PURPOSE:
The Haudenosaunee hold a teaching around the 7 generations, which reminds us of the responsibility to make decisions in a good way with our ancestors, our present generation, and those generations to come. Over a generation of community members have not been afforded the right to exercise our voice in the Akwesasne - New York State Land Claim Final Settlement Agreement.
Community Members born after, or who became eligible voters after 2004 until present day, have been deprived of the right and the opportunity to voice their opinion regarding the Mohawk Land Claim Settlement. We are collecting signatures in a petition to obtain a community-based people’s referendum for the approval/disapproval of the “Akwesasne Mohawk Land Claim Settlement.” This settlement was made without our consent and consultation, which denies us our voice, just as colonization has since contact. This final settlement affects 7 Generations, and we demand a referendum and transparency from all legal plaintiffs in this matter, to allow us the ability to make an informed decision. This affects us now, and will affect the generations to come, and we demand to exercise our inherent right to use our good minds and our voices.
LAND CLAIM BACKGROUND:
According to the Mohawk Council of Akwesane, in regards to Akwesasne - New York State Land Claim Final Settlement Agreement:
(Source: MCA)
Franklin and St. Lawrence counties are ready to approve the settlement;
New York State and its agencies are ready to approve the settlement;
The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribal Council (SRMT) is ready to approve the settlement;
The Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs (MNCC) require more time to decide on an approval;
The Settlement agreement includes benefits for all Akwesasronon, regardless of residency, which include:
Free State University of New York college tuition for all Akwesasronon, who are admitted to SUNY schools, regardless of residency.
The right to fish and gather on Barnhart, Croil, and Long Sault Islands, and to hunt and trap on these islands with some restrictions.
9 megawatts of low-cost power that SRMT and MCA can purchase from the New York Power Authority.
The return of land in several areas to Akwesasne Territory, including land in the Hogansburg Triangle.
$70 million in payments made over 35 years ($2 million per year) by New York Power Authority (NYPA) to the SRMT, MCA, and MNCC.
MCA continues to support the settlement of this 42-year-old claim, originally filed by MCA in 1982, focusing on regaining the islands. The hard work of many community members over the years has resulted in an agreement that ensures continued use of the Islands.
In 1989, the SRMT & MNCC filed their own claim for lands and Islands, which the court combined with MCA’s lawsuits into one claim. This is the last New York State land claim, as others were extinguished by the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the City of Sherrill vs. Oneida Indian Nation which ruled tribes cannot make claims for land taken 200 years ago.
According to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, in regards to the Akwesasne - New York State Land Claim Final Settlement Agreement:
(Source: SRMT)
SRMT is one of three active legal plaintiffs in this lawsuit, as noted.
All plaintiffs entered the litigation as representatives of the Akwesasne Mohawk community, (exhibit C of the original 1989 legal complaint; pages 3-5) representing only the "...the same, continuously existing entity described in the Treaty of 1796 as the Indians of the Village of St. Regis" that have , since 1796, continuously existed as one people, with one common heritage and having linguistic, social, religious, legal and other community ties binding them together as one people distinct from their neighbors and ALL OTHERS." (Emphasis added) . A public meeting was held Sunday 12/1 by the Mohawk Nation Council of Chiefs, the 'Nation,' one of the active legal plaintiffs, where hopefully legal updates were shared to their constituents by their legal counsel and leadership. Only NYS has sought to dismiss and 'overcome' the claims of the three Akwesasne Mohawk plaintiffs. No NYS lands currently possessed by Akwesasne Mohawks will be lost in the settlement.
Settlement benefits to the Akwesasne Mohawk people include:
* Immediate, recognized, uncontested Mohawk jurisdiction over the Hogansburg triangle. Community members' land interests protected
* All past due property taxes paid by NYS
* No threat of future taxation of homes and businesses and property, or sales taxes, in the Hogansburg triangle
* Future land acquisitions to grow the Akwesasne land base for future generations in the settlement areas. (Beyond the settlement areas through Land-Into-Trust process)
* Education & electrical power benefits
* Monetary payment
The settlement alternative is a judge's complete dismissal similar to Oneida, Onondaga and Cayuga cases which would affirm the Hogansburg triangle to be Franklin County Town of Bombay lands forever more.
Expert Opinion from Gerald Taiaiake Alfred on the Akwesasne - New York State Land Claim Final Settlement Agreement.
(Source: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/Yfe8ndTBwJr47PJK/?mibextid=WC7FNe )
I am offering you my expert opinion as a political strategist and historian, as requested, on the proposed Akwesasne-Mohawk land claim final settlement agreement.
I am limiting my opinions to issues of principle in the proposed agreement, and not commenting at this time on the Akwesasne-specific terms or the value of the settlement in monetary terms.
The views expressed herein are my own and are based on my review of historical research on the 1796 Seven Nations of Canada Treaty and case files pertaining to litigation active since 1982.
____________________________
Opinion 1: The agreement implicates and affects the inherent rights of all Kanien’kehaka.
Language in the agreement and the documents it incorporates by reference does not limit the terms or implications of the settlement to Akwesasne - it impacts all Mohawk communities.
Opinion 2: The agreement validates the surrender of our ownership of and inherent rights to our homelands in the territory outlined in the 1796 Seven Nations of Canada Treaty.
The agreement agrees to the United States’ congressional extinguishment of all Mohawk land claims in present-day New York State by two means: a) validating the legitimacy and terms of the 1796 treaty, which is in fact unconstitutional and illegal; and, b) the explicit language of a 2014 St. Regis Mohawk Tribe draft Memorandum of Understanding which has been incorporated into the agreement and which contains a clause agreeing to the permanent relinquishment of all Mohawk land claims in exchange for settlement terms.
Opinion 3: The agreement unfairly disregards the rights and interests of Kahnawakerò:non.
The Mohawk Council of Akwesasne won a 2005 court order denying Kahnawà:ke's application to intervene in the Tri-Council’s litigation. The basis of the decision was that in spite of Kahnawakerò:non having substantial interests in the case, and thus the proposed settlement, the court needed to prioritize the legal principle of “Timeliness” and denied Kahnawà:ke a voice. This was due to the MCA’s assertion that Kahnawà:ke’s intervention may have unduly delayed the settlement. Importantly, in the decision, the court reasoned that timeliness took precedence because there was little to no likelihood that a settlement agreement would be forthcoming that would harm or prejudice Kahnawà:ke’s interests in the territory affected by the settlement. This is now, quite obviously, something that has actually come to pass by virtue of the language of the present agreement. So, in spite of the court’s reasoning in 2005, by any standard of fairness there should be grounds for opening up the case to Kahnawà:ke’s involvement – and the same reasoning should apply as well to Ganienkeh, as representatives of that sister community sent correspondence opposing the proposed settlement to the President of the United States in 2005.
NYS State Land Claim Settlement. Another Legal Perspective with Suggested Solutions. Contributor maintains anonymity.
(Source: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/QjSJtvhhDPw6VsUY/?mibextid=WC7FNe )
Legal Analysis:
1. Federal Court Judge Lawrence Kahn, with legal assistance of the US government confirmed that the treaty of 1796 has not been disestablished or diminished and remains (as it always has been) fully intact today. This encompasses the 6-mile square including the Hogansburg Triangle, the mile square in Massena, the mile square in Fort Covington, and the Grasse River meadows. (of ½ mile deep on each side of the river for approximately seven miles to the St. Lawrence River) and 3 islands of Barnhart, Croil, and Long Sault.
2. This land in the treaty of 1796 has been judged and concluded by the US Federal Court and the US government as reservation land. Only the US government can change this.
Although we may not agree that this is all the land that we are owed we do agree that the lands within the 1796 treaty is our reservation land
To agree or sign this agreement between the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, Franklin and St. Lawrence Counties and NY State.
1. We will absolutely lose the three islands
2. We will absolutely lose the mile square in Massena
3. We will absolutely lose the mile square in Fort Covington
4. We will absolutely lose the Grass River meadows
If we do not agree or sign, we are no worse off than we are right now. The SRMT says the state will take us to court and we may lose the Hogansburg Triangle based on laches.
1. Exactly who will take us to court? I believe that all the state appeals have been exhausted.
2. I don’t believe the laches argument can be effective or even considered in a case where a US government treaty has been signed and ratified by the US Congress. (Note: this was not a land claim)
3. If they can take us to court, ok let’s fight for another 40 years but in the interim, we will exercise our legal rights under the 1796 Treaty as confirmed by the US government until congress decided otherwise.
Alternative Proposal:
1. Assert our legal rights on lands and islands as laid out in the 1796 Treaty by force, if necessary, not violence but force if required.
2. Lease lands to NYPA to be re-negotiated every 25 years,
3. Pay NYPA 50% (actual cost of maintenance of power grid, transfer stations, etc.) of NYPA renegotiated yearly.
4. Lease lands to municipal building, businesses and private homeowners not under trust for 50% of their annual state and town land tax that they pay now. Renegotiated as required.
5. if Judge Kann already returned the boundary lines to us then they can’t foreclose on land that isn’t theirs? According to a Federal Judge Kahn's decision Akwesasne has been reservation land since the signing of the 1796 Treaty, therefore taxes should not have ever been demanded to the county or state. His decision is affirming that the 1796 Treaty is and has always been a legal federally recognized, & ratified treaty. "Once a block of land is set aside for an Indian Reservation and no matter what happens to the title individual plots within the area, the entire block retains its reservation status until Congress explicitly indicates otherwise") (citing United States v. Celestine, 215 U.S. 278, 285 (1909)
6. If the towns, and counties continue to levy taxes on Indian people in the reservation boundary would that be a violation? It is a well-known law that you cannot sue a state as they have sovereign immunity. towns and counties are not covered by sovereign immunity and therefore can be sued collectively or individually for violations of being aware of a violation or should be aware of, in their capacity. Therefore, any further demand for taxes or money under the threat of foreclosure is the exact definition of extortion, so yes, it is a violation because they are committing a state and federal crime against the people of the state of NY.
Finally, as citizens of the state, county and towns cannot refuse basic services by law such as road maintenance, snow removal, fire protection, emergency medical care, this is the law.
On Feb 28th, 2024 when the Judge ordered all parties to be in person in the Federal court in Syracuse, condoled leadership for the nation were barred from entering. Only Howard Thompson, Joyce king (who is not a clan mother) and the MNCC Lawyer we're permitted in. After pleading with the court mediator John Beckerman, he got the judge to let us in. We were told to sit in the back row and be quiet. Alex Page, Thompson and King wouldn't even look at us. The judge said she was available to speak to anyone who had questions. So, I asked to speak with her. She agreed and took us to her private chambers. That is where we made her aware of the two minds of our council and that we want to withdraw. She told us that she would have no problem with the Nation withdrawing and no fee would be levied. She also, said, "withdraw without prejudice to preserve your future rights". To date we have been unable to get Alex Page to withdraw the Nation and continues to file false status reports on our behalf.
LINKS TO INFORMATION AND RESOURCES ( please check it out!) :
Link: Akwesasne, NY Land Claim Settlement Information
PETITION:
Community members born after, or who have become eligible voters after 2004, have been deprived of the right and the opportunity to voice their opinion regarding the Mohawk Land Claim Settlement. We are collecting signatures in a petition to obtain a community-based people’s referendum for the approval/disapproval of the “Akwesasne Mohawk Land Claim Settlement.”
WHY YOUR SIGNATURE MATTERS:
In the face of oppression, any act of unity to those who wish to take from us is an act of defiance in their eyes that threatens their seats of power. You DO NOT have to risk your life or freedom to create change. With the power of your name, you can demand that ALL people have a voice! This settlement holds domain over all Mohawks and families located in Haudenosaunee territory. Your voice indeed matters, regardless of the lines and borders colonial powers have drawn over you. We are asking for ALL peoples to sign this petition to show these colonial and elected entities that have restricted 20 years of voters that we MATTER!
(Encouraged: We ask that when sharing this petition on your social media, that you include your personal statement on why you shared and signed this petition to continue building the foundational strength behind this.)