Craig Gammie …Master of Half Truths!


Mr. Gammie posted the following comment in response to my posting:

Sauble Land Claim The Gift That Keeps On Giving!

Bruce:

The Saugeen Ojibway First Nation may have filed a lawsuit claiming 66 feet. But they don’t own it. Only if and when the courts say they own it will they own it.

Both SOFN claims are groundless.

Craig Gammie

It is easy to understand, given statements like his, why the Indians say “White man speak with forked tounge!

Craig, the facts are:

The Royal Proclamation of 1736 granted everything north of highway 21, (a line between the mouth of the Potawatomy to the mouth of the Saugeen river and all points north to Tobermory) to the First Nation People. Again, in 1851 the Royal Declaration declared exactly the same.

The Crown agreed to reserve the same for the First nations people.

In 1855 the Natives signed a surrender treaty wherein which the Natives agreed to surrender to the British provided that the land of the Peninsula would be held by the Crown “In Trust” to the benefit of the Natives. The Crown was to build a road from the mouth of the Saugeen to the mouth of the Potawatomy, a one mile strip of land between the two points was allocated for that purpose.

The Crown sold the land in the one mile strip and did not give the funds to the Natives. Further to that, and as part of the Surrender agreement, the road allowances were allocated subsequent to a survey of the said land. As part of that, there was a road allowance decreed encompassing a road along the shoreline around the whole of the Peninsula allowing 66 feet in from the waterline to be paid for when the roads were opened, this never happened either. Further to that the Natives were allocate an 11 kilometer stretch of water out from the shoreline around the entire peninsula. This fact is acknowledged and embrace by the BNA of 1867 and reaffirmed when Trudeau brought it home.

In the Land Claim of 1994 the Natives, have honoured all Crown Patented lands but have demanded the return of the unopened road allowances and payment for the utilized road allowances.

The Natives have take their action out in the Haig at the World Court, as they believe they will not obtain a fair Trial in the Canadian system. Something I believe to be true.

Mr. Gammie states: “Only if and when the courts say they own it will they own it.” Let me think about this for a minute…We as a Country, have agreed to do something, reaffirmed it in the BNA and in our Constitution,  pissed backwards and have said in essence… I know we said we would but you have to prove we said we would in a Court, that we pay the Judges.Oh and by the way we are going to keep all the money until you prove we said it while we argue every little point. “

There are 226 outstanding land Claims in the Province of Ontario today! The Courts and the Government have displayed outright contempt and racism towards the Natives historically. We as a people, represented by our Government have trapped the natives on reserves plundered their land, the same land that we promised to hold for them in trust, stolen any and all benefits from the trust and now we want to go to Court and make them prove that we are not all a bunch of lying thieves before Judges that we pay. Sounds fair to me!!  NOT!

Remember we as a people took two generations of the Native children, placed them in residential schools and brain washed those same children into believing that they were second class scum of the earth then sent them home to their families on reserves that were underfunded and poverty stricken and now we wonder why they are fighting back!

Yes Craig you are a true Politician! Tell everyone what they want to hear, get what you want, then deny everything until it is proven in a court, which you control, that you said it. You really have proven that you should never be elected in my opinion!!!!

Definition of TRUST in Canada

In common law legal systems, a trust is a relationship whereby property is held by one party for the benefit of another. A trust is created by a settlor, who transfers some or all of his or her property to a trustee. The trustee holds that property for the trust’s beneficiaries. Trusts have existed since Roman times and have become one of the most important innovations in property law.[1]

An owner placing property into trust turns over part of his or her bundle of rights to the trustee, separating the property’s legal ownership and control from its equitable ownership and benefits. This may be done for tax reasons or to control the property and its benefits if the settlor is absent, incapacitated, or dead. Trusts are frequently created in wills, defining how money and property will be handled for children or other beneficiaries.

The trustee is given legal title to the trust property, but is obligated to act for the good of the beneficiaries. The trustee may be compensated and have expenses reimbursed, but otherwise must turn over all profits from the trust properties. Trustees who violate this fiduciary duty are self-dealing. Courts can reverse self dealing actions, order profits returned, and impose other sanctions.

The trustee may be either an individual, a company, or a public body. There may be a single trustee or multiple co-trustees.

The trust is governed by the terms under which it was created. In most jurisdictions, this requires a contractual trust agreement or deed.

Say what you are going to do and do what you say you are going to do! Otherwise you are just the lying scum of the earth!

The oath of Office is a promise not a formality!!!!

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Bruce

Advertisements

Sauble Land Claim The Gift That Keeps On Giving!


Bruce the Blight

Bruce the Blight

 

When is enough, enough??

Yabder4 raised the issue a week ago and I, at his urgings made some calls and got some info with respect to same.

What is at issue is where exactly the Saugeen Reserve ends. Is it at 6th street or at its present position?

THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT IS LEADING THE FIGHT AGAINST SETTLEMENT OF THE CLAIM!

The Native side is that they have the original Survey and Notes and the Province says they have a newer more better survey showing the opposite!

Now I could only get our costs back to 2002 as I cannot not seem to get any information on what Amabel Township has paid:

DONNELLEY AND MURPHY
2002 $12,036.03
2006 $15,280.14
2007 $11,033.49
2009 $6,974.10
2010 $4,082.44
2011 $2,050.63
2012 $7,076.59
2013 $48,230.19
2014 $50,712.54
TOTAL TO DATE $157,476.15

DONNELLEY AND MURPHY is the Law Firm acting for the Town.

The fact of the matter is we continue to pay on a Moot point!

The Royal Proclamation of 1736 and the Royal Declaration of 1851 acknowledged the whole of the Peninsula as owned by the Natives. The Surrender of 1855 acknowledge same in the treaty.

Where the Reserve ends from our standpoint is irrelevant. The Saugeen Ojibway Nation owns 66 feet in from the waters edge and 11 Km out from the waters edge. So let us for a moment assume that the Province is right. The Natives lose. They then put up a fence  66 feet from the waters edge, we have no beach! Guess we showed them!!!!

A joint management agreement as proposed by the Feds sees no fence either way!

We spent so far arguing about nothing in excess of $150,000 over 12 years, who knows what was spent before that.

We have no idea what the Feds spent nor do we know what the Province has spent! Wait a minute we are the Province and the Feds and they operate on our tax dollars.

We are fighting against ourselves!

Let us assume that the Feds and the Province spent at least the same, being grossly conservative that would equate to half a million dollars to think about what we have no right to in the first place!

Bankers, Lawyers and Thieves!!!!

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Bruce

Jim Turner Responds to yabder4’s Questions!


Dumb Like A Fox

Dumb Like A Fox

 

 

You can say a lot of things about Jim Turner, most likely a lot of those thing are not complimentary!

But Jim Turner says what he thinks and is a man of his word. I have had a lot of run ins with Jim, but he stands his ground! He is a man of integrity and I am proud to call him my friend! (Most of the time)

Jim Turner believes in this community! He has nothing but good things to say about this town and its residents with the exception of Craig Gammie.

He responded to these questions within 12 hours of them being posted without urging!

Jim Turner has wisdom and an intense passion for property rights, this town and his beliefs.

I rate his answers to these question with a 9 out of 10. Only because if I give him a 10 he would light a cigar and we don’t need more legal fees!

Jim Turner is the Vitamin C we need to supplement the cod liver oil we  require!

His Answers:

1. Some people seek political office today to pursue self-serving agendas that fail to reflect the will of the public. If you are elected, how will you avoid this pitfall and advocate for the well being of all your constituents?

(1) Four years ago I looked at the names of the people running for office in Ward 1 and decided I could not vote for any of them. I should add that Paul McKenzie had not filed papers at that time.

My reasoning was that voting “None of the above” was not an option and I had better be prepared to walk a mile in their shoes if I was unwilling to support any of them.

I had no agenda, no issue I wanted to push, no interest group to represent, nothing I wanted to do away with and a feeling I might be able to do better than those I couldn’t in good conscience vote into office.

I knew it would take time away from my business just as being a volunteer had but I really was not prepared for the volume of work and learning that confronted me to do the job properly and well.

How do you avoid the pitfall? The self serving part is easy – stick to a set of principles every time. Smaller government, fewer regulations and respect for people and property have served me well. I guess I should say respect for people who show they deserve it – there are always going to be people who don’t.

The “will of the public” is another matter. There are five sides to almost every issue. Some people want to walk their dog, others don’t like dogs. Some want to swim, some want to windsurf. Some people want a road paved while their neighbours see that turning a quiet road into a speedway. Which will of which public?

Maybe the doctors have it right ¨First do no harm¨  – then go back to your principles.

2. Many believe that Council improperly discusses issues in camera that should be aired in a public forum. If an issue arises in an in-camera meeting that you think should be discussed in open forum, what would you do?

 

(2) Many are wrong! There are strict rules as to what is discussed in a Closed Session.

It is the clerk’s job to see the rules are followed and the opinion of a council member does not override the regulations. There have been a number of occasions when the clerk stopped the discussion during a Closed Session to inform council they must reconvene to open because they had strayed from the Closed agenda.

3. Do you have any objections to being video and/or audio recorded during Council meetings?

(3) I personally have no objections but I can tell you that video streaming, and to some degree audio recording, present an opportunity to grandstand for an audience that is disruptive to getting the job done. There have also been cases reported in other municipalities that do stream where members have remained silent rather than speak their mind freely on a sensitive topic.

4. It often appears that administrative staff lead Council, rather than the other way around. Do you agree that staff and planners should function at Council’s behest since it is Council that is elected to represent the views and concerns of the community?

(4) I see why some people might take a snapshot view of a meeting and believe staff are leading. Staff react to council requests or resolutions, sometimes from a previous meeting, bring forward a report and council decides.

During my term I have seen no true evidence of staff leading council other than when staff encounters a procedural anomaly or conflict and presents a report asking for council to correct it. That isn’t leading, it’s good staff work.

In some cases staff will take initiative and bring a report to council they feel is worthy of consideration such as the need to vary from a budgeted workplan because conditions have changed but council makes the decision

Staff can not make policy since they don’t vote and anyone who feels council follows staff recommendations blindly has never watched the current council in action!

5. Do you, or any family member, have a pecuniary and/or working interest in any industrial energy project within the Municipality, outside the Municipality, outside the Province, or outside Canada? If so, please elaborate. If not, would you ever consider becoming a stakeholder in a large-scale energy project if the opportunity presented itself?

 

(5) No to part 1.

As for part 2, speculating on a future opportunity is pointless but I seriously doubt one that would interest me will present itself. Green energy is the only kind being pushed in this Province and I don’t support any energy source that requires subsidies to support purchase, installation and operation.

 

 

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Bruce

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mayor John (Cod Liver) Close Responds to Questions!


 

 Thank you Mayor Close!
Better late than Never!
Out of all the answers received to date, this is by far more better! Direct and positive albeit not as far as I would like!

John Close

12:30 PM (45 minutes ago)

to me
Good Questions Bruce!
 
As mayor for the past four years I have fallen into the habit of letting others reply before I speak. I apologize if my reply is late.
1)Are you prepared to sign and honour the Oath of office and the Oath of Allegiance
 Yes to the Oath. I believe that this is required to show the public that I am accountable.
2)Is it your position that Provincial Regulations pertaining to property use are binding on Private Property?
The courts are upholding the Building Code, Planning Act and other provincial legislation. Until the courts rule otherwise provincial regulations are enforceable.
3)Is it your position that Municipal By-Laws are enforceable on private Property?
There are two types of by-laws that may come into play on this question. First there are general by-laws that are enacted for the general health and safety of a community. These by-laws shall only be enforceable if they relate to a Federal Act and/or a Provincial Act. Other by-laws would apply to public space only. A municipality can ban smoking from a park but they cannot ban you from smoking in or on your property.
4)What is your economic Recovery Plan for this Community?
My economic recovery plan is lengthy but not complicated. If we had a manufacture in our town that employed a hundred people we would never treat them the way we treat our small business, tourism, quarries and agricultural business. Land use planning has a place to allow all people to develop a business or live without the fear of a dynamite plant opening next to your home. Having said that our municipality needs to know what we have and actively search for those types of business that we are missing.
In order to grow into the future we need ultra-high speed fiber optic internet. We have no idea as to the jobs our youth will create in the future but it will be based on high speed connections, the likes we have not yet seen. We need the infrastructure, such as high speed internet, to open up our doors for business to incubate the jobs of the future.
Yes there are other items to install and correct but the driver for our economy shall be the internet, and the first community in will see the fastest growth.
5)Has any compensation been paid to anyone including the TSBP for the expropriation of Highway #6 in 1965?
Compensation for Highway 6? Only when they widened the Hwy. north of Wiarton in the late 50s or early 60s.
6) How do you intend to reunite the Communities within the Town of South Bruce Peninsula?
Unity
Unity is a major issue in our community, an issue that will take years to deal with. We have tax payers in our smaller neighbourhoods that feel left out, that see no improvements. This is one area for a public committee to be established to search for the core problem and find some solutions. 
Amalgamation came with no instructions and many communities continue to struggle with community unity. We need to define who we are and build pride from the ground up.   
The best so far!
Would that be with Property Rights and a positive stance against Provincial intervention? HMMMMM!
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Bruce

Time to Review and Score The Answers Provided By Candidates TWSBP! Part 1


Bruce the Blight

Bruce the Blight

 

Now remember I am not a lawyer! I am just a schmuck from the Bruce Peninsula that wonders, so this article is merely my opinion! I have just witnessed 8 years of wasted time and effort and the erosion of our rights as a people.

I find it amusing that the people that are running for election in the Town of South Bruce Peninsula, with the exception of the few, are all hot to trot to get your vote, but not interested in answering any questions.

Now, I may be an opinionated, old redneck, only interested in myself, as some have said, but I have to think, that if I were running for office, I would take advantage of every opportunity to get my message out!

Apparently it is a good thing I am not running as I would be wrong according to the responses, to the questions I posted.

Let us discuss and review the questions asked and answers given to question 1 and 2:

1. Are you prepared to sign and honour the Oath of office and the Oath of Allegiance?

It is mandatory for someone elected to sign the oath of office, which in turn provides an allegiance to Her Majesty. If in fact you swear the oath and allegiance, your are stating you will uphold the honour of the Crown ahead of all else, amongst other things.

I note that every single Candidate that answered the questions said yes to question 1,  with the exception of Craig Gammie! Mr. Gammie said it was “a silly question” implying that it was not worth answering! HMMMM!

Our laws are based on British Common Law, whose foundation is that of the Magna Carta.The Magna Carta was brought into being by the Land Barons, to control the Crown, who at the time, was taxing the people to the extreme, amongst other things negative to property ownership. The Crown had input on this document and it was amended many times by way of agreement between the people and the Crown.

Now this gives rise to question #2:

2. Is it your position that Provincial Regulations pertaining to property use are binding on Private Property?

The wealth and prosperity of this country was built on Property. All the natural resources are part of the land. Agriculture would not be if there was no land to farm nor would there be a forestry industry if there were not rights to the timber growing on the land. By the same token water, minerals, oil and gas etc. are all part of the land. Without Real Property we have nothing but the right to pay taxes!

Canada was built by people coming here to get land ownership. This was encouraged and promoted by the Crown, who provided Land Patents to entice  people to emigrate here. Land ownership was the motivation! Ownership provided security and opportunity. To own land meant you had a future. Most could not even dream of owning property in the old country so they came here for that chance. We have all been lead to believe that ownership was and is security.

In 1792 The Constitution Act was created to divide Canada into 2 separate Provinces, Upper and Lower Canada, which introduced English Law pertaining to “property and Civil Rights”.

“(18)  …..and to introduce English Law as the Rule of Decision in all matters of Controversy, Relative to Property and Civil Rights”

It also supported the Granted and patented private property rights, under section 9:

“(IX) Provided always, that nothing in this act contained shall extend, or be construed, to any lands that have been granted by his Majesty, or shall hereafter be granted by his Majesty, his heirs and successors, to be holden in free and common socage.”

The British North American Act, 1867

The Preamble of the BNA it expresses that our constitution and our country is to have a constitution “similar in Principal to that of the United Kingdom”.

The BNA Section 12 “All Powers, Authorities and functions which under any Act of Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or of the Legislature of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada, Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, are at the Union vested in…
The concept of the Union or amalgamation under one superior corporate entity is in fact expressed in the preamble of the BNA.

Since the Provinces is in reality a corporation, created by letters patent, one must look to the meaning of provincial property.

Section 109. All lands, mines, minerals and Royalties belonging to the several Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick at the union and all sums then due or payable for such lands , mines minerals or Royalties, shall belong to the several Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick in which the same are situate or arise, subject to any Trusts existing in respect thereof, and to any interest other than that of the Province in the same.

Section 109 clearly states that the Provinces own the revenue that can be created from public/Crown lands being sold or used to create revenue from the mines and minerals that are reserved in the land patents. Private property is addressed under “subject to any trusts existing in respect thereof and to any interest other than that of the Province in the same.”

The Draft BNA was created at the Quebec Conference in 1864. In the draft was the instruction and the intent of section 109.

56. All lands, mines, minerals and Royalties vested in Her Majesty in the Provinces of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Price Edward Island, for the use of such Provinces, shall belong to the Local Government of the Territory in which the same are situate; subject to any trusts that may exist in respect to any of such lands or to any interest other of other persons of the same.

This in fact means that the Province cannot interfere with any other persons “interest” and/or any ”trusts” not of the Province.

“The Queen in right of Ontario has no right, title or interest in and to lands described” (Ontario (Attorney General) v Roundtree Beach Assn., 1994). The Queen/Crown has removed the crown domain through letters patent, ergo there is no authority to be transferred to the Province.

Section 117 “The several provinces shall retain all their respective Public Property not otherwise disposed of in this Act, subject to the Right of Canada to assume any lands or Public Property required for Fortifications or for the Defense of the Country.”

In the case of A.G. v. DeKeyer’s Royal Hotel, 1920, p. 28 it is stated “ Since the Magna Carta the estate of a subject in lands or buildings has been protected against the prerogative of the Crown.”There were provisions that “private Property” could only be used or regulated with fair compensation being paid, even during times of war.”

Since Section 125 of the Act says that Federal property and Provincial property are exempt from taxation, it stands to reason that if we pay taxes on the land we must be owners of the land ergo we must be owners of private property.

The BNA Section 12 “All Powers, Authorities and functions which under any Act of Parliament of Great Britain, or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or of the Legislature of Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Canada, Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, are at the Union vested in…

So now we have Candidates that have agreed to sign their Oaths of Office and Allegiance to the Crown, if they are elected, in doing so they have stated that they will,  in essence, Honour the will of the Crown!

The Crown, has willed in the legislation above, that Private Property is outside the Jurisdictional control of the Province. Therefore if the Candidates intends to honour their oaths then they must answer question 2 with a Definite NO, failing which they are not honouring their oath’s.

To allow the Province to impose regulations that restrict the right of utility of property owners within the Municipality, abrogates their responsibility that they pledged to uphold.

Think about it, we lost Giant Tiger, Canadian Tire (about 100 jobs) and god knows what else when the MTO would not allow  or provide a turning lane on the south end of town on Highway 6. Regardless of what the Province says Highway 6. from Alvanley to Wiarton is within the boundaries of the Town of South Bruce Peninsula. The Province signed off on that in 2004 when they approved our Master Plan. The regulations being imposed by the Province is over stepping their authority and our elected representatives surrendering to the Provinces will is an example of the failure of our elected representatives to protect our interests.

All Candidates said yes to Question 2 with the exception of Turner! So in saying yes, they are in fact telling you that they have no intention of honouring their Oaths but still want you to vote for them! Oh wait, Gammie said “the question is not relevant to a Municipal election!” Hog wash!

How can you as a voter and taxpayer allow someone to represent you when they have, before being elected, lied to you, by not adhering to the oath they have agreed to swear?

If they do not understand the law in place, they have a responsibility to educate themselves with respect to the law. If they are to blatantly disregard their commitment, by giving lip service to the Oath, then they are not capable of representing you in an honest, responsible manner!

It seems that those running in this election, generally have taken the position, that if one of us would fight their battle (their job)with respect to the Province over stepping their authority and win, then they would support the victor. The fact of the matter is that it is their responsibility as an elected official, is to protect you, not the job of the taxpayer to fight their battle, which they pledged to do, in the first place. The ultimate winner is you the taxpayer as your rights as a property owner prevail. If indeed you are happy with the Province dictating what you can or cannot do on your property then why in Gods name are we paying for a Municipal Government.

The only way the Province or the Municipality can control private property is to first purchase it, then regulate it, then sell it with the restrictions registered on title, this in fact is the law. Other than that they have no rights to the property that was not owned by the Province or the Municipality at the time of the Union Act of 1851 or the British North American Act of 1867. These Statutes were and are, the will of the Crown as it was proclaimed in the passing of the legislation.

The reality of the situation is, that if you are running for office, your first responsibility is your allegiance to the Crown, then to the Taxpayers, not the will of a Provincial body interested in protecting their interests ahead of all else. If you cannot understand this you cannot fulfill your obligations sworn too and subsequently cannot in good conscience govern!

We are expected to obey to the letter of the Law, we are entitled under the Charter 15(2) to be treated equally in Law, however how is that possible if in fact the financial costs are so high that the Province can use your tax dollars to fight you in enforcing your rights given by law.

Our Municipal representatives are to protect us with our tax dollars from economic oppression and restrictive controls by the senior levels of government. If they cannot or will not do so then we have no need for Municipal Government or ownership of “Private Property” thus making the efforts of forefathers moot!

Tomorrow I will address from my perspective, the answers of Question 3 and 4 by our Candidates.

Think before you vote!!!

BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Bruce