Craig Responds to Lois Keays re Land Claim

What follows is a part of a facebook thread regarding the Sauble Land Claim (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1916023288690195/).

Lois Keays:
We seem to agree on a major issue. Exorbitant legal costs with no apparent benefit to the residents. Lisus legal costs were published by Ana Vukovic on this thread as $263,981.00 March 31, 2015 to August 30, 2018. Prior to that our law firm was Donneley and Murphy. I have Donneley Murphy costs 2012 to 2015 at $27,253.49. I do not have the figures prior to that.

In November 2014, Chippewa of Saugeen First Nation (“CSFN”) had a very weak case and we had a very strong defence developed. We had a very strong chance of winning the lawsuit, and a very strong chance of getting our reasonable legal fees paid by CSFN. But it seems Janice Jackson has changed all that.

In 2015 or 2016 Janice Jackson, without legitimate authority, formed a committee of herself and Jay Kirkland and made the committee responsible for all decisions regarding the land claim. Jay told me later that the “committee” never met and that Jackson alone was actually making the land claim decisions. Jackson had without authority put herself in full control, shutting out the legitimate decision maker (council) and completely shutting out the residents.

For obvious reasons I cannot get into detail, but based on what I can see, which is limited, my feeling is that as a result of Jackson’s unlawful takeover, our position has been weakened. So now I expect that there is a greater risk of losing the lawsuit, and a greater risk that we will not recover our legal costs, and a greater risk that we will have to pay some of the legal costs of CSFN. Just an opinion.

The way to fix this is to get Jackson out of the Mayor’s chair.

While Mr. Gammie is very righteous in his undocumented analysis of the “Civil Litigation” while alleging that the Federal Government has no representative bearing in Crown controlled Reserve lands…or those subject to dispute, is ill-informed at best. While referencing my concerns as speculative, hear-say and red-herrings, I will contend that he has produced no documented evidence of his knowledge, but provides his views and opinions as fact. On one hand, I’m told I can access information and in the same breath told accounting of costs was removed (a fact of which I’m well aware).”
July 5, 2014 I presented my analysis to over 700 residents at the Sauble Community Center. My website at: http://craiggammie.com/Home.html has my July 5, 2015 presentation and about 29 other documents related to the case. I have not kept the site up to date. I plan to add the 2016 pleadings by the parties and my updated 2018 analysis and some excellent analysis conducted by David Dobson. My analysis is anything but “undocumented”.

What I said was that the Federal Government is not judging the lawsuit – the courts are.

“I was raised with an acute awareness of dishonoured Treaties.”

So was I. The treaty was not dishonoured.

”As to when I raised my concerns with the Town of South Bruce Peninsula about committing taxpayer funds, that was June 2015 when a response from Mayor Jackson told me I could get back to her in 3.5 years for a complete list of this Council’s accomplishments.

The mayor’s response, in my view, was improper, offensive and outrageous.

”You also suggest that this Land Claim has been in the Courts for 28 years…obviously without the financial involvement of the Municipality.”

The municipality has been financially involved since 1990 (as Amabel Township), albeit at a much lower level.

”And then I have this written quotation from Mayor Jackson: “Regarding the First Nations; We have not committed to full litigation. We have simply committed to discovering where we stand legally.”  So…what is it exactly? The Town of SBP is fully invested in litigation or merely “discovering” a position? Who was called for Examinations for Discovery?”
The mayor is not being truthful. We can change to the settlement route if we want to but unless there is a settlement we are committed to litigation. The third alternative of just not showing up to defend ourselves is not on the table.

I am pretty sure, but not positive, that there has been no discovery yet.

“As to the argumentative dismissal of my concerns about scarce municipal resources being used to encourage massive numbers day-tripping tourists, my reference is to the use of our “free” features, while adding huge burden to SBP infrastructure…roads, waste management, enforcement, policing, etc. etc. I have heard and seen…with my own ears and eyes, the toll it is taking on the ratepayers of SBP.”

I see your point. I agree with you. Tourism is a net cost to the taxpayers.

“Perhaps asking some of the ratepayers, not personally invested in a relatively insignificant commercial assessment at Sauble Beach, if they are happy with hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent on an idea of proprietorship. …..So what do we have? An insignificant commercial tax base from which to sustain an increasing demand on services, funded almost entirely by residential taxpayers, to ensure access by tourists to a natural resource…with virtually no cost-benefit.”

Please explain. Are you saying the $263,981.00 was spent on “proprietorship? Are you saying the $263,981.00 was spent to ensure access by tourists?

“I will do my due-diligence in finding fact based information regarding the First Nations filing of a suit, which is not forthcoming from the Town of South Bruce Peninsula. Instead we are asked to “believe” the assertions as described above.”

It seems you do not believe what Janice Jackson says. I don’t either.

“The first order of business is to determine if SON (Saugeen Ojibway Nation) or SFN (Saugeen First Nation) are the claimants.”

The 2016 Plaintiff’s claim says “CHIPPEWAS OF SAUGEEN FIRST NATION”:

https://craiggammieblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/third-plaintiff-statement-of-claim-amended-april-21-2016.pdf

The town’s latest pleading:

https://craiggammieblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/south-bruce-2017-01-19-fresh-as-amended-defence-etc-of-south-bruce.pdf

That takes care of the first order of business. On to the second. Get Janice Jackson out of the mayor’s chair. October 22, 2018.

Craig

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Craig Responds to Lois Keays re Land Claim

  1. David Dobson says:

    Craig,

    Surely you’re not comparing the work of Donnelly and Murphy to the work of Jonathan Lisus? In my opinion, the reason D&M’s legal costs were so low, was because they did nothing to move the land claim forward or to defend their client. They didn’t even invite their clients to the 2006 mediation meetings. How effective is that? Now, while I am disappointed that we have not been made aware of exactly what we are getting for $263,981.00, I have been told that a lot of that money has gone toward research of the land claim in order to defend the validity of the Crown Patents. I hope that is the case. That is something that was sorely lacking by the defendants in this case….research!, and research costs money “or” you do it yourself. If it were up to Donnelly and Murphy we would already be living the reality of the Saugeen First Nation owning from Main Street to mipoint Lot 31 in a co-management fiasco. You may have your differences with Janice Jackson, but one of the best decisions she ever made as mayor was to change lawyers for the land claim.

    We are in a heap of trouble, though, if we elect a new council who sees the cost of litigation as a reason to give up our beach. Just say goodbye to it now if that’s the case. However, this claim should not even be going to court. The Saugeen Band received everything they were promised from Treaty 72 in 1854, including a 9 1/2 mile shoreline. The Saugeen claim, today, was recognized and dealt with over 160 years ago by way of the Copway Road Amendment of 1855. We’ve been hoodwinked by Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (or whatever they call themselves now), and If the people of South Bruce Peninsula would take the time to understand the land claim and how fundamentally simple it is, nobody would be arguing with each other over legal costs. They would be banging down Larry Miller’s and Bill Walker’s door and demanding answers. Not taking the time to understand the facts is not an excuse; the facts are all very well documented. Ignorance about the facts of this land claim, by the general public, is what is plaguing this Town.

    It is a guarantee that Canada and the Saugeen Band are determined to see this farce to the end. If the Town backs out of defending the beach in court, we will surely lose it. I have been informed, to present in court, the evidence I have uncovered over the last year, it would cost me approximately $500,000.00. I will obviously not be able to cover that cost on my own. However, money talks, and if I can’t provide the funds, my evidence does not get presented. I presented it to the Town, but they were very vague as to what their position is in regard to it. But, let me just say this: The evidence I have produced is the first, expert or otherwise, that can accurately match Charles Rankin’s boundaries of the Saugeen Reserve found on his final map of 1856 to the terms of Treaty 72. The validity of the Crown Patents argument could perhaps be a winnable defense, but I would far rather attack the validity of the Saugeen Band’s claim head on, and I have. This is not a game, whoever is against the Saugeen claim should be working together. The weakness of the Saugeen claim should be broadcast far and wide, so the public is aware; it should not be kept hidden away like a dirty little secret. The way it stands now, the people are divided and that is causing dissension. The people who have the power to get the message out, remain silent.

    In regard to the land claim costs: Someone once said that litigation is about everyone who is involved brings a bag of money. Whoever has the biggest bag of money, wins.

    • cgammie says:

      “Surely you’re not comparing the work of Donnelly and Murphy to the work of Jonathan Lisus?” (D Dobson)

      No I am not. In an October 2016 letter Lisus said:

      “I write to confirm that since my engagement in this case I and other members of my law firm have had multiple communications with councillor Gammie, including a several hour meeting attended by myself, you and councillor Gammie. Councillor Gammie’s views are incorporated in the town’s defence of the land claim and will continue to be.”

      That statement by Lisus is full of bold-faced lies. The lies give me reason not to trust, and not to believe. I have exposed those deliberate lies at:
      https://craiggammieblog.com/2016/10/14/lawyer-denies-councillor-gammie-shut-out-of-land-claim-discussions-gammie-responds-6-4/

      Jackson also made bold-faced lies. I do not trust or believe Jackson either. I have exposed her lies at:
      https://craiggammieblog.com/2016/10/30/the-mayors-big-lie-can-we-trust-her-with-the-sauble-land-claim-file-6-6/

      I have never found anything said by Donnelley Murphy’s Greg Stewart to be a lie.

      “In my opinion, the reason D&M’s legal costs were so low, was because they did nothing to move the land claim forward or to defend their client”. (D Dobson)

      Not true. Donnelley submitted 3 statements of defence, in 1990, 2004 and 2013, and tried to reach a mediated settlement. I would be reluctant to describe their work as “they did nothing to move the land claim forward or to defend their client.”

      “They didn’t even invite their clients to the 2006 mediation meetings”. (D Dobson)

      Donnelley had only one client …TSBP. Standard procedure only lawyers attend mediation. The client is typically outside the room or at a telephone ready to accept or nix any settlement proposal that the lawyers come up with. I would not read anything into the exclusion of the client from the room. I believe SON was not in the room either.

      “If it were up to Donnelly and Murphy we would already be living the reality of the Saugeen First Nation owning from Main Street to mipoint Lot 31 in a co-management fiasco”. (D Dobson)

      But it would never be up to Donnelley Murphy.

      “You may have your differences with Janice Jackson, but one of the best decisions she ever made as mayor was to change lawyers for the land claim”. (D Dobson)

      Jackson did not make that decision. Council made that decision on a recommendation made by me and Janice Jackson. A decision that could have worked out if Jackson had not taken over the file and shut out council and the public. Janice Jackson, exercising authority she did not legitimately possess, took over the land claim file, and is keeping everything to herself. Her excuse is: “I cannot share because it’s in court. You can trust me.. I’m the mayor”. Ridiculous. We must get her out of council before she loses us the beach.

      “The validity of the Crown Patents argument could perhaps be a winnable defense, but I would far rather attack the validity of the Saugeen Band’s claim head on, and I have.” (D Dobson)

      I agree. Attack the validity of the Saugeen Band’s claim “head on”. Same as the Ballantyne report. Same as the Fediow report. Same as my reports. Same as the Frank Newbould letter of August 25, 2014.

      “Now, while I am disappointed that we have not been made aware of exactly what we are getting for $263,981.00, I have been told that a lot of that money has gone toward research of the land claim in order to defend the validity of the Crown Patents. I hope that is the case.” (D Dobson)

      Who told you that? And if you think we should focus on “attack[ing] the validity of the Saugeen Band’s claim head on”, rather than spend time and money on “the validity of the Crown Patents argument”, why would you suggest that most of $263,981.00 to research validity of patents is reasonable or OK?

      “The Saugeen Band received everything they were promised from Treaty 72 in 1854, including a 9 1/2 mile shoreline.” (D Dobson)

      SON were not promised a 9 ½ mile shoreline. The treaty does not promise 9 ½ miles of “shoreline”, “9½ miles of coast”, “9½ along the coast” or anything similar. The “9 ½ miles of shoreline” “promise” was invented by Rijcke (consultant to SON) and repeated as if it were fact by John Close and by the Federal Government. I am surprised, even shocked, to see you acknowledging and supporting the SON/ Rijcke/ John Close/Federal position.

      “The Saugeen claim, today, was recognized and dealt with over 160 years ago by way of the Copway Road Amendment of 1855.” (D Dobson)

      I have read all your material on the Copway road amendment. It is very interesting context. But it does not help us. As argued, the treaty does not promise 9 ½ miles of “shoreline”. The SON were promised a northern terminus at “a spot upon the coast at a distance of about nine miles and a half from the western boundary aforesaid”. That “western boundary aforesaid” was not the Copway road. That western boundary was the line from the ravine at the Saugeen near the old village run due North to the coast of Lake Huron. The “spot upon the coast at a distance of about nine miles and a half from the western boundary” has nothing to do with the Copway road. The Copway road amendment is completely irrelevant.

      “But, let me just say this: The evidence I have produced is the first, expert or otherwise, that can accurately match Charles Rankin’s boundaries of the Saugeen Reserve found on his final map of 1856 to the terms of Treaty 72.” (D Dobson)

      I disagree. Ballantyne, Fediow and I matched Rankin’s work to the treaty. The work you have done is very much appreciated. But do you really think the rest of us just missed the Copway Road amendment? On the contrary all of us discarded the Copway Road amendment as irrelevant.

      “I presented [my evidence] to the Town, but they were very vague as to what their position is in regard to it. “ (D Dobson)

      That is news to me. I can’t find you as a delegation anywhere in an agenda or in minutes. Who are “they” that you presented to? When exactly did you present to the town? What exactly did you present to the town?

      “Not taking the time to understand the facts is not an excuse; the facts are all very well documented. Ignorance about the facts of this land claim, by the general public, is what is plaguing this Town.” (D Dobson)

      I do not share your contempt for the “general public”. It was hundreds of members of that very same “general public” that attended the 2014 meetings put on by Amabel Property Owners Association, Friends of Sauble Beach, Sauble Beach Residential Property Owners, and the Town. It was hundreds of members of that very same “general public” that protested so vehemently John Close’s proposal to give the beach away. It was the protests of hundreds of members of that very same “general public” that led council in September 2014 to drop the matter and leave it for the next council. It was thousands of members of that very same “general public” that in October 2014 voted out most of the candidates that wanted to give the beach away (the exception was Matt Jackson) and voted in enough members who did not want to give the beach away. Far from “ignorant” and “plaguing this town”, it is hundreds or thousands of members of the public who are well informed and are fighting for the town.

      Without the participation of all of these good members of the public, the beach could easily have been given away by now. I cannot think of words powerful enough to adequately thank these courageous and wonderful people.

      “We are in a heap of trouble, though, if we elect a new council who sees the cost of litigation as a reason to give up our beach. Just say goodbye to it now if that’s the case.” (D Dobson)

      Yes we would be in trouble. But giving up the beach will not get our costs down. If we give up the beach we will not get our legal costs paid, and we would likely have to pay SON’s legal costs, which will be significant. The answer is to win the case and so get our costs paid by the plaintiff, and to get the decisions out of the hands of Janice Jackson so our legal costs can be brought under control. Giving up the beach is the costliest option and the worst option. We may need another public meeting to convince the new council of the folly of giving up the beach.

      “The weakness of the Saugeen claim should be broadcast far and wide, so the public is aware; it should not be kept hidden away like a dirty little secret.” (D Dobson)

      I agree. The strength of our case should be broadcast far and wide too.

      “If the Town backs out of defending the beach in court, we will surely lose it.” (D Dobson)

      That’s true. We must not back out.

      “This is not a game, whoever is against the Saugeen claim should be working together.” (D Dobson)

      Yes we should be. Please reconsider your contempt for the members of the public and join us in our quest to keep the beach.

      I am not ready to go public with the full story of what Lisus and Jackson have done. I can tell you it is cause for concern. I will share it with you privately.

  2. David Dobson says:

    First of all, I was in attendance at the second day of the 2006 mediation meetings. The Town was the only defendant who didn’t have a representative there. I can also assure you that SOFN was in attendance and were there for both days. Do you forget that I am a part of these proceedings?

    Second of all, it was Donnelly and Murphy who were at the forefront of negotiating the deal to see a co-management of the beach with the Saugeen Band. Who are you kidding?

    You’re right, it doesn’t literally promise 9 1/2 miles of shoreline, but I know of two experts who interpret this as being the most logical explanation for the 9 1/2 mile measurement. Ballantyne being one.

    I do think that you have all missed the Copway Road Amendment. If you think that it is a miraculous coincidence that the measurement from Copway to Main Street is the same as the measurement from the original NW position of the western boundary to midpoint lot 31 at 9 1/2 miles, you have totally missed it. The NW position of the western boundary is at Copway Road, after the amendment, and not where the line ran due north from the ravine to terminate at Lake Huron. However, the amendment did not change the fact that the original western boundary remained within the newly created boundary of the Saugeen Reserve. Rankin confirmed this when he stated the Copway Road Amendment “will not change the terms of the treaty in any way.” He did not say that it would not change locations of boundaries. What he meant was: the 9 1/2 mile measurement remains 9 1/2 miles which is one of the terms of the treaty. That 9 1/2 mile measurement was taken from the western boundary where it meets Lake Huron at Copway Road and that is how we have a 9 1/2 mile measurement that locates the NE terminus of the Saugeen Reserve at Lot 25/26. If you cannot see the logic in that and then confirm it on Rankin’s final map of 1856, you have definitely missed it.

    Yes, I do believe that the original intention was to locate the NE terminus of the Saugeen Reserve at midpoint Lot 31, but never have I supported the SON/ Rijcke/ John Close/Federal position. It was important to recognize that their assessment of the 9 1/2 mile measurement to be correct to show their position to be irrelevant, since the 9 1/2 mile measurement actually originates from Copway Road, not where the line from the ravine meets Lake Huron. I have also shown the impossibility of the SON/ Rijcke/ John Close/Federal position since the east boundary cannot both run due north and also miraculously meet up with a position at midpoint lot 31 to include land from Main street to that point at Lot 31. It is mathematically impossible. Are you sure you read my information?

    I presented my information to Town council by way of e-mail which you became a recipient by way of Ana Vukovic. Are you really feigning ignorance on this?

    You have all assumed that the original instruction from the treaty still stands, in regard to the NW position of the western boundary, but the Copway Road Amendment changed that position and, by the terms of the treaty, where the measurement must originate. Locations changed, terms did not. You, Ballantyne, Fediow. None of you have a measurement that equals 9 1/2 miles by way of straight line, shoreline, crooked line or otherwise. How do you proclaim matching the terms of the treaty to what is shown on Rankin’s final map? The straight line measurement from the SW boundary to Lot 25/26 is indisputably 9.13 miles which, I believe, is what you support. In the ballpark, but not close enough considering the other two measurements are almost exactly 9 1/2 miles. My logic is airtight, the best argument going, and a major stumbling block to the INAC/Saugeen Band theory. It is the only way you can have an eastern boundary that is parallel to the western boundary and a 9 1/2 mile measurement that terminates at the same location as the eastern boundary. Unless, of course, you ran the eastern boundary through the water from Main Street to midpoint Lot 31, but then you wouldn’t be in compliance with the terms of the treaty…”all that block of land” and you couldn’t establish a shoreline width from Main Street to midpoint Lot 31 and you would have a shoreline measurement of 11 miles, not 9 1/2.

    I have no contempt for the people of South Bruce Peninsula and I never said that I did. I did not say that the people of SBP are ignorant or that they plague the Town. Please don’t turn this into a game of words as you usually do. I am definitely frustrated that so many still do not understand the facts of the claim and that was my intended message which 99.9% of people would have understood from the way I worded it. That is not contempt.

    One more point on Lois Keays: The land claim should be funded by allocating parking revenue from Sauble Beach. That revenue comes directly from the geography of TSBP that is affected by the land claim and has a significant annual income of around $200,000.00. It is sound logic that the money from parking should be allocated this way. How could the rest of the town have any grievance that money coming directly from the land affected be used to defend it?

    • cgammie says:

      Are you saying that nobody from the town or representing the town including Donnelley /Murphy attended the 2006 mediation? Are you saying that both you and your lawyer attended? What persons did attend? What happened? Were there minutes?

      Your “who are you kidding?”; “you have totally missed it”; “I do think that you have all missed the Copway Road Amendment”; “if you cannot see the logic in that and then confirm it on Rankin’s final map of 1856, you have definitely missed it”; “are you sure you read my information? “; “are you really feigning ignorance on this?” are not rebuttal arguments. They are arrogant condescending ad hominem gratuitous remarks.

      Ballantyne and Fediow do say “9 ½ miles of shoreline”. But they do not connect that to the Copway road amendment as the reference for the start of the “distance of 9 1/2 miles”. Neither Ballantyne nor Fediow nor I missed the copway road amendment. Please name your other expert.

      I produced two measurements that equal 9 ½ miles, neither being from Copway road.

      Your theories about the “NE < Ind. Res.” notation were debunked.

      Your theory that the eastern boundary of the chief’s point reserve ran in a “northeast direction” and the notation referred to the Northeastern direction of the chief’s point reserve was debunked when I pointed out that the chief’s point eastern boundary actually run in a northwesterly direction, not northeast.

      Your next theory was that the edge of the page was true north south, and that the Saugeen reserve boundary ran in a northeast direct relative to the page, and that the notation meant Northeast direction of the Saugeen reserve boundary, debunked by my pointing out that the edge of the page does not run true north south and that the direction of the Saugeen boundary is marked right on the map as “true north”, and that the boundary could not be at once running true north and running north east, and therefore the notation “NE < Ind. Res.” could not possibly refer to the direction of the Saugeen east boundary.

      Your next theory, that the notation refers to the angle formed by the intersection of the extensions of the eastern boundary of the Saugeen reserve and the eastern boundary of the chief’s point reserve was debunked by my pointing out that such an angle would never be referred to as NE<Ind. Res.

      Undeterred you continued to delude yourself into believing that you had found what all others had missed.

      The same is happening with the Copway amendment. You insist that you have discovered the truth that I, Ballantyne, Fediow, and everyone else missed. You seem to consider that it is impossible that you have it wrong.

      Because your mind is so closed, I see no value in further discussing the Copway amendment.

      You sent your information to three council members, but you did not send it to or present it to council. The material you sent was never put on an agendas and was never discussed or received by council. No member of council or staff considered it important enough to put it on an agenda. I doubt if anyone but me even read it.

      “My logic is airtight, the best argument going.“

      A bit arrogant don’t you think?

      “Ignorance about the facts of this land claim, by the general public, is what is plaguing this Town.”

      You explicitly said the general public is ignorant of the facts. You explicitly said the general public’s ignorance is “plaguing the town”.

      The proposal that the land claim should be funded by allocating parking revenue from Sauble Beach is a red herring.

      Parking revenues go into the treasury. Land claim expenses come out of the treasury. If you take $100,000 or any other amount directly from parking and use it to pay directly the land claim legal fees, you will change nothing but a few bookkeeping entries. The proposal is a useless needless distraction.

  3. David Dobson says:

    The reason I am ok with proving the validity of the Crown Patents is that in the event a judge sides with the Saugeen Band and deems Lot 26 to Lot 31 as treaty land it would not be the defendant’s responsibility for the Saugeen Band’s court costs if the Crown Patents are valid. The blame would be on either Ontario or Canada for issuing Crown Patents and the defendants should receive compensation for the loss of their land, including TSBP. [one sentence removed by administrator].

  4. David Dobson says:

    I am not being arrogant. Confident, yes, but not arrogant.

    I have changed my opinion in regard to the NE<Ind. Res. notation meaning, but I still believe that the extension line from Lot 26 intersecting at the angle extension from Chief's Point was in relation to the N 13° W bearing of Chief's Point and that is why it is there. Regardless, in the Copway Road Theory, I have given two very real possibilities for the NE < Ind. Res. notation. Neither of which corroborate that it is where the final NE location of the Saugeen Reserve should be. Your harangue about my initial assessment of the NE < Ind. Res. notation is just a deflection to discredit all research done by me. BTW, the final conclusion of that theory still cannot be proven wrong, but it is trumped by the fact that the original NW position of the western boundary to midpoint lot 31 is almost exactly 9 1/2 miles. And, there is new information in that research that others had missed, thank you very much.

    This is an excerpt from the article "Back in the Bands Hands." in regard to the 2006 mediation meetings:
    "South Bruce Peninsula Mayor Carl Noble said Tuesday he resents the municipality being left out of negotiations which could have a major impact on residents."
    Yes, the Town's lawyers were there, but you and I were discussing whether D&M invited council to the meetings and if their representation was effective. And yes, I was there with my lawyer on the second day.

    It is understandable that Ballantyne and Fediow did not make the 9 1/2 mile connection to the Copway Road Amendment; the distance from Copway Road to Lot 25/26 was never measured. Nobody realized it equaled 9 1/2 miles. If you produced two measurements that equal 9 1/2 miles, neither of them match to the final map produced by Charles Rankin in 1856. Copway Road to Lot 25/26 is the only measurement on Charles Rankin's final map that is the same in distance (almost exactly) as the 9 1/2 miles INAC/Saugeen Band are arguing for using the draft map. SW to Lot 25/26 in a straight line equals 9.13.

    I think that most people from TSBP would agree that they have little knowledge or understanding of the facts about the Sauble land claim. It is my belief that if they did, they would be far more outraged by it and therefore the Town would be more united in its approach. If you want to make it out that I am attacking them, so be it. Most reasonable people understand what I am saying.

    Ms. Keays is saying that the residents from the TofSBP might resent so much money being poured into the defense of Sauble Beach. If the money to support the claim is being generated from the area affected, how could they resent it regardless if it is added to the treasury. Sauble is pulling its weight in regard to the land claim.

    I do not dismiss the possibility that I might be wrong. I have combed over it and have had others comb over it, including my present lawyer, to try and find a flaw. I built my research on what was produced by Dr. Brian Ballantyne and without his report mine would not be possible. I would hardly call that being arrogant and something that I doubt you would admit about your own research. I did, however, believe that Dr. Ballantyne's report did not definitively explain why the Saugeen Band's argument is irrelevant. Particularly, it did not answer three questions:

    1. How can the distance from the original NW position of the western boundary to the NE < Ind. Res. notation equal 9 ½ miles and still not be the Saugeen Reserve’s NE corner? (Note: The expert report does offer a correct answer to this question, but I contend there is more to it than he provided)

    2. What is the meaning of the NE < Ind. Res. notation located at midpoint Lot 31 on the 1855 draft map and why is it there?

    3. How can the notation on the physical post found at midpoint Lot 31 “NE angle of Saugeen Reserve according to treaty boundary running south” not be considered corroboration of the INAC/Saugeen Band argument?

    I have answered all of these questions based on evidence I have found on my own and the research and publicly available evidence provided by Dr. Brian Ballantyne. I did not base my answers on his conclusions, but the publicly available evidence his report provided. I would gladly give my research over to Dr. Ballantyne and let him scrutinize it.

    I am glad you have no further use in discussing the Copway Road Amendment. It means, you as well, cannot find any flaws. Any worth publishing, at least. Believe it or not, I respect your knowledge about the Sauble land claim, but, I think that it is you, that has the closed mind.

    • cgammie says:

      “I am glad you have no further use in discussing the Copway Road Amendment. It means, you as well, cannot find any flaws.”

      It means nothing of the kind. I have already demonstrated the critical flaw.

      • David Dobson says:

        Funny, I can’t find it, or was that just a personal zinger? Me, being the critical flaw.

      • David Dobson says:

        Again, I can’t find your demonstration of the critical flaw in the Copway Road Amendment research. This is all you have said:

        “The same is happening with the Copway amendment. You insist that you have discovered the truth that I, Ballantyne, Fediow, and everyone else missed. You seem to consider that it is impossible that you have it wrong. Because your mind is so closed, I see no value in further discussing the Copway amendment.”

        Is that your demonstration of the “critical flaw?” You haven’t really said anything.

  5. David Dobson says:

    I sent my information to all council members that had e-mail addresses. You, being the exception, because it appeared, at that point, that you would be removed from council. I also asked that someone send it to Jay Kirkland since he does not have an e-mail address advertised??? as part of council. I sent it to Angie Cathrae as well with the instruction to keep it on file in the Town Hall records. I would hope that she followed through. I’m not sure what more I could do to make it clear that what I was sending was a presentation to council. I actually addressed my email “Dear Council.”

    Ana must have read it if she thought that it was important enough to send it to you. Doubting that the rest of council read it is just conjecture on your part. However, if they didn’t read it, it is a sad commentary on what council thinks of the people they represent and how much they don’t care about the land claim. It supports my belief that people don’t want to take the time to understand the land claim, but I would be very surprised if someone, other than you, didn’t read it. Again, if not, shame on them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s