgHb-451), P97

(AgHb-452), P98 (AgHb-453), P100 (AgHb-454), P101 (AgHb-455), P103 (AgHb-456), P105

(AgHb-458), P116 (AgHb-460), P120 (AgHb-462), P121, P127 (AgHb-465), P132 (AgHb-467),

P138 (AgHb-470), P139 (AgHb-471) and Euro-Canadian site AgHb-414.

STAGE 1&2 PROJECT PERSONNEL Project Director: Debbie Steiss, MA – Partner & Senior Archaeologist (P049) Project Manager:

Beverly Garner, Hons. BA – Assistant Manager Field Director: Mr. Robert Wojtowicz, BSc –

Staff Archaeologist (R291) Field Archaeologists: Ms. Maya Basdeo Ms. Devon Brusey Mr. Jenna

Down Ms. Jillian Fraser Ms. Johanna Kelly Mr. Adrian Morrison Ms. Anatoly Venovcev Project

Historian: Mr. Brian Narhi Report Preparation: Ms. Andrea Carnevale, Hons. BSc – Staff

Archaeologist (R314) Artifact Processing: Ms. Carol Bella Mr. Shawn Bayes, BA Ms. Elaine

Cheng, BA – Staff Archaeologist (R318) Artifact Analysis: Ms. Andrea Carnevale Ms. Alexis

Dunlop, MSc – Laboratory Manager Ms. Deborah Steiss Artifact Photography: Ms. Andrea

Carnevale Graphics: Ms. Sarina Finlay, Hons. BA – GIS/CAD technician Ms. Andrea Carnevale

Report Compilation and Editing: Ms. Andrea Carnevale Ms. Beverly Garner

-22-

This assessment was conducted under the project direction of Debbie Steiss, under professional

archaeological license P049 (MTC CIF P049-512-2010) issued to Steiss in accordance with the

Ontario Heritage Act (R.S.O. 1990 and 2005).

The field assessment was conducted under the direction of Robert Wojtowicz.

Beverly Garner was the project manager.

Permission to access the subject lands was granted by Walton Development and Management of

Toronto in April, 2010 in lieu of authorization from the Mohawks or their designate.

Evidence of Documented Finds Walton’s Stage 3 Site-Specific Archaeological Assessment

(Obtained & Edited by the Mohawk Investigations Bureau)

The Tutelo land in question was incorporated into the Stewart and Ruggles Tract, which was

unlawfully “patented” by the Crown in 1835. The Tutela Heights site is located on land

“purchased” by Richard Brooks and unlawfully transferred. It belongs under the Mohawks’

Haldimand, territory and was reclaimed on September 19, 2012 by the Mohawk Workers

pursuant to August 30 Lawful Notices of Intent / Cease & Desist and September 15 Notices &

Summons issued and delivered to Walton Executives Child, Plastaris & Doherty. Tutelo History

“The lands along the Grand River containing the study area originally formed part of the territory

occupied by the Tutelo people – a small group of Siouan natives who dispersed throughout the

Northeastern United States and Eastern Canada. The tribe is said to have settled originally the

areas of West Virginia, Kentucky, and North Carolina, and is currently located mainly in central

Pennsylvania in the Shamokin coal region. They were gradually forced off of their ancestral lands

and by 1753 they had migrated northwards into New York State where they were adopted as part

of the Cayuga tribe. A small band of the Tutelos came into Upper Canada as Loyalists with the

Mohawks and their allies.

Tutela Heights was inhabited for thousands of years – since at least the Late Paleo-Indian period

(10,400-9,500 BP) A census of the natives along the Grand River showed that there were 55

“Upper Tootalies” and 19 “Lower Tootalies” settled here in 1785. An “Indian Census” from 1810

showed 53 Upper and 29 Lower “Tootelies.” In 1811, the numbers increased to 64 Upper and 41

Lower Tutelos. In June 1813, it is known that 16 “Tutaleys” were present at the Battle of

Beaverdams, although Captain Kerr only noted four Tutelos at Beaverdams in his official return.

A map of Brantford, compiled by the Reverend Robert Lugger in February 1828, showed the

“Upper Cayugas” settled here at a place called “Tatulis Heights.” It is reported that the Tutelos

were “nearly exterminated in an epidemic of Asiatic cholera in 1832.” By 1843, the “Upper

Cayuga village” was described as “now deserted” and the total population of Tutelos was a mere

40 “included in the Upper Cayuga return.”

The Tutelo longhouse or council house is said to have once stood “opposite the later site of the

Bell Homestead and a few yards to the southwest,” and that a Tutelo burial ground was located

“in a sand knoll a few hundred yards southeast of the homestead”

Digging at Tutela Heights During the Stage 3 archaeological excavation 2,702 artifacts were

discovered and removed from the Tutela Heights site over the 11 days between November 4,

2010 and November 18, 2010 by a Walton Contractor. 546 artifacts were taken from a single 100

m by 90 m area where as many as 136 artifacts were taken from within a single square metre unit.

-23-

Tutela Heights Artifact Discoveries In total, there are 456 faunal (organic) artifacts taken. These included three bird bones, 286

mammal bones, 21 shells, and 146 ‘unidentified’ bones. 103 artifacts in the personal class were

taken. These include one brass brooch, three brass buttons, one singleholed thermally altered

bone backing for a metal button, one iron button, one dress hook, and 96 smoking pipe fragments.

Tutela Heights Settler’s Artifacts

“The brass brooch has an imperial insignia of the crown with thistle, rose and shamrock and a

“V” prominently in the centre, possibly representing Queen Victoria who ruled 1837 to 1901 and

provides a nice terminus post quem for the site. One of the pipe stem fragments has partial

impressed lettering of “WHITE” and “_LASGOW” suggesting that this is a White/Glasgow pipe

that was produced between 1805 and 1955.”

“Paleo-Indians (Paleoindians) or Paleoamericans is a classification term given to the first peoples

who entered, and subsequently inhabited, the American continents during the final glacial

episodes of the late Pleistocene period. The prefix “paleo” comes from the Greek adjective

palaios (παλαιός) meaning “old.” The term Paleo-Indians applies specifically to the lithic period

in the Western Hemisphere and is distinct from the term Paleolithic.[1] Evidence suggests big-

game hunters crossed the Bering Strait from Asia (Eurasia) into North America over a land and

ice bridge (Beringia), that existed between 45,000 BCE–12,000 BCE (47,000 – 14,000 years

ago). [2] Small isolated groups of hunter-gatherers migrated alongside herds of large herbivores

far into Alaska. From 16,500 BCE – 13,500 BCE (18,500 – 15,500 years ago), ice-free corridors

developed along the Pacific coast and valleys of North America.[3] This allowed animals,

followed by humans, to migrate south into the interior. The people went on foot or used primitive

boats along the coastline. The precise dates and routes of the peopling of the New World are

subject to ongoing debate.[4]” From: wikipedia.com

-24-

Attachment 3 – Haldimand’s Pledge of April 1st, 1779 to the Mohawks

“Some of the Mohawks of the Villages of Canojaharie, Tikondarago, and

Aughugo, whose settlements than had been on account of their steady attachment

to the King's service and the interests of Government ruined by the rebels; having

informed me that my predecessor, Sir. Guy Carleton, was pleased to promise, as

soon as present troubles were at an end, the same should be restored at the

expense of the Government, to the state they were in before these wars broke out,

and said promise appearing to me just, I do hereby ratify the same and assure

them the said promise, so far as in me lies, shall be faithfully executed, as soon as

that happy time comes.”

-25-

Attachment 4 – Haldimand’s Proclaimation of October 24th, 1783 to the Mohawks

After the conclusion of hostilities, Haldimand’s October 24th, 1783 proclamation stated:

“Whereas His Majesty having been pleased to direct that in consideration of the early

attachment to his cause manifested by the Mohawk Indians, and of the loss of their

settlement which they thereby sustained– that a convenient tract of land under his

protection should be chosen as a safe and comfortable retreat for them and others of the Six

Nations, who have either lost their settlements within the Territory of the American States,

or wish to retire from them to the British — I have at the earnest desire of many of these

His Majesty’s faithful Allies purchased a tract of land from the Indians situated between the

Lakes Ontario, Erie and Huron and I do hereby in His Majesty’s name authorize and

permit the said Mohawk Nation and such others of the Six Nation Indians as wish to settle

in that quarter to take possession of and settle upon the Banks of the River commonly called

Ours [Ouse] or Grand River, running into Lake Erie, allotting to them for that purpose six

miles deep from each side of the river beginning at Lake Erie and extending in that

proportion to the head of the said river, which them and their posterity are to enjoy for

ever.”

-26-

Attachment 5 – Statement of the Hon. Frank Oliver, M.P., to the Speaker of the

House of Commons on May 11, 1914

HOUSE OF COMMONS – CANADA - MAY 11TH, 1914

“But there are bands of the Six Nations Indians located on the Grand river in Ontario who, I maintain, are in a different legal position from any other Indian bands who are native to the country. These Indian bands on the Grand river had their original home in the United States. At the close of the war of the revolution they emigrated to Canada and were given lands under a special treaty, not as subjects of Great Britain, but as allies of Great Britain, and I maintain that the holding of these Six Nations Indians on the Grand river is of such a kind that this parliament has no right to interfere with it” - Hon. Frank Oliver, M.P., May 11, 1914 [From: House of Commons Debates, Third Session-Twenty-Twelfth Parliament, 4-5

George V., 1914 Hon. Frank Oliver, Liberal MP] Mr. Oliver's statement was re-stated (for a second time) in the House of Commons Debates Fourth Session-Twenty-First Parliament, 15, George VI, 1951 by John Horne Blackmore (Conservative MP for Lethbridge).

-27-

Attachment 6 – New York Indians v. United States No. 106. (APRIL 11, 1898)

170 U.S. 1

18 S.Ct. 531

42 L.Ed. 927

NEW YORK INDIANS v.

UNITED STATES.

No. 106.

April 11, 1898. This was a petition by the Indians who were parties to the treaty of Buffalo

Creek, N. Y., on January 15, 1838 (7 Stat. 550), to enforce an alleged liability of the United States for the value of certain lands in Kansas, set apart for these Indians, and subsequently sold by the United States, as well as for certain amounts of money agreed to be paid upon their removal.

Findings of Fact.

1 In 1780 the Six Nations of New York Indians consisted of the following nations or tribes: Senecas, Cayugas, Onondagas, Oneidas, Tuscaroras, and Mohawks. The Mohawks soon after withdrew to Canada, relinquishing to New York all claim to lands in that state.