Dear TIM GILBERT, Managing Partner for Gilbert Law.
My name is Secretary-General Benjamin Doolittle UE for the Mohawk University. I am the 6th [grand]grandson of the late Colonel Joseph Brant, he was designated as a United Empire Loyalist and bears the honorific UEL as a post-nominal, as the posterity of the late J Brant, I also possess the honorific title that does show a high degree of certainty of my connection to the late Colonel as well as a provable legal connection from me to the Haldimand Pledge of 1779 and Proclamation of 1784.
It is our position that the Haudenosaunee Development Institute and the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council inclusive of Chiefs and Clanmothers, do not have a legal interest or right to represent the Haldimand Proclamation interests or the Heirs, the Haldimand rights are non-indiginous hereditary provision to the Mohawk Posterity which I will explain in short order.
The Grand River Mohawks, Legal Posterity: In 1779, Sir Frederick Haldimand, Captain-General and Commander-in-Chief of the Province of Quebec, ratified a pledge to the mohawk of the three villages, and five years later, in 1784, Frederick Haldimand issued a proclamation concluding the transaction of that pledge. Setting the Grand River Territory apart prior to confederation. On December 24, 1791, Canada was required to confirm the Haldimand proclamation to uphold the honor of the crown. The Canadian government pledged its faith to the Mohawks of the Grand River and Bay of Quinte. The proclamation (an imperial instrument) of 1784 has never been formally denounced.
Four Corners of the Instrument and Legal Posterity, Who is technically named?
- HALDIMAND PLEDGE OF 1779, Ratified promise Mohawk of Canojaharie, Tikondarago, and Aughugo.
- HALDIMAND PROCLAMATION OF 1784, Transaction closing promise to Mohawk posterity.
- DORCHESTER’S PROCLAMATION OF 1789, Mark of Honour to discriminate posterity.
- SIMCOE PROCLAMATION OF 1796, Heritage registry to ascertain standing in the transaction.
The Pledge of 1779 was the original intention, only three Mohawk villages were named, and the Six Nations were not included in this document, which leaves the Haldimand Proclamation of 1784 that established the Haldimand Tract. This transactional instrument does include the Five Nations, however, because they are noted as “such others” of the Five Nations they are named as third-party to the transaction.
The term “Such Other” or Stranger refers to a person who is not a party to a particular transaction. In Kirk v. Morris, 40 Ala. 225 (Ala. 1866), it was observed that the word “stranger” was substituted for the words “or some other person.” However, both were intended to mean the same thing, namely, a person not a party to the suit, who acts for the benefit of the defendant in attachment. This Means HDI lacks proper standing and cannot be delegated by SUCH OTHERS to represent this interest. Mohawk descendants from the noted three villages have first rights.
Additionally, there is a little-known flaw in the Haldimand Proclamation, it does not name anyone in a natural capacity to inherit the interest, this flaw was fixed by Lord Dorchester’s Order-in-Council of 1789 to attach a mark of honor to posterity and the Simcoe Proclamation of 1796, wherein, descendants from the three mohawk villages could register their heritage to ascertain a true beneficiary connection to the ratified Haldimand pledge of 1779. From the Simcoe Proclamation of 1796 … “to the end that their posterity might be discriminated from (the then) future settlers in the parish registers and rolls of the militia of their respective district, and other public remembrances of the Province, as proper objects, by their persevering in the fidelity and conduct so honorable to their ancestors, for distinguished benefits and privileges;” but as such registry has not been generally made; and as it is still necessary to ascertain the persons and families upon the lands now about to be confirmed to them.”
To advise you also, The Haldimand Tract was conveyed to the Mohawk Posterity for their Exclusive benefit, the Simcoe Patent of 1793 was outright rejected by the Mohawks of Grand River, for not being for the benefit of the Mohawks.
“Which them (Canojaharie, Tikondarago, and Aughugo) and their posterity are to enjoy forever.”
My office must and does take exception to the Haudenosaunee Confederacy as a rightsholder or holding any legal rights or interest in the Haldimand Pledge of 1779 as a ratified treaty and the Haldimand Proclamation as a transactional instrument.
The offer by the Haudenosaunee Development Institute on behalf of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy Chiefs Council is rejected for cause, To wit: “The Litigation concerns, among other things, rights stemming from the Haldimand Proclamation of 1784 and Simcoe Patent of 1793, and alleges breaches of treaty and fiduciary duty and a failure to account, and seeks remedies including compensation.” … “a declaration that the Haudenosaunee Confederacy is the collective rightsholder in respect of the rights and interests asserted in the action” by the plaintiff, and that the Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians “is not the collective rightsholder”.