Most land in England and Wales is now registered at the Land Registry; so more often than not it is easy to find out who owns what land.
However sometimes there are parcels of land owned by one person but used by another, otherwise known as ‘squatting’. When someone wants to claim ownership of land that’s not theirs, it is called Adverse Possession.
To claim Adverse Possession you would need to make an application to the Land Registry. The Land Registry have a strict set of criteria you must meet before you can claim land you do not own. The rules are the same for registered and unregistered land but the application procedure is different.
You can find out whether the land in question is registered by contacting the Land Registry.
To claim Adverse Possession you must show that:
- You have actual physical possession of the land. (Fencing off the land is strong evidence of physical possession)
- You have the intention to possess the land. (Using the land as if it is your own to the exclusion of others.)
- Your possession is without the true owner’s consent
- All of the above have been true for at least 12 years if the land is unregistered or 10 years if the land is registered.
It is possible for someone to object to the application but the Land Registry will assess each application on their own merit. Any evidence you can provide to show you have met the above criteria will help your application.
Every claim for Adverse Possession is different. If you need further information regarding this issue, or you would like to discuss your particular circumstances in detail, please do get in touch.
Playing on a public Minecraft server has always had the risk of players griefing each other. While there are servers where griefing and PvP are encouraged, the average player likes to have a spot where their treasures and buildings are kept safe. Fortunately, server owners can allow people to claim their own plots of land using a simple plugin on the server.
Best Land Claim Plugin for Minecraft
The best land claim plugin for Minecraft is the “LandClaiming” plugin made by Bukkit. This plugin allows players to manage their own claims so that they aren’t always having to ask the server owner or a moderator to do it for them. Mods can set ways where players can earn more land to claim.
The plugin not only allows people to claim land, but it gives them the option of giving other specific players access to that land. Players can also unclaim their land if they decide to move to a different area on the map.
What Does the LandClaiming Plugin Do?
The LandClaiming plugin allows players on a Minecraft server to claim a plot of land that cannot be griefed in any way. This includes the following:
- Other players will not be able to set a fire that spreads onto claimed land
- Other players will not be able to pour lava on claimed land
- Animals and crops cannot be killed, moved, or harvested
- Gates and chests cannot be opened.
- Push buttons and levers can’t be activated.
- Players cannot be killed on their land.
- Trees cannot be cut down on other’s claimed land.
- Only the owner can mine or build on their land.
How Much Land Can You Claim on a Minecraft Server
With the LandClaiming plugin, you will start out with a 9×9 block space (81 blocks) that you can claim with a chest. Depending on the server, you will be able to earn more land through gameplay, donations, or other actions.
How to Claim Land on a Minecraft Server
To make your initial land claim with the LandClaiming plugin, you will need to do the following:
Step 1: Travel to the land that you wish to claim. The area must be unclaimed and not on protected server land.
Step 2: Determine which area you want to claim. You will be able to initially claim a 9×9 block plot.
Step 3: Place a chest in the center of the plot you wish to claim. This action will automatically claim the plot in your name.
How to Expand a Land Claim on a Minecraft Server
Depending on the server, you will be able to earn more blocks by playing the game. Here is how you can expand your land claim when you have enough extra blocks:
Step 1: Get a golden shovel. Many servers who have the plugin will also have a kit that has a golden shovel for your convenience. If not, you will need to make one at your crafting table.
Step 2: Hit the ground at your land claim with your golden shovel in your hand. The borders of your land claim should light up around you.
Step 3: Go to one of the corners of the area you want to expand and tap the corner block. Move to the block that you want to be your new corner and tap it with your golden shovel. If you have enough land claim, the corner should move. If you don’t, you will be given a message on how many more blocks you’ll need to expand to that spot.
How to Make a Second Land Claim on a Minecraft Server
While you make your first land claim with your first chest placement, if you want to make another claim in the same world, you will need a golden shovel and extra points. Here is how it is done:
Step 1: Tap your golden shovel on the ground you wish to claim. An area should automatically generate around you.
Step 2: Tap a corner of your new land claim to expand it.
Step 3: Walk to where you want your new corner and tap the ground again to finalize the claim.
How to Unclaim Land on a Minecraft Server
To unclaim land in your Minecraft server, you will need to go to the land you want to unclaim and type in the following command: /abandonclaim. This should remove the claim on your land, allowing you to have extra blocks to claim elsewhere on the server.
How to Give Access to a Minecraft Server Land Claim
If you want to allow another player to have access to your land, you can add them to your trust list. To do this, you will need to enter the following command: /trust (username). In the future, if you choose to disallow the person to use your land, you will need to use the command /untrust (username).
Using the LandClaiming plugin creates safe spots on your server that allows users to have areas where they can grow without worrying about being griefed. These are great options for PvP servers where people want to gather materials to create armor without the fear of losing it.
© 2011-2020 Wombat Servers.
All rights reserved.
E-mail: [email protected]
1:52 Wolastoqey First Nation seeks compensation in land title claim
- comments Leave a comment
- facebook Share this item on Facebook
- whatsapp Share this item via WhatsApp
- twitter Share this item on Twitter
- email Send this page to someone via email
- more Share this item
- more Share this item
- Share this item on Facebook facebook
- Share this item via WhatsApp whatsapp
- Share this item on Twitter twitter
- Send this page to someone via email email
- Share this item on Pinterest pinterest
- Share this item on LinkedIn linkedin
- Share this item on Reddit reddit
- Copy article link Copy link
The six Wolastoqey communities in New Brunswick filed a new version of their title claim in court Tuesday, focusing on corporations such as NB Power and forestry giant J.D. Irving that exploit resources on their traditional lands.
“It’s time to take a stand. It’s time to protect our land so that it can continue to protect us,” Madawaska Maliseet First Nation Chief Patricia Bernard told a virtual news conference. “This not only rights wrongs that we have endured for centuries, but it also protects this land for all of us, Indigenous and non-Indigenous.”
The claim filed in Court of Queen’s Bench names companies that operate on about 20 per cent of the more than 50,000 square kilometres identified in the claim as traditional lands of the Wolastoqey in New Brunswick.
2:03 Chiefs of Six Wolastoqey First Nations communities say they’re suing feds, province
The new defendants include J.D. Irving Ltd. and 18 of its subsidiaries or related entities, NB Power, Acadian Timber, Twin Rivers Paper, H.J. Crabbe & Sons and A.V. Group. The companies are named in addition to the governments of New Brunswick and Canada.
“It has never been in the public interest to give away land for free to large corporations,” Chief Ross Perley of the Tobique First Nation said.
In their original claim filed last year, the communities sought title to the land. Their new claim also seeks compensation from the Crown for allowing commercial operations on their traditional territory.
“This is our traditional, unceded and unsurrendered land, and we are owed compensation for the last 200 years of land and resource theft, authorized and overseen by the New Brunswick government and its predecessor Crown governments,” Bernard said.
2:14 New Brunswick government employees ordered to stop making Indigenous land acknowledgments
The chiefs say a ruling in favour of the Wolastoqey would allow forestry to continue, as long as corporations had an agreement with the local First Nation.
“It leads to something that should have happened in the first place – a requirement that these companies enter into agreements with the Wolastoqey Nation that include fair compensation and give us a voice when it comes to decisions about industrial operations in our territory,” Bernard said.
Officials with J.D. Irving Limited did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.
Kingsclear Chief Gabriel Atwin told reporters the title claim does not seek to displace New Brunswickers from their homes and farms.
The chiefs conceded that the title challenge might take a decade or more to work its way through the courts, but they said it could benefit their children and grandchildren.
New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs told reporters at the legislature on Tuesday that he had just learned of the new filing with the court and didn’t know all its details. Higgs said that when it came to treaty rights and obligations, an examination by the courts is necessary.
“I think for a long time we’ve been questioning back and forth who is responsible for what, and what the obligations are,” he said. “If we are going to have truth and reconciliation going forward on all issues, we need to understand exactly what our obligations are and ensure that we fulfil them. It seems that is only going to be accomplished through a legal process.”
Higgs said he hoped to have a meeting with the chiefs before the end of the year.
In October, the province ordered government employees to stop uttering public land acknowledgments that refer to unceded lands. It is common across Canada for politicians and others to begin events by stating that they are standing on unceded territories of various Indigenous Peoples.
Attorney General Hugh Flemming said the directive was in response to the original claim filed by the Wolastoqey communities, which sought title to more than 60 per cent of the province.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Nov. 30, 2021.
A common misperception is that the Jews were forced into the diaspora by the Romans after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem in the year 70 A.D. and then, 1,800 years later, suddenly returned to Palestine demanding their country back. In reality, the Jewish people have maintained ties to their historic homeland for more than 3,700 years. A national language and a distinct civilization have been maintained.
The Jewish people base their claim to the land of Israel on at least four premises: 1) God promised the land to the patriarch Abraham; 2) the Jewish people settled and developed the land; 3) the international community granted political sovereignty in Palestine to the Jewish people and 4) the territory was captured in defensive wars.
The term "Palestine" is believed to be derived from the Philistines, an Aegean people who, in the 12th Century B.C., settled along the Mediterranean coastal plain of what is now Israel and the Gaza Strip. In the second century A.D., after crushing the last Jewish revolt, the Romans first applied the name Palaestina to Judea (the southern portion of what is now called the West Bank) in an attempt to minimize Jewish identification with the land of Israel. The Arabic word "Filastin" is derived from this Latin name.
The Twelve Tribes of Israel formed the first constitutional monarchy in Palestine about 1000 B.C. The second king, David, first made Jerusalem the nation’s capital. Although eventually Palestine was split into two separate kingdoms, Jewish independence there lasted for 212 years. This is almost as long as Americans have enjoyed independence in what has become known as the United States.
Even after the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem and the beginning of the exile, Jewish life in Palestine continued and often flourished. Large communities were reestablished in Jerusalem and Tiberias by the ninth century. In the 11th century, Jewish communities grew in Rafah, Gaza, Ashkelon, Jaffa and Caesarea.
Many Jews were massacred by the Crusaders during the 12th century, but the community rebounded in the next two centuries as large numbers of rabbis and Jewish pilgrims immigrated to Jerusalem and the Galilee. Prominent rabbis established communities in Safed, Jerusalem and elsewhere during the next 300 years. By the early 19th century-years before the birth of the modern Zionist movement-more than 10,000 Jews lived throughout what is today Israel.
When Jews began to immigrate to Palestine in large numbers in 1882, fewer than 250,000 Arabs lived there, and the majority of them had arrived in recent decades. Palestine was never an exclusively Arab country, although Arabic gradually became the language of most the population after the Muslim invasions of the seventh century. No independent Arab or Palestinian state ever existed in Palestine. When the distinguished Arab-American historian, Princeton University Prof. Philip Hitti, testified against partition before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, he said: "There is no such thing as ‘Palestine’ in history, absolutely not." In fact, Palestine is never explicitly mentioned in the Koran, rather it is called "the holy land" (al-Arad al-Muqaddash).
Prior to partition, Palestinian Arabs did not view themselves as having a separate identity. When the First Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations met in Jerusalem in February 1919 to choose Palestinian representatives for the Paris Peace Conference, the following resolution was adopted:
We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria, as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, natural, economic and geographical bonds.
In 1937, a local Arab leader, Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi, told the Peel Commission, which ultimately suggested the partition of Palestine: "There is no such country [as Palestine]! ‘Palestine’ is a term the Zionists invented! There is no Palestine in the Bible. Our country was for centuries part of Syria."
The representative of the Arab Higher Committee to the United Nations submitted a statement to the General Assembly in May 1947 that said "Palestine was part of the Province of Syria" and that, "politically, the Arabs of Palestine were not independent in the sense of forming a separate political entity." A few years later, Ahmed Shuqeiri, later the chairman of the PLO, told the Security Council: "It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."
Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post-World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day War and Israel’s capture of the West Bank.
Israel’s international "birth certificate" was validated by the promise of the Bible; uninterrupted Jewish settlement from the time of Joshua onward; the Balfour Declaration of 1917; the League of Nations Mandate, which incorporated the Balfour Declaration; the United Nations partition resolution of 1947; Israel’s admission to the UN in 1949; the recognition of Israel by most other states; and, most of all, the society created by Israel’s people in decades of thriving, dynamic national existence.
Sources: Moshe Kohn, “The Arabs’ ‘Lie’ of the Land,” Jerusalem Post, (October 18, 1991); Avner Yaniv, PLO, (Jerusalem: Israel Universities Study Group of Middle Eastern Affairs, August 1974), p. 5; Encyclopaedia Judaica.
Download our mobile app for on-the-go access to the Jewish Virtual Library
On September 16, 1893, the largest land run in history begins with more than 100,000 people pouring into the Cherokee Strip of Oklahoma to claim valuable land that had once belonged to Native Americans. With a single shot from a pistol the mad dash began, and land-hungry pioneers on horseback and in carriages raced forward to stake their claims to the best acres.
Ironically, not many years before that same land had once been considered worthless desert. Early explorers of Oklahoma believed that the territory was too arid and treeless for white settlement, but several suggested it might be the perfect place to resettle Native Americans, whose rich and fertile lands in the southeast were increasingly coveted by Americans. The U.S. government later took this advice and began removing eastern tribes like the Cherokee and Choctaw to Oklahoma Territory in 1817. No more eager than the whites to leave their green and well-watered lands for the arid plains, some Native Americans resisted and had to be removed by force-most tragically, the 4,000 Cherokee who died during the brutal overland march known appropriately as the “Trail of Tears.”
By 1885, a diverse mixture of Native American tribes had been pushed onto reservations in eastern Oklahoma and promised that the land would be theirs “as long as the grass grows and the water runs.” Yet even this seemingly marginal land did not long escape the attention of land-hungry Americans. By the late nineteenth century, farmers had developed new methods that suddenly made the formerly reviled Plains hugely valuable. Pressure steadily increased to open the Native lands to settlement, and in 1889, President Benjamin Harrison succumbed and threw open large areas of unoccupied Native American lands to white settlement. The giant Cherokee Strip rush was only the largest of a series of massive “land runs” that began in the 1890s, with thousands of immigrants stampeding into Oklahoma Territory and establishing towns like Norman and Oklahoma City almost overnight.
The native title claim over a huge tract of land in South Australia has been mostly upheld by a federal court.
Native titles are pre-colonial rights held by Australia's indigenous people, derived from their laws and customs.
The Barngarla people traditionally lived along the north-western shore of the Spencer Gulf in South Australia.
They lodged their claim for the land in 1996. Stakeholders involved in the claim included the Commonwealth government, commercial fishers, mining companies and pastoralists.
The title does not grant freehold to the Barngarla but it means groups such as mining companies must now negotiate with the Barngarla over proposed developments.
The claim covered 44,481 square km (1m acres), including about two-thirds of the Eyre Peninsula.
The Federal Court's Justice John Mansfield upheld most of the claim but excluded the town of Port Augusta, the coastal waters below Port Lincoln and the islands of the Spencer Gulf.
Barngarla elder Eric Paige, present at the court when the judgement was handed down, said the ruling was a step in the right direction.
"I'm really happy," he said, according to local media. "We're going to be getting our country back you know, so that's good."
'Bundle of rights'
The judgement was particularly significant because the area is densely populated, said South Australian Native Title Service Chief Executive Officer Keith Thomas.
"It is important to create some certainty for the Barngarla people about their economic aspirations," Mr Thomas told the BBC.
"They don't own any of the land but they have a bundle of rights that allow them to partake in traditional activities such as hunting, gathering, using bush medicine and protecting sacred sites," said Mr Thomas.
The issue of whether the native title rights have been subsequently extinguished by other land titles such as freehold title will be determined in a subsequent hearing.
Australia's biggest native title claim – covering 14.6m hectares of land and waters – was lodged in a Brisbane court in December.
The claim – filed on behalf of nine traditional owners – refers to much of the Cape York Peninsula in the far north of Queensland. Under that claim, any land development will require consent from the owners.
Madawaska First Nation Chief Patricia Bernard speaks at the media event on Nov. 30.
On Nov. 30, the six Wolastoqey First Nations in New Brunswick filed a legal claim to take back land given to JD Irving Limited and 18 of its subsidiaries or related entities, NB Power, and four other forestry companies: Acadian Timber, Twin Rivers Paper, HJ Crabbe & Sons, and A.V. Group.
In a statement, the First Nation chiefs declared: “The Wolastoqey share a deep concern with many regular New Brunswickers that reckless resource extraction through mining, forestry and other activities has left our rivers, forests, and lakes on the brink of decimation.”
The Wolastoqey have never ceded or surrendered title to their land, and they filed their original land claim in October 2020. Yesterday’s filing clarified that the five million hectares the Wolastoqey claim as their traditional lands includes the 20 per cent of those lands the companies have operations on.
The land owned by NB Power and claimed by the Wolastoqey includes the Mactaquac Dam and the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station.
Map supplied by the Wolastoqey First Nations showing the traditional territory claimed including the land held by New Brunswick’s largest forestry companies and NB Power.
“Today is about holding to account those corporations that have not paid fair value for the land they’ve profited from for decades and decades” – Chief Patricia Bernard.
At a media event following the filing of claim, Madawaska First Nation Chief Patricia Bernard explained that the Wolastoqey chose those companies as defendants because as the largest landowners in New Brunswick, they have a history of getting land from the province without paying a fair price for it.
“Let me be clear on this point, it is not, and it never has been, in the public interest to give away land for free to large corporations,” Bernard said. “Today is about holding to account those corporations that have not paid fair value for the land they’ve profited from for decades and decades. It’s also about the willful negligence of our provincial government, which allow these companies to run amok with operations that have left our traditional land scarred and torn with their future in jeopardy.”
“We have long warned government about the detrimental impacts of these activities,” Bernard continued. “Now the consequences of climate change have multiplied the urgency with which we must change course. It is the responsibility of the Wolastoqey to look after this land, to make sure that it’s sustainable for the next seven generations to come.”
“It’s very important that we work together–six Wolastoq communities, and our neighboring Mi’kmaq family, Passamaquoddy, Penobscot–to do our parts and restore the balance to the best of our ability” – Chief Shelley Sabattis
Also at the media event, Oromocto First Nation Chief Shelley Sabattis said it is time for the Wolastoqey to bring back the balance to the earth. “There’s been a lot of damage done to our sacred gifts, that each group of people were given to protect and to use rightfully. And as you can see, it has been disrespected, across our territory, across the region, and globally. We are the keepers of the land. It’s very important that we work together–six Wolastoq communities, and our neighboring Mi’kmaq family, Passamaquoddy, Penobscot–to do our parts and restore the balance to the best of our ability.”
Oromocto Chief Shelley Sabattis at the media event on Nov. 30.
The Wolastoq chiefs and their legal team acknowledge that claiming land given to companies has never been part of a land claim before in Canada but said that just because it hasn’t been done before doesn’t mean that it can’t happen now. The legal process to resolve the claim will likely take decades followed by negotiated partnership arrangements with the companies.
“You know that any journey starts with one step, right? So, we do realize that this is going to take a long time,” said Bernard. “We’ve been waiting for centuries and we’re not going anywhere. Governments come and go, but our nation stays. So even if we may not be around to see the end results, our children, our grandchildren and our great grandchildren will.”
Chief Bernard clarified that the claim does not seek to displace New Brunswickers but calls for compensation from the Crown for the loss of that land. The only private landowners the Wolastoqey are trying to get land back from are companies named in the claim.
“If you’re not one of these companies, you have nothing to worry about,” Bernard said, adding, “if the attorney general or the premier tries to say otherwise, it’s not true. It is the private interests of Irving and other corporations they are protecting. Don’t let them mislead you.”
Susan O’Donnell is the lead researcher for the RAVEN (Rural Action and Voices for the Environment) project at the University of New Brunswick in Fredericton.
PA Arab demonstrators in Hebron, October 2, 2021.
The European Union and the Palestinian Authority are working to create an alternative land registry in Judea and Samaria which would retroactively cancel all land acquisitions by Jews in the last 140 years, Makor Rishon reported Friday (הפלסטינים רשמו בטאבו כמחצית משטחי יו”ש). According to the report, by the end of 2019, they had managed to regulate the registration of ownership on about 45% of Judea and Samaria including in Area C, which is ostensibly under full Israeli control.
According to Ad Kan researchers, the Palestinian Land Registry employs hundreds of architects and government officials to create a new land registry of the villages of Judea and Samaria, while completely ignoring historical purchases by Jews as well as the Israeli and Jordanian land registries that are under the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories’ control.
Registration of land ownership in Judea and Samaria began in the days of the Ottoman Empire and continued under the British Mandate and Jordanian occupation, until in 1968 Israel halted the regulation of land ownership there, and it has not been completed to date. Following the Oslo Accords, the Land Registry is divided between the Palestinian Authority, which is responsible for Areas A and B, and Israel, which is responsible for Areas C.
In 2002, the Palestinian Authority established the Palestinian Lands Authority, which resumed the land regulation with a $6 million grant from the World Bank. In 2016, the Palestinian Lands and Water Settlement Authority, headed by Acting Minister Mohammad Sharaka. The new agency has also taken upon itself to begin regulating land ownership in Area C, in brazen violation of Israeli sovereignty and the Oslo Accords.
Sharaka’s agency has been able to accelerate its activity thanks to a $12.6 million grant from the World Bank slated for registering lands in areas A and B (the former under full PA control, the latter under both PA and Israeli control – DI), and $4.4 million from the European Union specifically for Area C. The UN also supports this alternative registry through its United Nations Human Settlement Program (UN-Habitat).
Showing far more resilience and decisiveness than his lethargic Israeli officials, Sharaka has recently obtained from the Turkish government the Ottoman Kushan-land ownership archive, which contains valuable information the PA would be able to manipulate in the future in front of international mediation panels.
Finally, Ad Kan explained the takeover process: in the first phase, the local land PA land registry director announces the issuance of a registration order in a certain area, and the residents begin submitting documents to prove their ownership of the land. The director then prepares a list of ownership claims by block and plot and draws a new map where no such map has existed before. The residents are then given thirty days to appeal the registration. Needless to say, Jewish landowners aren’t informed and therefore can’t show up to prove their ownership.
After a hearing of all the objections to his decision, the director issues a final registration of land rights, and a PA judge approves it. The land registry offices issue ownership documents to the landowners after they pay the fees.
The PA expects to complete the process of altering the land registration in all of Judea and Samaria next year. Fans of Douglas Adams’ The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy—and there are many of them in the settlements—would no doubt be reminded of the opening scene, where the people of Earth are informed by an alien ship that their planet is slated for demolition to make way for a hyperspace bypass and that they had failed to register their objections 30 days from the issuance of the edict. These folks would do well to look for the nearest Vogon consulate to file their complaints.
According to Ad Kan, the Palestinian Authority employs about 600 inspectors in the land registration endeavor, while the Israeli Civil Administration has only about 10 inspectors fighting to prevent the takeover. The Lapid-Bennett-Liberman budget added 50 inspectors to the Civil Administration, but then, just before the vote, their number was cut back to 20.
Ad Kan CEO Gilad Ach warned that the PA’s project “is establishing irreversible physical and legal facts on the ground. Israel is doing nothing to prevent the violation of governance that is contrary to agreements with the Palestinians and allows the Palestinians to continue unhindered. The continued Palestinian registration in Area C must be prevented, along with a diplomatic activity to stop funding for the project from the European Union, the United Nations, and the World Bank.”
Now ask me if this article or the holy work of Ad Kan will cause a change in this government’s shocking neglect of Israeli sovereignty (or its predecessor’s for that matter). Ask me, I dare you, ask me…
‘This is a case of basically righting a wrong that should’ve never happened’
The Siksika Nation has voted to ratify an agreement with the federal government for a one-time payment of $1.3 billion following a wrongful surrender claim dating back more than a century.
Around 70 per cent of eligible voters turned out to polls held Thursday and Friday, according to a news release from the nation. Around 77 per cent voted yes on the referendum.
The Siksika Nation will discontinue all related filed court actions. The acceptance also includes the option to apply for up to 115,000 acres of land anywhere in Alberta purchased by the nation to add to the reserve.
"The people have spoken," Siksika Nation Chief Ouray Crowfoot said in an interview Sunday. "And that was the main difference between this vote and the illegal vote that took place in 1910."
1910 wrongful surrender
The claim stems from a land surrender from more than a century ago. Crowfoot said the vote that took place then was fraudulent — adding that some people on the list who voted yes were underage or even dead.
The agreement also covers claims on breaches of duty in taking reserve land for use by third parties in connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway, flooding and release of sewage onto the reserve without its permission, and the unlawful taking of around 500 acres of reserve for the Bow River Irrigation Project.
"This is not a case of reconciliation," Crowfoot said. The nation lost almost half their land base and access to ceremonial sites.
"This is a case of basically righting a wrong that should've never happened."
Siksika Nation and the Canadian federal government entered into negotiations in 2016. This summer, the Global Settlement Agreement was announced.
Last week's vote certified nation members' acceptance. Crowfoot said the agreement follows efforts that date back to the 1960s.
"There's been a lot of chiefs, a lot of council, a lot of technicians that's put in a lot of work over six decades."
Crowfoot said the nation plans to set up a trust to move Siksika Nation towards financial sovereignty. Next steps will include information sessions for nation members.
The money will open up opportunities for nation members, he said, levelling the playing field and reducing historical barriers.
Crowfoot says the financial injection will benefit many, including non-nation members. Infrastructure and construction will likely require skill sets and labour from outside the reserve while much of the money will likely flow through Calgary.
Partnerships will also play a part in the future, he said.
"This is not just a win just for Siksika, this is a win for all of southern Alberta."
Kayakers paddle off the coast of Philip Edward Island near Killarney. The province has proposed the transfer of Philip Edward and other surrounding Crown islands to the Wiikwemkoong First Nation as part of a land claim settlement. Photo by Jim Moodie/Sudbury Star
A family with an island property near Killarney is fighting a proposed land claim settlement through the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.
An application has been filed by John Hollick against the Ministry of Indigenous Affairs and the Sudbury office of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry regarding the potential transfer of numerous Crown islands in northern Georgian Bay to the Wiikwemkoong Unceded Territory.
Killarney-area cottagers file human rights complaint regarding land claim Back to video
Hollick contends these islands were historically used by non-natives and their inclusion in a deal with the First Nation ignores ongoing public usage of the area.
The province said it has been working with Wiikwemkoong to resolve an outstanding claim relating to islands off the eastern shore of Manitoulin Island and “negotiations are proceeding well,” according to a statement at its website.
The First Nation asserts “its rights and interests in and to these islands under the Treaty of 1836 have never been ceded or extinguished,” the province noted, adding the goal is to reach “a fair and final settlement that will bring closure to these longstanding issues and foster reconciliation.”
The proposed settlement would include both Crown land within the area of the boundary claim and alternative Crown land on Philip Edward Island and surrounding islands “as replacements for patented lands that cannot be returned to Wiikwemkoong,” the province explained.
A map prepared by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry shows the proposed settlement lands (in purple) for resolution of a claim by the Wiikwemkoong Unceded Territory to Georgian Bay islands.
The Hollick family is arguing the substitution of numerous islands between Killarney and French River “for a few islands near Manitoulin” is not only unjust but would “virtually eliminate public usage and land access in northern Georgian Bay.”
If the settlement is implemented, their island vacation home — which has been in the family for more than a century — will fall within the First Nation territory, but they “will not have any rights on the reserve and cannot vote on the reserve,” they point out in a release.
They say they will be “isolated from non-native Canada” and potentially “subject to native blockades.”
Hollick, along with other nearby residents and seasonal visitors, have presented “a multitude of concerns and evidence which refutes the historical validity of the Wiikwemkoong land claim,” according to the release.
The cottager and fellow critics contend the Ministry of Indigenous Affairs has “ignored public input and appears determined to proceed and include even more land than requested.”
The Point Grondine agreement of 1995 was meant to settle Wiikwemkoong’s claims to the area, according to the property owners. Expanding the Point Grondine boundaries to include the Philip Edward Island archipelago would, they argue, break “promises that those islands were not to be part of either land claim.”
Mainland is also being offered as part of the settlement, the release points out, and three of these parcels “appear to be strategically selected to control access to waterways entering the new reserve.”
The fourth block of mainland, at the intersection of Highway 69 and 637, is located 60 kilometres inland from Georgian Bay.
“The ministry has not offered a rational explanation for expanding a claim of land for fishing huts on a few Manitoulin islands to unrelated islands and mainland,” the release argues.
Critics say the move would also inconvenience — and possibly endanger — the many paddlers and anglers who visit the area for recreational purposes.
“Thousands of boaters, kayaker, canoers and vacationers currently use these islands for a wilderness experience,” the release notes. “The general population will now be prevented from accessing thousands of kilometres of island shoreline between Killarney and French River, creating a dangerous situation in the rough waters of Georgian Bay.”
Hollick’s human rights challenge alleges the Ministry of Indigenous Affairs shows “preferential treatment to Wiikwemkoong over non-natives when it comes to changing settlement agreements,” and that the natural resources ministry is providing “no defence or acknowledgement of its obligation to maintain these islands for the public.”
The legal action asserts the islands were not historically used by First Nations people, who arrived in the area from the U.S. in the 1830s.
“Judy Hollick’s ancestors also came to Canada from U.S., but much earlier in the 1700s,” according to the release. “Hollick ancestry is being ignored based on race.”
The family said they have suffered financially, as they are not able to sell the island, and have concerns about future access to their property, as well as security and safety issues.
Filing a human rights complaint was a “last resort,” according to the release, as the ministry “refuses to listen to non-native concerns.”
The applicants are requesting the Ministry of Indigenous Affairs “revert to the islands near Manitoulin that were in the original claim and not give away the alternate islands, which include the Philip Edward Island archipelago.”
They are also asking the province to heed the advice of an earlier policy report, which identified the Crown islands as candidates for a new provincial park.
If the land claim proceeds, the applicants are requesting $1.5 million for loss of property value and emotional suffering, plus legal costs.
The Siksika First Nation sign appears in this Nov. 16, 2021 photo.
One of Canada’s largest and longest running land claims appears to be close to settlement.
At issue is over 46,000 hectares of land that once belonged to the Siksika Nation, located east of Calgary.
The land was illegally taken in what has become known as ‘the 1910 deal’, allegedly involving votes cast by a person since found to be deceased at the time as well as non-members.
The Siksika Nation and the Government of Canada announced this summer that they had reached an agreement to resolve the 1910 claim as well as several smaller land claims.
"Siksika Nation has been involved with this claim for over 60 years," said Siksika Chief Ouray Crowfoot on Aug. 9. "There have been many chiefs and councils who have made great strides with Canada on this case. Our council team has worked tirelessly with Canada to secure the best benefit for Siksika Nation.
"We feel the settlement agreement will provide benefits for Siksika Nation members immediately and for generations to come."
While no official figure has been released for the settlement, it is believed to be in the area of $1.3 billion.
The deal will not be finalized unless the majority of band members agree to the settlement. A referendum vote on the Siksika Nation is scheduled to take place on Dec. 16 and 17.
A spokesperson for Indigenous Services Minister Patty Hadju said the details of the settlement are confidential until after the Siksika vote, but did say these are not the only negotiations underway with the band.
"Canada is also engaged in separate but complementary discussions with Siksika Nation under a Memorandum of Understanding signed on Aug. 8," said spokesperson Nicolas Moquin in a statement to CTV News. "The MOU marks the start of exploratory discussions between the parties toward forward-looking arrangements to help renew the relationship and advance Siksika Nation’s vision for greater self-determination."
The 1910 land deal was struck with the federal government in what is now considered to be a rigged ballot, which saw it pass by a slim majority of 68 to 64 votes. Subsequent research by the nation showed that at least one of the people recorded as a voter was actually dead at the time, and several other names were not those of nation members.
The 1910 deal offered band members a ration of five pounds of meat and seven pounds of flour every week in perpetuity, as well as houses, fenced land, cultivators and a hospital.
Nearly nothing that was promised to the Siksika Nationa in the deal came to fruition despite the fact the land was taken and sold off to area ranchers and farmers, while other sections became Crown land.
In 1955, the Siksika hired Calgary lawyer Webster Macdonald to assist in the land claim and, five years later, the band filed suit against the federal government — an unprecedented move.
Shortly before the lawsuit began. the government ordered what was then known as the department of Indian Affairs to burn the documents relating to the deal.
Working from stories told by Nation elders and documents in possession of the Nation, including the diary of Catholic Priest Jean-Louis Laverne who had been hired by the federal government to assist the Indian Agent, the Siksika pressed their case seeking the return of the land.
In 2000, the Siksika renewed their push to settle the outstanding claim, upping the value of the claim substantially, as the land in question had become much more valuable after scores of oil and gas wells were drilled in the area.
In a 2019 statement to band members, Chief Joseph Weasel Child said he hoped the settlement would be large enough to allow the band to buy back the lost land.
The current agreement was reached outside the courts.
CTV News has been told the settlement will, if agreed to, compensate for the value of the land as well as lost revenue from oil and gas activity.
The band has not said what its plans will be for the money from the settlement, if approved by nation members in December.
The Siksika Nation, located about an hour east of Calgary, has over 8,000 members.
Almost a year ago, the Wolastoqey First Nation filed its land title claim, asking courts to confirm Aboriginal title on more than five million hectares of land — about 60 per cent of New Brunswick.
New Brunswick’s premier has publicly assailed an “unprecedented” land title claim by six First Nations communities after it was amended this week to target some of the province’s biggest corporations.
The comments by Premier Blaine Higgs are being described by one of the chiefs involved in the legal action as “fear mongering” that’s meant to turn New Brunswickers against the claim.
“I cannot stand by as premier and just let things unfold, knowing that most New Brunswickers are unaware,” Higgs told a news conference Wednesday.
“This impacts jobs, land ownerships, private investments and our province’s entire economy.”
Almost a year ago, the Wolastoqey First Nation filed its land title claim against the federal and provincial governments, asking courts to confirm Aboriginal title on more than five million hectares of land — about 60 per cent of New Brunswick — originally occupied by the Wolastoqey.
On Tuesday, they modified that claim to include six companies — J.D. Irving, NB Power, Acadian Timber, Twin Rivers Paper, HJ Crabbe and Sons and A.V. Group — mostly forestry and pulp businesses — as defendants alongside the two tiers of government.
The Wolastoqey seek the return of identified parcels of land from those corporations and compensation from the Crown for the profits reaped from that land.
On Wednesday, during a news conference in which he used some variation of the phrase “60 per cent of the province” nearly a dozen times, Higgs alleged the Indigenous claim would be dangerous to the land and homes of private New Brunswickers, despite specific Wolastoqey statements to the contrary.
While professing reluctance to speak on a matter before the courts, Higgs suggested he believes the province’s very well-being is at stake.
“We’ve seen assurances from some of the chiefs that it does not impact private lands other than the named companies. The claim does not clarify that,” he said.
“The concern is the claim on 60 per cent of the province and all of the many private lands that this could lead to.”
The Wolastoqey claim seeks ownership on specific plots of land owned by the named companies, identified in an appendix titled Schedule “B,”. It also seeks ownership of some particular plots owned by the Crown.
“In respect of lands in the Traditional Lands that are not held by the Crown Defendants and which are not set out in Schedule ‘B,’ the return of these lands is not sought by the Plaintiffs in this litigation,” reads the claim.
Higgs contended he was concerned there could be future add-ons.
“Today, it’s on a number of companies, but tomorrow, it could be on a number of more companies. There’s no limits here other than it’s 60 per cent of the province. We have to have clarity around that,” he said later.
From the perspective of Chief Patricia Bernard of the Matawaskiye, one of the six Wolastoqey communities involved in the claim, that’s a scare tactic on Higgs’ part.
“It’s also not clear that I’m going to go buy a new truck tomorrow, but because I don’t say that (it doesn’t mean that’s) what I’m going to do,” she said, speaking to media after the premier’s news conference.
“Our claim lays out what we want, who we’re going after, and what we didn’t put in the claim is what we’re not doing.”
Bernard pointed out that while the original claim was filed a year ago, the government did not see fit to hold a news conference over it until the claim was amended to include some of the province’s larger corporations.
“It’s a little bit disturbing that he’s continuing this issue of fear mongering where we did our best to try and alleviate those fears from the citizens of New Brunswick.”
“The only thing that we’re seeking back is the land from these corporations, not a land claim for our traditional territory.”
The Higgs news conference appeared to be a further sign of deteriorating relations between the province and the Wolastoqey First Nation.
Aboriginal Affairs minister Arlene Dunn, who also attended the news conference, acknowledged a lack of communication between the two sides and accused the Wolastoqey of politicizing those strained relations.
“You can only have a relationship with people who actually want to have a relationship with you,” she said.
“If there’s no communication, and it’s only one-sided, then it’s very difficult to build that relationship.”
But Higgs, later at the same briefing, said he’d received a request from the Wolastoqey chiefs “a few weeks ago” to meet to discuss how the two sides would manage ongoing relationships.
MASSENA, New York (WWNY) – St. Regis Mohawks have claimed for years that an area near downtown Massena belongs to them. What’s new is that businesses opening up there could soon be selling things like cigarettes tax-free. That could make it tough for other businesses where taxes are charged.
Cut-rate cigarettes now available in the heart of Massena. Tax free. Mohawk entrepreneurs see it this way.
“I see an opportunity. So, I just wanted to go with it and see if we can make something out of it,” said Maria Pyke, Silver Fit Nutrition owner.
Pyke doesn’t sell tax-free cigarettes yet, but she is applying to the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe for licenses. She says she can do that “because of the location that we are in. We are in the square mile of land claim area.”
A square mile, just about the whole east end of the village, has long been claimed by the tribe under a 1796 treaty. In response to a 7 News inquiry, the tribe stated recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions support that claim.
The statement went on: “Not surprisingly tribal members have expressed interest in opening businesses within that area. In response, the Tribe is working on regulations for such businesses that will set forth the types of businesses that will be licensed.”
The tribe did not answer Monday when asked if any licenses for retail marijuana sales are pending in the square mile. Village officials have been watching developments closely.
“We want to make sure that there is a level playing field for all businesses in Massena,” said Timothy Ahlfeld, Massena mayor.
But legally, the village has no role in regulating tobacco. County officials also are following developments. They say a federal court has already ruled the square mile is not subject to the tribe’s ongoing land claim lawsuit.
So, who really owns the land? And who has the right to open what types of businesses? That’s really what’s being argued about.
Huw Worthington of Worthingtons Solicitors advises on when it may be possible to make an application for adverse possession of land.
As the saying goes, possession is nine-tenths of the law. In short, what this means is that it is easier to claim ownership of land if in possession of the land than not in possession of the land.
Generally speaking, if you have been occupying lands that you do not own, rent or otherwise have permission to use in excess of 12 years (or in the case of Crown lands 30 years), without any objection from the registered owner, you can claim what is known as “adverse possession”.
This law of adverse possession was formalised in Northern Ireland in the Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. However, it is not as simple as relying solely on the fact you have been occupying the lands to claim ownership.
Certain tests must be met before you can proceed to make an application to become registered as the owner. You actually have to be treating the lands as your own to the exclusion of others. In other words you must show:
- factual possession and
- intention to possess.
- To demonstrate factual possession there must be physical control. Have you tended the lands, or fenced them off or installed any fixtures and fittings?
- To demonstrate intention to possess you must exclude all others including the rightful owner.
It is important to ask a solicitor to check the identity of the registered owner of the lands that you are occupying, if that is not already known.
Applications to the Land Registry are normally made by solicitors under what is termed a Section 53 Application and legal advice should be sought before embarking on the application.
*This advice relates to property matters in Northern Ireland only*
Specialising in Land Law and Conveyancing matters, Huw Worthington is head of the Property department of Worthingtons Solicitors.
Should you have any queries in relation to this article, please submit your enquiry in the form below and a member of our conveyancing department will be happy to contact you to discuss.
James Franklin’s Penn State team opened the season with a signature win and the Nittany Lions have an opportunity to close the regular season with another one.
PSU (7-4) tangles with No. 12 Michigan State (9-2) on Saturday afternoon in East Lansing.
Here are the Lions’ keys to victory.
Limit Kenneth Walker’s yards after initial contact. Michigan State’s All-American candidate has been sensational in his only season with the Spartans. The transfer from Wake Forest has run for 1,498 yards and he’s averaging 6.4 yards per carry. He is also dealing with a lower-leg issue. Walker can cause problems for Penn State and he ran for five touchdowns against Michigan. The Lions’ defense, particularly the linebackers, cannot afford to miss many tackles.
Keep Malick Meiga involved in the passing game. PSU No. 1 receiver Jahan Dotson (83 receptions) has a shot at a 100-catch season. The Lions’ other two starting wideouts, Parker Washington and KeAndre Lambert-Smith, have combined for 1,088 yards. But there is room for redshirt freshman Malick Meiga to grow in this offense over the final two games. The 6-4, 200-pounder victimized Rutgers for a 67-yard catch-and-run score. Meiga can cause problems for Michigan State’s porous secondary.
Minimize the damage done by Michigan State’s pass rush. The Spartans have 33 sacks and Penn State’s offensive has struggled in pass protection (see Michigan) for much of the season. Defenses have generated 28 sacks and 27 additional quarterback hits on the Penn State quarterbacks.
Jordan Stout just needs to be himself. Penn State’s kicking specialist is averaging 46.5 yards per punt and he has placed 31 of his 59 kicks inside the 20. Six of Stout’s eight punts against Rutgers landed inside the 20. Opponents have returned 13 punts for 31 yards against the Lions.
Note to readers: if you purchase something through one of our affiliate links we may earn a commission.
MASSENA, New York (WWNY) – On Monday, we told you about Mohawk smoke shops opening in the heart of Massena. It’s in the “square mile” land claim.
It’s most of the east end of the village of Massena. So should home and business owners there be concerned?
Mayor Timothy Ahlfeld says right now, no, but “I really would like someone from the state level, or even the federal level, to come in and alleviate some of the concerns residents may be having.”
The St. Regis Mohawk Tribe confirmed Monday it’s licensing businesses in the square mile. A smoke shop opened last week. It advertises its cigarettes are tax-free.
“If there is a new set of rules that are, you know, have come into the village of Massena, and not everybody is playing by them, then that’s just totally unfair,” said Ahlfeld.
The square mile extends north to the Willow Street rail overpass; south to the end of Malby Avenue; west just past the Parker Avenue bridge; and east to the end of Orvis Street.
St. Lawrence County officials thought it had become a non-issue.
“From the county’s perspective, the Massena square mile is not included as a part of the land claims resolution,” said Stephen Button, county attorney.
Just two weeks ago, the county sent a letter to Gov. Kathy Hochul asking for a face-to-face meeting on the land claim. It was signed by tribal chiefs and St. Lawrence and Franklin counties.
The land claim lawsuit has been in the courts a long time. What’s changed is Mohawk business people staking out their own claims.
The village and county have no role in cigarette or sales tax collections. That’s the state’s job.
The state Attorney General’s Office did not respond to a 7 News request for comment Tuesday.
The New York State Office of Finance and Taxation said it could not comment.
An official website of the United States government
Here’s how you know
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( Lock A locked padlock
) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
LOCATING A MINING CLAIM
Where Can a Claim be Located?
There are Federally-administered lands in 19 states where you may locate a mining claim or site. These states are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. In these states, the BLM manages the surface of public land and the Forest Service manages the surface of National Forest System (NFS) land. The BLM is responsible for the subsurface on both public and NFS land.
Only public domain minerals are locatable minerals (those minerals that have never left federal ownership). Reconveyed minerals are considered public domain minerals under the mining laws. Mining claims cannot be staked on acquired minerals; a prospecting permit (43 CFR 3500) is required to prospect for acquired minerals. Mining claims can be located on open public land administered by another federal agency (most commonly on Forest Service land).
You may prospect and locate claims and sites on public and NFS land open to mineral entry. Claims may not be located in areas closed to mineral entry by a special act of Congress, regulation, or public land order. These areas are said to be “withdrawn” from mineral entry.
Areas withdrawn from location of mining claims and sites include:
- National Parks;
- National Monuments;
- Indian reservations;
- Various types of reclamation projects under the Bureau of Reclamation;
- Military reservations;
- Scientific testing areas; and
- Wildlife protection areas managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Land withdrawn for power development may be subject to mineral entry and claim location only under certain conditions.
Mining claims and sites may not be located on land that has been:
- Designated by Congress as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System;
- Designated as a wild portion of a Wild and Scenic River; or
- Withdrawn by Congress for study as a Wild and Scenic River.
There is usually a ¼-mile buffer zone withdrawn from location of mining claims on either side of a river while the river is being studied for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System. Additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System are withdrawn from mining claim location at the time of designation by Congress. Mining activities are permitted only on those mining claims that can show proof of discovery either (1) by December 31, 1983, or (2) on the date of designation as wilderness by Congress.
Mining claims can be located for minerals reserved under the Stock Raising Homestead Act of 1916 (SRHA). The surface is fee, but the minerals are public domain. There are specific regulations governing the claiming of SRHA minerals – refer to the SRHA section.
Ronny Germany Ngwenyama, 44, Tinyiko Shadrack Golele, 44, along with the company Frugasmart CC appeared in the Nelspruit Magistrate’s Court on Wednesday. The men were arrested by members of the Hawks’ Serious Commercial Crime Investigation team for alleged fraud, theft and money laundering of more than R4.5 million.
According to Hawks spokesperson Captain Dineo Lucy Sekgotodi, Golele – who, at the time, was an employee of the Mpumalanga Department of Rural Development and Land Reform – colluded with Ngwenyama, the sole director of Frugasmart CC, in three land claims.
The communities of Brown, Makhatini and Tlharesamadi in Mpumalanga submitted applications for land claims, which were approved.
“But instead of the communities [being] informed about the approval, Golele colluded with Ngwenyama to submit fraudulent invoices on behalf of the communities as if he rendered services for them, whereas the services were never rendered,” said Sekgotodi.
After submission of the invoices, the department paid Frugasmart CC, causing an actual loss of R4.5 million.
“Upon receiving the said money, it was allegedly shared between Ngwenyama and Golele, and they further distributed it to their families, who are yet to be arrested,” said Sekgotodi.
Golele has since taken up employment at the Department of Agriculture in Limpopo.
The accused were released on R5 000 bail each. The case was postponed to 4 February 2022 for the tracing of the outstanding accused and instructions, Sekgotodi said.
The investigation was continuing, Sekgotodi added.
Never miss a story. Choose from our range of newsletters to get the news you want delivered straight to your inbox.
Legal win would let harvesting continue with First Nation approval
Wolastoqey chiefs in New Brunswick are shifting their Aboriginal title claim case to pursue the province's largest forestry companies in a bid to reclaim title to much of their traditional territory.
The six chiefs have amended the legal claim they filed last year to add J.D. Irving Ltd. and its subsidiaries, Twin Rivers Paper, the A.V. Group, Acadian Timber and H.J. Crabbe and Sons.
They say the companies operate on about 20 per cent of the more than five million hectares the chiefs identify as Wolastoqey traditional lands in New Brunswick.
"They are the largest landowners in New Brunswick, and they have had a history of getting land from the province without paying a fair price for it," Chief Patricia Bernard of the Wolastoqey Nation of Matawaskiye (Madawaska) said at a news conference.
"That is our land that the province gave away for a song. We want back what is ours, that was never theirs to give."
The change to the lawsuit puts the legal action on two tracks, seeking compensation from governments for the loss of some parts of the territory, but claiming ownership of the parts used by industry.
"Aboriginal title on the traditional lands . does not seek to displace regular New Brunswickers from their homes and farms," the chiefs say in a news release.
But winning clear recognition of title for land used by industry would make the Wolastoqey landlords and give them final say in how the companies harvest wood there. They would also be able to receive some or all of the royalties that now go to government.
A ruling in favour of the Wolastoqey Nation would allow forestry to continue, said the release, "as long as corporations had an agreement with the Nation over activities on their land."
Forest NB, an industry group that represents Twin Rivers, A.V. Group, Acadian Timber and H.J. Crabbe, said members "are receiving notices and they're taking it under consideration."
"It would be premature for Forest NB to make a comment at this time, until members have had time to review the material," said executive director Kim Allen.
J.D. Irving Ltd. spokesperson Anne McInerney said in a statement, "Given this is before the courts, we'll refrain from commenting."
Premier Blaine Higgs said he hadn't had a chance to review the new claim and wouldn't comment on its possible impact.
But he said he welcomed the court case as the best option to resolve longstanding disputes over Indigenous rights.
"For a long time we've been questioning back and forth, who's responsible for what, what the obligations are," he said.
"If we're going to have real truth and reconciliation going forward on all issues, we need to understand exactly what our obligations are. … It seems that's only going to be accomplished through a legal process."
The chiefs say the case could take a decade or more to go through the courts, so it's too early to say what kind of forest management system they might put in place if they win.
But they say getting a share of the revenue from harvesting is overdue.
"These are our resources. They were never ceded through treaty and we're not the ones generating wealth off them," said Chief Ross Perley of Wolastoqey Nation at Neqotkuk, also known as Tobique First Nation.
"Companies in the province have been accumulating wealth from our resources for the last hundred years. We feel that it's our turn to get our share of wealth and make our communities sustainable."
N.B. Power is also named in the claim — the only non-forestry industry player identified. In the utility's case, the Wolastoqey First Nations could claim revenue from its generation and sales of electricity.
The new claim replaces the one filed last year. The new version keeps the federal and New Brunswick governments as defendants.
Last month, the Higgs government ordered government employees to stop making public land acknowledgements that the province sits on unsurrendered and unceded Indigenous territory.
At the time Attorney-General Ted Flemming said the acknowledgements might compromise the province's position in the land-claim case and implied that the Wolastoqiyik wanted to take back all of their traditional territory.
Bernard called that "clearly an attempt to deceive and create fear amongst New Brunswickers."
She said that's why the claim has been amended to make clear "the rights of everyday New Brunswickers will not be impacted" by the claim.
Higgs said he would wait to see if the new filing says that before commenting. "I don't know if it's in there or not in that regard, but I guess we'll find out."
Opposition Liberal leader Roger Melanson said the government should be trying to resolve the title claim by working with the chiefs.
"I think any government would want to avoid any legal challenge or legal process."
The claim is based on Peace and Friendship treaties signed by the Wolastoqiyik and the British Crown between 1725 and 1778.
The chiefs say those agreements did not provide for the surrender of any land.
An official website of the United States government
Here’s how you know
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( Lock A locked padlock
) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
A mining claim is a parcel of land for which the claimant has asserted a right of possession and the right to develop and extract a discovered, valuable, mineral deposit. This right does not include exclusive surface rights (see Public Law 84-167).
There are three basic types of minerals on federally-administered lands: locatable, leasable, and salable. Mining claims are staked for locatable minerals on public domain lands.
Locatable minerals include both metallic minerals (gold, silver, lead, etc.) and nonmetallic minerals (fluorspar, asbestos, mica, etc.). It is nearly impossible to list all locatable minerals because of the complex legal requirements for discovery.
Types of Claims
Lode Claims – Deposits subject to lode claims include classic veins or lodes having well-defined boundaries. They also include other rock in- place bearing valuable minerals and may be broad zones of mineralized rock. Examples include quartz or other veins bearing gold or other metallic minerals and large volume, but low-grade disseminated gold deposits. Descriptions are by metes and bounds surveys beginning at the discovery point on the claim and including a reference to natural objects or permanent monuments. Federal statute limits their size to a maximum of 1500 feet in length, and a maximum width of 600 feet (300 feet on either side of the vein).
Placer Claims – Placer claims are defined as “. including all forms of deposit, excepting veins of quartz, or other rock in-place.” In other words every deposit, not located with a lode claim, should be appropriated by a placer location. Placer claims, where practicable, are located by legal subdivision (aliquot part and complete lots). The maximum size is 20 acres per locator, and the maximum for an association placer is 160 acres for 8 or more locators. The maximum size for a corporation is 20 acres per claim. Corporations may not locate association placer claims unless they are in association with other locators or corporations as co-locators.
Types of Mineral Entries
Mill Sites – A mill site must be located on “non-mineral lands” and must be noncontiguous to the lode or placer with which it is associated. Its purpose is to support a lode or placer mining operation. A mill site must include the erection of a mill or reduction works and/or may include other uses in support of a mining operation. Descriptions are by metes and bounds if on unsurveyed land and by legal subdivision if on surveyed lands. The maximum size is 5 acres.
Tunnel Sites – A tunnel site is a subsurface right-of-way under Federal land open to mineral entry. It is used for access to lode mining claims or to explore for blind or undiscovered veins, lodes, or ledges not currently claimed or known to exist on the surface. A tunnel site can be up to 3,000 feet in length.
Provisions of the Mining Law allow for the development of local rules that are consistent with federal law. Therefore, individual states can have their own manner of locating and recording mining claims, tunnels sites, and mill sites. Always check with the appropriate state for state-specific laws and regulations.