Archive | September 2012

Mohawk Workers Update RE: Tutela Heights

More at

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.

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]

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]. 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.

Cemeteries Act (Revised)

68.  No person shall disturb or order the disturbance of a burial site or artifacts associated with the human remains except,

(a) on instruction by the coroner; or

(b) pursuant to a site disposition agreement. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 68.

Unmarked burial sites

69.  Any person discovering or having knowledge of a burial site shall immediately notify the police or coroner. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 69.


70.  (1)  The Registrar may order the owner of land on which a burial site is discovered to cause an investigation to be made to determine the origin of the site. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 70 (1).


(2)  Section 68 does not apply to a person investigating the nature or origin of the site who is disturbing the site in the course of the investigation. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 70 (2).


(3)  A person conducting an investigation shall do so with the minimum disturbance to the site that is reasonable in the circumstances. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 70 (3).


(4)  If the Registrar is of the opinion that an investigation under subsection (1) would impose an undue financial burden on the land owner, the Registrar shall undertake the investigation. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 70 (4).


71.  (1)  As soon as the origin of a burial site is determined, the Registrar shall declare the site to be,

(a) an unapproved aboriginal peoples cemetery;

(b) an unapproved cemetery; or

(c) an irregular burial site. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 71 (1).


(2)  An irregular burial site is a burial site that was not set aside with the apparent intention of interring therein human remains. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 71 (2).


(3)  An unapproved cemetery is land set aside with the apparent intention of interring therein, in accordance with cultural affinities, human remains and containing remains identified as those of persons who were not one of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 71 (3).


(4)  An unapproved aboriginal peoples cemetery is land set aside with the apparent intention of interring therein, in accordance with cultural affinities, human remains and containing remains identified as those of persons who were one of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 71 (4).


(5)  For the purposes of this section and section 72,

“unapproved” means not approved in accordance with this Act or a predecessor of this Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 71 (5).

Site disposition agreement

72.  (1)  The Registrar, on declaring a burial site to be an unapproved aboriginal peoples cemetery or an unapproved cemetery, shall serve notice of the declaration on such persons or class of persons as are prescribed. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 72 (1).


(2)  All persons served with notice under subsection (1) shall enter into negotiations with a view of entering into a site disposition agreement. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 72 (2).


(3)  If a site disposition agreement is not made within the prescribed time, the Registrar shall refer the matter to arbitration. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 72 (3).


(4)  Despite subsection (3), the Registrar, if of the opinion that an agreement may be reached, may defer referring the matter to arbitration so long as there appears to be a reasonable prospect of an agreement being reached. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 72 (4).


79.  (1)  A person is guilty of an offence if the person,

(a) furnishes false, misleading or incomplete information in an application under this Act or in a statement or return required to be furnished under this Act or the regulations;

(b) fails to comply with an order made under this Act; or

(c) contravenes any provision of this Act or the regulations. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 79 (1).


(2)  Every director or officer of a corporation who concurs in an offence under this Act is guilty of an offence. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 79 (2).


(3)  An individual who is convicted of an offence under this Act is liable to a fine of not more than $20,000 and, on a subsequent conviction, to a fine of not more than $20,000 and to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 79 (3).


(4)  A corporation that is convicted of an offence under this Act is liable to a fine of not more than $40,000. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 79 (4).


(5)  Subject to subsection (6), no proceeding under this section shall be commenced more than two years after the offence was committed. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 79 (5).


(6)  No proceeding under clause (1) (a) or subsection 35 (2) or 36 (3) or section 68 shall be commenced more than one year after the facts upon which the proceeding is based first came to the knowledge of the Registrar. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 79 (6).


(7)  If a person is convicted of an offence under this Act, the court making the conviction may, in addition to any other penalty, order the person convicted to make compensation or restitution in relation thereto. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.4, s. 79 (7).


Tutela Heights – Pre-Contact Native & Euro-Canadian Heritage Site Within Kanienkahagen Mohawk (Grand River) Territory

More at:

Letter sent on September 25th 2012 to Federal/Provincial Authorities RE: Tutela Heights from the Mohawk Workers

Sekoh / Greetings:

I write urgently to you, at the request of Bill Squire (Kanienkahagen Mohawk) and their statesmen, who represent the ‘head’ and leaders of the original League of Five Nations Confederacy, and who remain the lawful trustees and protectors of the Mohawk Nation’s original copy of the Haldimand Proclamation of 1784. This entitlement issued under the seal of King George III of England states undeniable and outright entitlement to the Mohawk Nation of the lands “six miles deep from the mouth to the source of the Grand (Ouse) River” – approximately 1 million acres known as Haldimand Tract:“as long as the Sun shall be moving in the Heavens, and the Grass growing, and the waters flowing in the rivers” for them “and such others’” to enjoy forever.

This indigenous nation of sovereign people (and their allies) have inhabited the banks of the Grand River in southern Ontario, since their territory was formally recognised / established in 1784 – as they had for many years prior. Evidence of these ancient confederacies and habitations can be seen at This website site also outlines and serves to demonstrate how belligerent occupants and development threaten to further corrupt historical homeland.

Their land base of nearly 1 million acres was given to them by the King of England for their military service and loss of their homeland in New York State (the Mohawk Valley, given that they fought for the British in the American Revolutionary War, and remain ALLIES, not SUBJECTS of the Crown. This land ‘gift’ / war reparation is called the “Haldimand Proclamation” (See: for more information.

When Canada took statehood, these Mohawks thought that they would still be treated as respected allies, but many changes occurred. These Mohawks were treated very badly, with much money and land stolen.

Accordingly, we ask that you provide assistance with regards to our investigation into unauthorised removal of thousands of artifacts (including bone) by parties acting for Walton Corp. and their proxies. Our investigation has revealed that witnesses have been reporting the discovery of HUMAN REMAINS (bones) within the Tutela Heights area for decades. It appears that the O.P.P. normally took possession of said finds, and it remains the Mohawk position that:

1. Cemeteries and traditional burial sites are unique repositories of human history and the resting places of human remains and associated artifacts such as grave markers, tombstones and monuments. We recognise these important elements of our collective heritage as priceless authentic historical records of the past and witnesses to the continuity of life within our territory. Significant ecological features make such sites invaluable to the natural heritage of not only our territory, but the region, the province, and indeed Canada itself.

2. The following principles are basic to all peoples:
i) The sanctity of the deceased is of paramount concern.
ii) The deceased have a right to rest in peace in the tradition and custom of their religion or beliefs at the burial site of their choosing.
iii) Common human dignity must be respected.
iv) The living must be responsible for the care of the deceased.
v) The cultural heritage to which burial sites bear witness must be maintained to ensure the historical record for future generations.

3. Mohawk territorial lands and their rich heritage are at risk (and indeed remain under attack) due to a lack of action for their preservation. Within our territory, we have borne witness to various levels of administration clearly fail to safeguard known burial sites – one of our last remaining authentic cultural heritage resources. Such disastrous acts / inaction had already caused significant harm to the continuity of the historical record and our collective culture. It is in the interest of our Nation and our allies, that all culturally and environmental significant sites within our territory be protected, preserved and maintained in their original locations.

I look forward to confirmation of receipt of this message, as well as to any assistance which can be afforded to us in terms of moving towards further identifying and resolving these ‘toxic’ issues. Kindly contact the undersigned in order to discuss this further or to obtain clarification.

Very sincerely,

Jason Bowman (For Bill Squire)


Evidence of Documented Finds


Tutela Heights was inhabited for thousands of years – since at least the Late Paleo-Indian period (10,400-9,500 BP)

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.

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.

Tutela Heights Artifact Discoveries

Artifacts included early ceramics such as creamware and pearlware, and later ceramics including ironstone. Fragments of wood and bone were also taken.  Eight hand-wrought nails that pre-date the 1830s, 40 machine cut nails that date to between 1830 and 1900, four wire nails that post-date the 1900s were also taken.

“Furnishings taken consisted of one drawer handle, one figurine, 12 lamp chimney fragments, one light bulb base, and three pieces of table lamp glass. Lamp chimney fragments became common on EuroCanadian sites in the later years of the nineteenth century as the dropping price of kerosene made glass lamps more affordable than candles.

Ceramics are useful tools for dating archaeological sites because of the historical progression of types in industrial-era ceramic production. Much of the innovation that took place in the late eighteenth century English ceramic industry resulted from the competition with the imported porcelain market from continental Europe and China. Thus in the 1740s, the English potters began experimenting with two new types of ceramics: a refined cream-coloured earthenware and a white saltglazed stoneware. White salt-glazed stoneware, produced by casting salt into the kiln at peak temperature, was a standard product between 1740 and 1760. The lightweight cream-coloured earthenware was produced as early as 1740 by Enoch Booth but was perfected by Josiah Wedgwood in 1762 and quickly became attractive and popular as a status ware. As the name might suggest, creamware is creamy in colour due to the lead glaze applied to the vessels. The creamware glaze lightened in colour during the early nineteenth century.

Creamware was originally imported into Ontario alongside white salt-glazed stoneware but by 1800 creamware was the consumer favourite. While creamware continued to be imported until the 1830s, its popularity declined significantly in favour of pearlware.”

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 single-holed thermally altered bone backing for a metal button, one iron button, one dress hook, and 96 smoking pipe fragments. 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.

Tutela Heights Settler’s Artifacts


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 intoAlaska. 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]

Stone tools, particularly projectile points and scrapers, are the primary evidence of the earliest human activity in the Americas. Crafted lithic flaked tools are used by archaeologists and anthropologists to classify cultural periods.[5] Scientific evidence links indigenous Americans to Asian peoples, specifically eastern Siberian populations. Indigenous peoples of the Americas have been linked to North Asian populations by linguistic factors, the distribution of blood types, and in genetic composition as reflected by molecular data, such as DNA.[6] Between 8000 BCE – 7000 BCE (10,000 – 9,000 years ago) the climate stabilized, leading to a rise in population and lithic technology advances, resulting in a more sedentary lifestyle.

Tutela Road Heights / Walton Corp. Cease & Desist / No Trespassing Enforcement – Mohawk Investigations Bureau – Mohawk Meeting Called for Thursday at Site

Sekoh / Hello,

Yesterday afternoon, 2 MIB units (directed by elders) were dispatched to the Tutela Road Heights / Walton Corp. site where 6 unidentified parties had been observed and recorded on Sept. 11 2012. See:

Our units recorded a number of parties using 2 vehicles who were observed engaged in archaeology-related (retrieval) activities which remain strictly and explicitly prohibited pursuant and subject to cease and desist notices delivered and served to Walton Corp (Canada /Ontario) executives including known belligerent occupant CHILD, JASON. More video to follow.

The parties’ apparent supervisor who admitted to working for “Archaeological Services”, and answerable directly to CHILD, JASON of Walton Corp. (Ontario) refused to identify himself. Accordingly, he is being considered to be a belligerent party to trespasses. He is also wanted for questions in order to have the opportunity to clarify statements he made to the elders including admitting the fact that he had directly supervised the delivery of numerous archaeological artifact pieces to Walton Corp. (Canada).

Both Mohawk Worker Elders directing the MIB units evicted all unauthorized parties until further notice and directed the posting of No Trespass notices; a copy of which was also accepted by the unidentified supervisor). All parties were finally directed to cease and desist from their unauthorized acts including trespasses. They gathered belongings, equipment and containers and retreated from the site.

Our units video taped dozens of sites (some marked with numbered stakes) including numerous unmarked and re-covered areas. The parties were engaged in the use of sifting and sorting equipment. Exposed brick and other fragments were observed and documented by our units at several sites. Our very preliminary analysis suggests that lower sites appear consistent with a settlement locale, and upper sites appear consistent with what may involve ceremony.

Accordingly, the Mohawk Workers have called for a meeting at the site Thursday, September 20, commencing at dawn. We hope local residents will continue to work with us in order help us to deal with these most urgent issues. We will ask any and all to come forward and cooperate, as we continue to return respect, truth and harmonic balance to the territory for all of our settlers to cherish. These freedoms remain under attack and the Tutela Heights Site reveals Walton Corp’s HDI relationship. Neither party is in fact entitled to deal in matters pertaining to the Territory.

This update has been disseminated to a number of our allied groups and we will update via our website accordingly. The press will also be in attendance today. All public are welcome to join us today.


UPDATE – 12:00 p.m.
We have returned to Kanata after meeting this morning at the Tutela Heights Road site. The press has now been informed of the most current updates, and the Turtle Island News plans on running a full story.

Mark Hill of the O.P.P. kept his distance from the Mohawk Workers this morning in an unmarked vehicle (but today was seen wearing a uniform). He claimed that his presence was for the purpose of keeping the peace and in order to ensure our well-being and safety. No Walton-related parties were encountered / observed.

The Mohawk Workers and MIB plan to continually monitor the site – units will return throughout the day / night – and every morning – in order to ensure compliance with our cease/desist and no trespass notices and the preservation of evidence and artifacts.

Additional evidence was obtained today on-site and through witnesses who now include increasing numbers of archaeological / historical experts who have agreed to continue to assist the MIB and the Mohawk Workers with this on-going investigation / proceeding.

The Mohawk Workers were extremely pleased to learn about the Concerned Citizens of Brant announcement today indicating that their members have voted to support our initiative & add their group to the allied group’s press statement / letter. As support for this movement continues to grow – and Walton et al continue to retreat from sites which remain in question, the Mohawk Workers remain increasingly resolved to see that all unauthorized activities within the territory remain frozen.

Thanks to all for their continued support.

Jason Bowman

Mohawk Workers Join 9 Other Civil Society Groups United in Solidarity to Protect Brant County From Farmland Grab by Developers, Land-bankers and Offshore Investors & Deliver Public Messages Today in Brantford as Public Support Grows

***For Immediate Release*** September 15, 2012

From: Barry Pridham, Minister, Sydenham St. United Church, BrantfordTutela Heights Phelps Road Residents AssociationBrant Green PartyNational Farmers Union (Brant, Hamilton, Halton Local), Mohawk WorkersSustainable BrantZero Waste Brant Preserving Agricultural Lands SocietyLangford ConservancySt. George Citizens Association

To add your group, please send an email to: or call


We support the preservation of rural heritage and prime farmland throughout Brant County.

We call upon our elected officials to work with citizens to:

Encourage, foster and support the preservation of food lands create and develop zero waste initiatives for Brant County,

develop public transit between and within cities and towns rather than another highway,

create a joint vision of a primarily agricultural community which respects the boundaries of ecologically sustainable and fiscally responsible growth in our more urban communities with our own resources, protects foodland throughout Brant County, and causes no harm to the environment or any resident within the County.

We do not support:

the paving over of foodland,

the creation and/or expansion of gravel pits,

rendering plants in residential areas, especially when they are near ecologically sensitive areas such as open streams that give access to the aquifer.

the proposed Hwy. 424 or Niagara Greater Toronto Area (NGTA) highways or the expansion of Hwy 407 to our region,

another interchange along Hwy 403 in the Langford area,

the incineration of municipal waste (waste to energy),

the type of residential housing development planned by companies such as Walton for areas like Tutela Heights and other areas throughout the county,

the creation of an industrial corridor along Highway 2/53 between Ancaster and Brantford, or

• the allowing offshore investors with no accountability to dictate the future community.

We call upon Brant County Council to do whatever is necessary to:

preserve foodland throughout Brant County for generations to come,

immediately implement a moratorium on pending and future applications for rezoning of foodland to aggregate, agricultural-industrial or industrial,

preserve and protect our wells and municipal water supply,

work with citizens to extend the Provincial Greenbelt to protect the foodlands of Brant County to ensure food sovereignty and food security, and

stop the race to the bottom – stop the plunder of Brant County.

We call upon Brant County Council to:

work with the Province of Ontario to create aggregate recycling initiatives including aggressive recycled content requirements and environmentally friendly recycling techniques. The current system for gravel pit applications places an unfair burden on the taxpayers of Brant County and must be addressed prior to any further aggregate operations being implemented or expanded.

Request a study of the cumulative affects of aggregate operations on the environment.

Protect our water. The Source Water Protection Plan is “ineffective” in the words of the committee who made it due to restrictions placed on them by the provincial government. We ask our Council to fight for the lifting of these restrictions.

vigorously promote a “zero waste” policy for Brant County to reduce the amount of waste being generated, rather than opening new landfill sites or expanding existing ones,

recognize the vital role of the “natural capital” in Brant County and ecosystem goods and services that it provides,

treasure and protect the historic buildings of our farming and rural communities.

We echo the call of First Nations communities to preserve, protect and honor the rich resources of Brant County as a rural and farming area.

We question the objectivity of the Walton Langford visioning session. It does not represent a true opportunity for residents of the County to formulate their visions for 3,000 acres of Farmland between Ancaster and Brant due to

• a narrow selection of participants,

the setting of rules by Walton, and then the breaking of these rules by its agent (e.g. filming),

the “missing voices” of neighbours who will live adjacent to or who will be surrounded by development, some of whom were turned away at the visioning session, and

the setting of the agenda and facilitation of the visioning sessions by the developer’s agents. Why were some residents outside of the study area given hand delivered invitations to the visioning session, while other residents inside of the study area (e.g. Blossom Avenue) were not?

We question the timing of Brant County’s visioning sessions which

take place immediately after Walton’s visioning sessions,

do not have public meetings in core communities such as Burford and St. George, and

which limit participation to a hand selected group of participants for a final private visioning meeting before the plan is presented to council.

We request that the Province

recognize “leapfrog development” pressure in Brant County , by excluding it from the Ontario Greenbelt,

follow the example of the town of Okotoks and set “limits to growth” for Brant County,

reduce the growth numbers in Brant County to help curb “leapfrog development” on prime farmland,

enable Brantford to grow up, not out,

help fund the development of brownfields, and

together with Brantford and Brant county respect the “permanent agriculture” ribbon that all these parties legally created in 1980 (Bill 120).

The provincially legislated “standstill/no-build” ribbon around Brantford is our “Greenbelt”.

We call upon the Council of Brant County to think outside the box and develop an effective, fair, and transparent mechanism with the Brantford City Council to cooperate meaningfully and productively in the realization of a joint strategy which capitalizes on the strengths of the urban and rural areas in an interdependent and mutually beneficial manner while both preserving, and enhancing the urban and rural parts of our community.

Farmland, natural habitat, and watershed are non-renewable, and their intrinsic and economic values will only grow over time. We call upon the Council of Brant County to be a leader among municipalities in the protection and preservation of this natural heritage for future generations.


Barry Pridham, Minister, Sydenham St. United Church, Brantford
Tutela Heights Phelps Road Residents Association
Brant Green Party 
National Farmers Union
(Brant, Hamilton, Halton Local)
Mohawk Workers
Sustainable Brant
Zero Waste Brant
Preserving Agricultural Lands Society
Langford Conservancy 
St. George Citizens Association

To add your group, please send an email to: or call


Video Statement RE: Walton Defiance & Legal Actions Underway

Public Reaction to Walton Meeting on Sept. 15th, 2102



THIS IS NOTICE TO YOU from the Kanienkahagen people of the Mohawk Nation of the Ouse / Grand River, who are the ‘head’ and leaders of the League of Five Nations Confederacy and trustees and protectors of the Haldimand Proclamation of 1784 which states the outright ownership to the Mohawk Nation and those 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.


We ka-nyen-geh-ha-kah (Kanienkahagen) people of the Mohawk Nation of the Ouse / Grand River are Onkwehonweh (sovereign / real people) living on the banks of the Grand River under what some call The Great Law of Peace. Our land base of nearly 1 million acres (The Haldimand Tract) was given to us by the British for our military service and loss of our homeland in New York State, as we fought for the British in the American Revolutionary War (this is called the Haldimand Proclamation – See: We also fought for England during the war of 1812.

We ka-nyen-geh-ha-kah (Kanienkahagen) people of the Mohawk Nation of the Ouse / Grand River ceded neither land entitlements, nor title rights to any portions of lands under our stewardship to you. As such, your unauthorized actions have caused we, the ka-nyen-geh-ha-kah (Kanienkahagen) people of the Mohawk Nation of the Ouse / Grand River to put you on NOTICE in respect of the following:

1. As an unauthorized party to matters pertaining to Mohawk lands situated within the Haldimand Tract, YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED TO PRESENT YOURSELF FOR QUESTIONING WITHIN 72 HOURS to the Mohawk Workers or retreat from all lands “six miles deep from the mouth to the source of the Grand (Ouse) River” (the Haldimand Tract) until such time as you have complied with this NOTICE and SUMMONS;

2. YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO CEASE AND DESIST from any and all acts which directly pertain to matters in respect of any land situated within the Haldimand Tract, including unauthorized dealings and unlawful trespasses, effective immediately, or retreat from all lands “six miles deep from the mouth to the source of the Grand (Ouse) River” (the Haldimand Tract) until such time as you have complied with this NOTICE and SUMMONS;

3. Any failure on your part, to voluntarily comply with any portion of this NOTICE TO YOU, may result further ramifications such as the forwarding of your relevant details to INTERPOL / international authorities and further proceedings against you WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE including the issuance of a warrant under seal for questioning.

Contact the Mohawk Workers at the office listed below in order to arrange a suitable time for you to present yourself for questioning. GOVERN YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY.

Child / Plastiras Ignore Notice From Mohawks of the Ouse

Jason Child – Walton Regional VP & John Plastiras – Walton Development and Management President each tried to evade service,  leaving the NOTICE and  SUMMONS to fall to the ground after being served.

This defiance and disrespect shown towards the Kanienkahagen people did not go unnoticed. These belligerent occupiers and their agents will be held to fully account for their actions by the Mohawk Workers of the 5 Nation Confederacy.

The public was outraged. Many groups have now come together in solidarity.  The Mohawks of the Ouse vow to relentlessly pursue an end to all intrusions and corruption of their homeland by continuing to identify and hold unauthorized parties to account for their actions.

Traditional Harvest Canning @ Kanata WED & FRI

Join the Mohawk Workers on September 12 & 14 (Wednesday and Friday) as we learn from our elder community food adviser, Iowne at Kanata .

Learn how to can vegetables (into jars) and make preserves with traditionally-grown, non-GMO, organic produce which is free of all pesticides & chemical toxins.  

Come see & taste the difference.  Learn about traditions from an elder who is recognized for her outstanding dedication to growing real food & educating the community on the benefits of a healthy natural way of life.  Iowne teaches B.S. (Basic Science) & works underground as a gorilla gardening granny.

More canning workshops will be announced in the coming weeks.

Join us for Iowne’s 80th  Birthday Celebration next month – Saturday October 27th.  Details to follow.

Brantford Toxic Waste Dump on Sacred Mohawk Lands – Ouse / Grand River Territory – Eagle’s Nest Tract

If you can help identify persons seen in this video: Contact Cheryl Squire – MIB Kanata, Mohawk Worker 1-888-278-4188 ext. 5 

Message delivered last week to The City of Brantford’s Councillor Wrobel:

Dear Councillor Wrobel,

As Special Assistant to Bill Squire (who is the spokesperson for the Kanyen’kehake (Mohawks) of the Ouse / Grand River, I write to you on an urgent basis in respect of difficulties I have experienced in accessing copies of the budget for the City of Brantford for the period of 2005 to present. Naturally, you can understand that as creditors, the Kanyen’kehake (Mohawks) of the Ouse / Grand River remain increasingly skeptical and distrustful of debtors such as the City of Brantford, who appear to persist with their failure to respond to requests which they remain under a obligation to address lawfully with all claimants.

To make matters worse, it appears to me that the City of Brantford remains engaged in the corruption of Mohawk lands as well as, inter alia, the unauthorized collection of “tipping fees” at the Mohawk Street dumping site situated on our sacred lands. This is notwithstanding NOTICE delivered to Mayor Chris Friel (see attached) last week which he has publicly acknowledged as having received.

As of today, the City’s official website continues to publish the following Tipping Fee Schedule:

Miniumum Load Fee:

All loads 150 kg (330 lbs) or less: $5.00
Material Rate/Tonne Residential, Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Garbage over150 kg: $65.00.

“…The City as of April 2, 2012, will no longer be accepting commercial/industrial loads of cover materials. Contaminated soil and/or soils generated from site remediation/cleanup activates will still be accepted at the applicable tipping fee rates. In addition, mixed clearing waste will also still be accepted at the applicable tipping fee rate.”

Be advised that Kanyen’kehake (Mohawks) of the Ouse / Grand River are prepared to grant the City of Brantford a period of 72 hours during which we expect to receive copies of the budgets for Corporation of the City of Brantford including an Accounting for Invoice No. RW 1914011.

I will attempt to reach you at your office by telephone later today in order to discuss these matters in detail.

Breaking News Update: Kanata – Mohawk Territory – Mohawk Workers confirm City of Brantford failed to disclose $663 billion invoice to S&P – City of Brantford and Mayor Chris Friel to face fraud investigation – Brant County Mayor Eddy registers under Haldimand LNI & receives gift at Kanata

Today the Mohawk Investigations Bureau (M.I.B. – Kanyen’kehake Territory) announced the agency has commenced an investigation after learning that the parties acting on behalf of the Corporation of the City of Brantford neglected to disclose a Brantford Council Committee arrears figure of $250 billion including a June 9 2006 invoice totaling $663 billion to Standard & Poor’s in order to obtain a credit rating of AA+ on more than one occasion.

M.I.B. – Kanyen’kehake Territory spokesperson, Jason Bowman (who also acts as a special assistant to Bill Squire), was quoted yesterday in a Teka News article as describing such acts as “fraud”. See: Today he confirmed that some parties at Standard & Poor’s have cooperated with the preliminary investigation, which he says has now been turned over to  to the M.I.B. for a full inquiry.

To-date, Brantford Mayor Friel, Councillor Worbel and Cathy Brubaker (of the Finance Department) remain both uncooperative and non-responsive.

Bowman also confirmed today that an unspecified number of parties have indeed registered themselves pursuant to the Lawful Notices of Intent (LNIs) which were delivered last week.  He says that at least one registrant (which he can not name) has agreed to cooperate with the M.I.B. investigation, and has already commenced turning over documents to assist with the inquires.

The Mohawk Workers hold weekly press conferences every Tuesday at 11:00 a.m. at Kanata on Mohawk Territory in Brantford updates are issued, followed by a Q&A session.  Private interviews will can also be arranged by appointment.

Kindly contact our office in order to register and pre-book your seat which are allocated and reserved  on a first come, first served basis.